Merrick Garland and the War on Federalism

The New Bolshevik Branches of the United States of America:  Chief of Staff (Klain), State (Blinken, Sherman, Nuland), Treasury (Yellen), CDC (Walensky), DHS (Mayorkas), Cybersecurity (Neuberger), CIA (Cohen), Council of Economic Advisors (Bernstein), FCC (Rosenworcel), SEC (Gensler), Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (Lipstadt), NSC Border Czar (Jacobson), Council on Gender Policy (Klein), Covid Response (Zients), U. S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (Kleinbaum), U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. (Gitenstein), SGOTUS (Emhoff), Senate (Schumer).

And Meet the New Head of the US Department of Justice: Attorney General Merrick Garfinkle.

The American government is established under both ideological and constructive federalism: most broadly, that means that it has separate branches of government; that those branches are relatively independent; and that a set of rules, laws, or a constitution, establish and maintain such a structure.  Some observers believe, however, that this federalism construct is “imploding” toward its center, into a monolithic, centralized unit.  The classical liberal principles that informed the crafting of the U.S. Constitution, and the form of limited government, with limited, circumscribed powers held at bay in order to leave men and women unburdened, have been eroded, weakened and even explicitly attacked.  This development has become especially pronounced in the last 12 months, but has been creeping toward this arrangement since the Second World War when government, industry, the intelligence sector and finance pushed toward an effective creation of a unified trust.

The exact same phenomenon, animated by additional factors but sharing a common cultural causation, exists in the greater Middle East, as, like the gravity of a black hole, the country of Israel seeks to centralize regional power, resources and command, under its authority: a single, unified “Pan Israel” operated by a permanent Zionist, effectively theocratic authoritarianism.  Like the US, its dominant political trust seeks to deceive, distort, divide and destroy.  It functions from the effort of continuous destabilization, created through routines of deception.  The current Afghanistan operation is another, perhaps near-term final stage in the Global War on Terror (“GWOT”) that has as its underlying purpose a “Middle East transformation” that is centered on the conquest of Iran, the control of regional resources, and the effective control of Russia in a neo-Bolshevik fantasy currently led by the U.S. State Department.

Both the US, and the Pan Israel project, also share a common network of special interests, embedded largely in US institutions.  Their outward ideological posture is that of liberty, freedom, and a fight against terror: it is, in fact, the use of terror to suppress liberty, and centralize authority. Consolidating authority in the U.S. is central to the ability to carry out the final phases of the GWOT.  Capturing the Department of Justice is central to breaking down the checks and balances that would otherwise retard or inhibit such overt consolidation, and where any remnants of federalism must be collapsed. Merrick Garland is the right man for that job.

Jewish organized interests—like all interests that organize for specific objectives—form their network, assets, influence and authority, in institutions.  And quite clearly, it’s much more difficult for a relatively small group of activists to influence policy when the government is dedicated to federalism, with its 50 states and thousands of local jurisdictions such as police departments, than it is to have power centralized in Washington DC. Top-down institutional control at the federal level is key to the special interest interface with, and influence over, American society.  In Garland’s case, nearly his entire career has been within government.  While this is not necessarily unusual in the legal field, it creates a perspective that favors central government—a perspective that sees problems primarily as challenges to governmental authority and that reinforces a culture of government expansion especially through the sprawling administrative state that has characterized U.S. government since the New Deal era of the 1930’s.

While Jewish and other special interest institutional infiltrations of American civil, military and government departments are not new, what is new is a radical shift and even transformation, in the relationship between the President and the branches, departments and agencies, resulting from the installation of a cognitively impaired chief executive in the White House as Commander in Chief.  By eroding and dismantling what firewall or even notional separation and independence of authority, judgment, and operations, that the office of the president has historically provided, it has been subject to what is in effect a complete takeover. When the current acting president is replaced with his Vice President—an individual with more overtly clinical psychological characteristics—the takeover and strategic plans will be consolidated (until it is successfully disbanded by direct election or constitutional removal—which would be challenged under Garland, and another reason the current administration seeks a packed, “super-majority” in the Supreme Court, in order to consolidate judiciary branch power, and reinforce judicial review.  It is important to appreciate that the current administration and its larger network, are almost exclusively from the law sector and law academy.  In their methods and assumptions, it is Justice, the judiciary and the Supreme Court that are the objects of their designs for power and control.  They are not by instinct aligned with congressional, legislative and representative processes, but rather with the use of “lawfare” in a top-down authoritarian construct of centralized federal control).

U.S. presidents have always been dependent to some extent on advisors, staff and inter-branch administrative cooperation.  But now that pretense has been completely dissolved: rather than having to negotiate through the barriers of offices and officials, the White House chief executive is now, not merely influenced or guided, but completely controlled by direct command.  And given that the bureaucrats running the U.S. government are overwhelmingly on the left and thus are sympathetic to the centralization of power (this includes the FBI, the national security apparatus, and the military), the result is the ultimate realization of control of the United States itself.  Indeed, Biden is not merely reliant on his aides and “note cards” for his every function and act, but deeply, desperately dependent on them for his basic daily functions and routines, like an invalid or patient in assisted care.  The White House is now a medical nursing home—or biosecurity prison.

But an additional ring of control surrounds the president and White House, consisting of a syndicate of Foundations that have effective control over the “military-industrial-university” complex, and now, the health agency establishment of the CDC, NHS and UN-related organizations.  Those primary strategic foundations are largely controlled by Jewish interests, but at a heightened level of direct operational and governance authority, largely by financial leverage.  They include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Soros Foundation, and by penetration and control, the Obama Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, and with ties to the UK bio-research Wellcome Trust, among others.

Former Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon is reputed to have once said that “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”  If they didn’t before, then they should now because the pretense has been removed, and the threat is no longer disguised: it is out there in plain sight, with authoritarian indifference to perception, and in defiance of opposition to the blatant capture of America’s system of government.

The installation of Chicago-born Merrick Garland as Attorney General and head of the U.S. Department of Justice is of great concern, because his bias for a powerful central government, whether constitutional or not, further widens the gap between American citizens and their own government, and between citizens and their enumerated rights; indeed, he appears committed to making government more and more our adversary, instead of our constitutionally circumscribed servant.

There are two elements of Garland’s professional profile that are instructive.  One, while his judicial record appears mixed—merely conventionally liberal, a larger assessment of his opinions and administrative actions, undertaken by faculty at the University of Chicago Law school, Stanford, Harvard and other law schools, shows that he was a “safe” pick due to his Harvard bona fides and his conventional career track; but it also shows that he may be more liberal than generally assumed.  The Wall Street Journal is more assertive, describing how he regularly takes sides with labor unions and government: “His many opinions…defer to administrative agencies and…are a hallmark of his jurisprudence during his nearly 20 years on the D.C. Circuit Court.”  His record clearly shows an instinct for supporting the power of central government via its agencies, and he is thought “safe,” as a government insider.  He is clearly not a champion of states’ rights, nor has he shown any passion for the rights of individual citizens: he will go along to get along; he is a judge who doesn’t rock the boat, and is a reliable servant to government interests.  That may not be new, but it is especially troubling when the separation of powers is especially necessary, and when Justice must be called on to police the government itself.  But even the New York Times expressed concerns from a liberal, human rights perspective, including his embrace of the Global War on Terror (and its infringement of civil liberties) and his position on the Guantanamo prison.

It is his core allegiance to centralized state power that is the main reason for concern regarding his influence and priorities at the Department of Justice.  At a period of extreme government intrusion through the Covid program where constitutional rights are being comprehensively challenged, if not assaulted, Garland’s natural instinct has already been shown to side with government over individualsthat he will support authoritarian control by the state; indeed, his public statements confirm his readiness to do the bidding of the current White House regime concerning the January 6th prosecution as “white supremacist terror” (where he asserts its primacy in his prosecutorial priorities, but more, it is the centerpiece to his “domestic war on terror”).  This is part of the full panoply of his larger ambitions directed at federal government control over the states and classes of individuals thought to be enemies of the state.

He fully embraces the biosecurity construct of comprehensive authoritarian, top-down state control, and unusual expansion of federal police powers such that the states are overrun with a federal law enforcement web that replaces state-level and local forces (hence the “defund the police” program, which is directed at idling local and state law enforcement, replaced with a unified, politically controlled federal and ultimately even international policing force).  He embraces, in my view, a certain “NKVD” vision of central power, extended across key American institutions.  In this, he also reflects a certain “Bolshevik-like” attitude toward weakening or even dismantling of civil liberties.  Examples include DoJ “guidance” that warns states not to push their investigations into voting fraud too aggressively, and his heavy handed order that Texas not restrict entry of migrants at risk for Covid. Indeed, the White House has just expressed its intent to organize a “whole-of-government effort” to use federal powers against the recent Texas abortion law decision—a decision that will likely further motivate proposals to pack the Supreme Court.

Garland is an “organization man” and a champion of government, not individuals and the people.  And by siding with the White House on voter fraud suppression and the entire Covid biosecurity program, including Covid mandates, he both weakens the checks and balances role of the DOJ, while also ignoring Constitutional law questions concerning efforts to bypass state legislatures, change voting rules in major swing states, and suppressing immigration and subsequent citizenship standards.  In an era of unusual constitutional violation, one after another, he is not a defender of Americans, but rather a bureaucratic apparatchik of what regime holds power, or takes power in whatever way it can, so long as legal accountability is not brought to bear by other branches, or the judiciary.

Little in Garland’s law training or early career would suggest a legal philosophy or jurisprudence of top-down centralized diktat in law and policy, but his career was entirely formed by government service, with little if any private law experience and instincts for traditional private property.  He also fully embraces the Global War on Terror program, and this especially, may be a modern marker of intent and inclination toward a tolerance for near Bolshevik-style government, if the right pretextual narratives are present.  Given his unquestioning acceptance of the entire Covid program, illegal immigration, voter fraud, racial categorization and selective prosecution of American citizens by ideology, one may expect that violations of the Constitution and Constitutional law, may face little if any challenge from his office.  Indeed, he appears to be among the most reliable nodal points of influence and control, in the rapid permeation of authoritarian biosecurity, and the dismantling of individual constitutional protections, and even international human rights law.  This tendency fits well within the constellation of interests that seek to establish a global, transnational legal regime that replaces United States Constitutional sovereignty with a centralized UN-based order. In the same way that Jewish interests have always championed a strong central government in the U.S., those same interests  favor a strong centralized authority at the international level.

Among Garland’s most threatening intellectual vulnerabilities, is his stated obsession with “White supremacy” and his confused conflation of mass media hyperbole (including his stated determination to prosecute the January 6th “insurrection”) as a racial issue, with his emotionalism over “anti-Semitism,” while the southern border of the United States has been opened, and the DOJ abstaining from prosecution of illegal immigration—all positions reflecting the views of mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL; indeed Garland and his Justice team are facilitating the diffusion of illegals into the interior of the country.  Together, these ideologies are directing the massive machinery of the Department of Justice, and turning it inward, on the American public, against their interests, and as a direct assault on the American Constitutional order.

56 replies
  1. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    “Some observers believe, however, that this federalism construct is “imploding” toward its center, into a monolithic, centralized unit.”

    Indeed and just how unbelievable and serious it truly is can be understood by way of this interview which is a must watch for everyone. No one truly understands the agenda more than CAF!! coup de etat indeed!!! “Financing the enemy” Indeed!

    Add to this information this taken from an old book from the 1970’s by Dr. Cantelon:

    In 1934, when legislation was passed prohibiting the American public from owning gold currency, the door was left wide open to the foreign holders of American dollars to claim gold in exchange for their paper. But even before this international stage was set, Representative Louis T. McFadden (R-Pa.), Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, made statements on June 10 of 1932 which indicated America’s gold was already moving back to Europe. His statements were recorded in the Congres’sional Record and pages 140-174 in H. S. Kenan’s book entitled The Federal Reserve Bank. Representative McFadden speaks of those on the other side of the water
    with a strong banking “fence getting the currency of the Federal Reserve Banks-exchanging that currency for gold and transmitting the gold to the foreign confederates.”

    McFadden named the dates on which America’s gold was shipped to Germany:

    On April 27, 1932, $750 thousand in gold was sent to Germany. One week later another $300 thousand in gold was shipped to Germany the same way. In the middle of May of that year, $12 million in gold was shipped to Germany… . Almost every week there was a shipment of gold to Germany-these shipments are not made for profit. Representative McFadden referred also to the comments of Senator Elihu Root:
    Long before we wake up from our dreams of prosperity through an inflated currency, our gold which could have kept us from catastrophe will have vanished, and no rate of interest will tempt it to return. In his report to Congress, Louis McFadden asked the question,
    Why should our depositors and our government be forced to flnance the munition factories of Germanv and Soviet Russia?

    Representative McFadden continued, Gold was taken from the entrusting American people and was sent to Europe. In the last several months $1,300,000,000 in gold has been sent to Europe every dollar of that gold once belonged to the people of United States and was unlawfully taken from them.

    As I weighed the words of Louis McFadden and other Iawmakers, I also witnessed the fairtastic scene of America’s vanishing gold. The record was unbelievable:

    1949 – $24,500,000,000
    1958 – $21 ,593,000,000
    1959 – $20,478,483,000
    1960- $19,420,997,000
    196l – $ 17,667,587,000
    1962-$15,997 ,647,000
    1965 – $ 13,733,000,000

    On and on the gold drain went, unabated. Then came the crisis in the spring of 1968. We were living in Europe at that particular time. On March 14, hysterical crowds of people crowded, screamed, and scrambled their ways to the windows of the banks of England, and to the bank windows of the sub-basements of Paris to exchange their paper for gold. On one single day, the rude and the cultured, the peer and the peasant, carried off 200 tons of the precious metal. They stored it in secret places of their homes and deposited it in various banks in strongboxes labeled with fictitious names.
    On that day Senator Everett Dirksen in conversation with Secretary of the Treasury Fowler, William McChesney Martin, and a dozen other senators said,

    We have reached the bottom of the barrel.

    It seemed like only yesterday when I spoke on monetary matters when America had $26 billion in gold in her treasuries. By June 30 of 1971, it had been reduced to $10.5billion.


    Why did the people of Europe and Britain crowd hysterically into their banks on March 14,1968,to exchange $240 million in paper for 200 tons of gold? They could not eat their gold for food. They could not wear it for clothes. Itwas too heavy to carry on the streets as a legal tender or medium of exchange. Why did they prefer to have the precious metal in place of their paper money?
    The answer was extremely clear. They were afraid that their paper would be canceled with the stroke of a legislative pen. It would be as worthless as the German marks of 1923 when it took a wheelbarrow load to buy a simple sandwich or hot dog. The average man knew his paper money was becoming of less and less value. Americans could recall 1937 when $30 a month would put food on the table for a family of four. By 1947, the same food would cost $43. By 1957, it would cost $72. Then $100, and inflation continued unchecked. The British, too, looked at their paper with its diminishing value. The record was indeed far from encouraging. The monetary facts offered little hope for the survival of their paper. In 1930, the official value of the pound was $4.86. In 1952, $2.82; in 1967, $2.40. In May of 1973 on the streets of Tokyo, I stared with incredulity at the spectre of inflation in Japan. Ground beef that was selling in October for $1.40 per pound was now $2.87; orange juice was over $3.00 per glass; steak, $ 16.00 per pound. In less than a year the price of real estate had doubled, and wool had tripled. Hashimoto, Secretary General of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party tried in vain to reason with the financial giants of his country. He concluded that those in a position to affect the inflation were too strong and beyond control. The problem of inflation was worldwide. Since World War II, the currencies of over 100 nations had been devalued, some many times. I recalled a 1959 address by Robert Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury. He bluntly spelled out the technique of inflation:

    Suppose tomorrow morning I want to write a check for $100 million, and the treasury does not have the money. I call the Federal Reserve Bank and ask, “Will you loan us $100 million at 3.5% for six months if I send you over our note to that effect?” The officer of the Federal Reserve Bank would naturally say, “I will.” He would merely create that much money subject to Reserve requirements by crediting our account in the sum and accepting the government note as an asset. When I finished writing checks for $100 million, we would have added 100 million to the nation’s money supply. This, he added, is one of the principles by which the 1940 dollar has shrunken to .4l cents with a quadrupling of our money supply.

    Nations continuing programs of war and welfare and other costly programs, were forced to continue borrowing money. America increased her federal budget 84% in a five-year period. By going deeper in debt, she also increased her money supply 47%. Consequently, the buying power of the dollar continued to fall ever lower. In certain countries of the world, it was overwhelming. In Argentina, inflation increased 289% in a five-year period. In Brazil, over 5OO%. In Java, lOO0%. As the cry of inflation was heard around the world and received with genuine alarm, governmental leaders strove in vain to curb this economic disease that would spell death to all systems eventually.

    In September 29, 1972, the Dallas Times Herald showed that in that particular year inflation had increased Japan-7.5%
    Great Britain- 12.5%
    West Germany -6.O %

    Ludwig Erhard, Germany’s Minister of Finance at the close of World War II, had said,

    Give us depression or problems, but not inflation, for it spells eventually certain death to any economy.

    Erhard knew that inflation, allowed to continue, was like sending a pilot across the ocean with a plane in which was insufficient fuel. There came unavoidably a point of no return when the pilot found he had insufficient fuel to take him to either shore.

    Too Much or Not Enough

    In spite of the fact that the U.S. government had in_ creased its money supply 47% in a five_year period, and other nations were doing the same thing, still there were those who cried it was not enough. Between 1954 and 1965, world trade had doubled. I sat with a thousand delegates in the International Board of Trade in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel of New York listening to the speakers struggle with their unsolved problems. world trade had reached the staggering figure of $159.2 billion. The currencies and credits with which they had to carry on this volume of trade was little more than $67.3 billion. By 1973, the volume of trade in the free world was $367 billion. I talked with Mitchell Sharpe, then Minister of Finance for Canada, and some of the American leaders. These men realized that the currencies being used were outmoded and insufficient for the modern day. They pointed out that the system was medieval, serving acceptably in the olden days when communities were small and self-contained, but thoroughly in-adequate for the present. The leaders of the nations invoived in trade spoke of the nightmarish task of trying daily to adjust the varying exchange rates between the currencies from country to country on a day-to-day basis. They clamored for a single system of standardized value large enough in volume to allow world trade to move forward in an orderly fashion.

    ln 1967, two years following that International Board of Trade meeting in New York, the world leaders met in Rio. In discussing the inadequacy of the present world money systems to carry on world trade, Guido Carli from Rome suggested ersatz money which would resemble paper gold which was to be presented to the world the following year. I was back in America when the announcement came.

    It was March 31, 1968. Most of the world reacted with amazement at the announcement that came from Europe stating that the nations of the world were ready to transact business with a new medium of exchange known as “paper gold.”

    But to all who follow the trend of monetary matters, the announcement was no surprise. For days there was a feeling in the air that something momentous was coming.

    An editor wrote in the Financial Times,

    Something sinister is going on.

    With great interest, I followed the comments and reactions of world leaders.

    Carl Schiller, Germany’s financier, stated,

    There’s a worm in the apple somewhere.

    Pierre Paul Schweitzer seemed pleased. Schweitzer, the nephew of Albert Schweitzer, was an elite Protestant, born in Alsace-Lorraine, who had served as number-three man in the Bank of France, and had been elected managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Some declared that when paper gold was presented to the world on that March morning, Schweitzer declared,

    Gentlemen, we are right on schedule.

    72% of the nations in the IMF were considered under_ developed. Schweitzer seemed especially dedicated to the task or policy of taking from the rich to give to the poor.

    This naturally made him popular with the majority in the IMF, who were elated at the prospect of acquiring some of America’s wealth regardless of the measures.

    Why the Announcement from Europe?

    Many Americans, startled by the announcement of paper gold, were asking, “Why has this declaration come to us from the bankers of Europe? Why did we have to hear it first from the lips of the spokesmen representing the gold pool so integrated with the World Bank and the Inter_
    national Monetary Fund?”

    The attitude of the average man on the street was one of absolute helplessness. In olden days, banking had been a rather personal matter between himself and a trusted friend. It had changed with the passing of time until it was with an institution equally trusted and respected. The local banker was indeed his friend and would discuss with sincerity the personal financial needs of any of his clients. But banking had become much more than a localized or even nationalized institution. In a single lifetime it had seemingly taken on an ominous new form of world control.

    A question began to arise in the hearts of millions of Americans. “Why can’t we retain our financial destiny in our own hands? Why can’t banking be a personal matter between man and his banker as in the past? Why must it be in the international courts and the arenas of the world?”

    In searching for the answers to those questions, I seemed to find a twofold answer. Logic and wisdom could explain with clarity the reasons for a world bank. But there was a dark side, which, when properly considered, revealed an invisible government with an amazing power that planned world control in a sinister fashion.”

    So when they come for you to be electronically chipped so that you can’t buy or sell will you buy into this betrayal?

    Wow, has Mr. Global arrived that is that ‘goat with the little horn boasting great things’ is behind a curtain waiting to be crowned king in Jerusalem. wow!!! Counterfeit Messiah?

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        Hmmm “you will own nothing and be happy about it?”

        I have always been suspicious of a Robinhood moment or a better word is redistribution of the worlds wealth equally among the nations of the world. However, to pull this off one needs to control in ones hand all of the worlds wealth and if what Allen or rather CAF describes isn’t it ultimately! Who will or could pull off something so monumental? There is a sentence in a very, very old book that goes something like this ‘a goat with a small horn boasting great things.’

        Remember the Temptation of Christ where Satan told Him all of the kingdoms of the world are mine and i can give it to anyone just worship me. Techno tyranny indeed! I’d imagine Satan and his human avatar are rubbing their hands in glee!

        Are we then on the cusp of the 666 where no one will be able to buy and sell unless he had the mark or number of his name? Revelation 13?

        I’d suggest Nick you read and memorize the words of a true King

        If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN… John 10:35

        well scripture will be fulfilled yes?

        And O what I often refer to as control freaks these men behind the scenes I’d imagine or know they call themselves gods! Idiots!

        • Oscar Wilson
          Oscar Wilson says:

          @ Gerry
          Moving to a cashless society where transactions occur only through card, phone or implant?
          I think there are problems here without resorting to the Book of Revelation as a credible and literal prophecy.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Gerry can manage very nicely for himself without your supererogatory critique, I suspect. Indeed, whatever might be said about the manifold pitfalls and occasions for misreading inherent in private interpretation of the Book of Revelation, resort to the New Testament’s last book is far sounder and more sensible than resort to, say, Wikipedia on almost any matter known to man, save for World Series, Superbowl, and World Cup scores.

            Thus far, at least, the disciplined legions of Israeli and Diaspora trolls who are paid to keep Wikipedia fully Jew-supremacist have not yet seen anything to be gained from blacklisting or “editing” the scores of the 1907, 1908, or 1909 World Series, even though Ty Cobb played in all three. Of course, the Tigers lost all three series, so perhaps that’s the reason for the Jews’ inaction.

          • Gerry
            Gerry says:

            @ Oscar Wilson

            You are offended okay I get that but isn’t it worth probing given the words about no one being able to buy and sell without a number? That the technology exists to do exactly that with a book addressing it from the 1st Century AD raises or should raise some serious questions and with words like ‘here is the mind that has wisdom’ its as if we are being told where to look. I want wisdom and knowledge. I suppose though if it was any other book than the biblical record it would get more scrutiny and study not laughed at and mocked? Aliens perhaps like this guy Paul Hellyer is talking about. With a CV like his talking aliens and that the US Government is in communication with them is well it literally blows my mind and it should yours to! A Valiant Thor? Are you kidding me? Go to the 10 minute mark of the video Liberation here and listen to some very strange political business. What in this blasted world is really going on Oscar Wilson?

    • William Gruff
      William Gruff says:

      ‘On March 14, hysterical crowds of people crowded, screamed, and scrambled their ways to the windows of the banks of England … to exchange their paper for gold.’

      Not in England. It has been a criminal offence to ‘hoard’ gold in the ‘U’K for a long time, certainly well before 1968, and I remember reading as a teenager (late sixties, early seventies) of an old man, in his eighties, fined and spared prison (because of his age) for owning a collection of old gold coins that were his lifetime’s hobby and his prized possession, which was confiscated.

      It is not possible for ordinary people to convert notes or certificates for gold in the ‘United’ Kingdom. It is possible to buy a certificate of gold ownership, which can be exchanged for the money value of the gold, however, no actual gold can be obtained or is ever owned. Only the small quantities of gold as jewellery are permitted.

  2. James Jonas
    James Jonas says:

    This is a Bloshevik Zio/jewish/take over the USA govt/institution/public/private occupation. This Sick Zio Neocon psychotic/fanatical COD obsessive Israel First has brought about endless wars that had bankrupted the USA and killed most young deplorables. Interantionally the USA faces isolation from other countries, hate, and will become the target of nationalits/islamists/ terror.Internally this jewish obssession with anti WHITE non jews is driving a deep wide division between the American govt and its people..Could you imagine if 90% of the Bidens regime were white anglos non jews??????

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      The American population has been so brainwashed over the years that they do not see any problem with the fact that nearly all of Joe Biden’s key people are Jewish even though they are a tiny minority of the population.

      Janet Yellen: US Sec of the Treasury
      Merrick “Garfinkel ” Garland: US Attorney General
      Ronald Alan Klain- White House Chief of Staff
      Avril Haines: Director of National Intelligence
      Rachel Levine: Assistant Sec for Health
      Rochelle Walensky: Director of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
      Jeffrey Zients: Counselor to the President
      Steve Ricchetti: Counselor to the President
      Deborah Lipstadt: Antisem. Envoy
      Eric Garcetti: US Ambas. to India
      Mark Gitenstein: US Ambas. to EU
      Jen Psaki: WH Press Secretary
      Phil Rosenfelt: Dep. Gen. Counsel of US Department of Education for Program Service
      Catherine Lhamon: Dep. Director of Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice & Equity
      Robert Bauer: Co-Chair of the Pres. Commission on the Supreme Court of the US
      Monica Medina: Asst. Sec. of State for the Bureau of Oceans & Int. Environmental & Science Affairs
      David Cervantes: Policy Advisor at US Department of the Treasury
      Teddy Nemeroff: Director for International Cyber Policy NSA
      Chanan Weissman: Director for Technology and Democracy NSA
      Gene Sperling: Senior Advisor to the President
      Anita Dunn: Senior Advisor to the President
      Nora Volkow: Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
      Alina Romanowski: US Ambas. to Kuwait
      Jonathan Cohen: US Ambas. to Egypt
      Alaina B. Teplitz: US Ambas. to Sri Lanka & Maldives
      Peter H. Vrooman: US Ambas. to Rwanda
      Xavier Becerra: US Sec of Health and Human Services
      Max Rose: Special Assistant to the US Sec of Defense for C-19
      Andy Slavitt: Senior Advisor to the C-19 Response Coordinator
      Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall: US Homeland Security Advisor
      Eric Lander: Director of the Office of Science and Tech. Policy Science Advisor to the President
      Wendy Sherman: US Dep. Sec of State
      Anne Neuberger: US Dep. National Security Advisor for Cyber & Emerging Technology
      Alejandro Mayorkas: US Sec of Homeland Security
      Doug Emhoff: Second Gentleman of US
      Jared Bernstein: Member of the Council of Economic Advisers
      Antony Blinken: US Secretary of State
      David S. Cohen: Director of CIA until March 19, transitioning to Deputy Director of CIA
      Isabel Guzman: Administrator of the Small Business Administration
      Polly Trottenberg: US Deputy Secretary of Transportation
      David A. Kessler: Head of Op. Warp Speed (Jan-Feb) & co-chaired the Biden-Harris transition’s C-19 Advisory Board (Nov-Jan)
      Jennifer Klein: Co-Chair White House Gender Policy Council
      Jessica Rosenworcel: Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission
      Stephanie Pollack: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration
      Mira Resnick: State Department Deputy Assistant Sec for Regional Security
      John Kerry: United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
      Victoria Nuland: Under Sec of State for Political Affairs
      Gary Gensler: Chair of the Securities & Exchange Commission
      Mark Greenblatt: Inspector General of the Department of the Interior
      Elizabeth Klein: Deputy Sec of the Interior

  3. Polemeros
    Polemeros says:

    “Merrick Garland.”

    Decades ago, as a young theology student, I recall how shocked and ashamed I was to discover that my church’s Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 commanded that Jews (and Muslims) be required to wear special clothing to distinguish them from the native Christian Europeans.

    Now it just seems like rational self-preservation.

  4. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    Muslim Turkey is constructing a massive Pentagon -like military complex intended to push back on Israel/USA mid east aggression.Turkey will continue to operate the Afghan Airport.Turkey will become the centerpiece of a Muslim/China/Russia/anti Israel- now Jewish controlled West -alliance.

  5. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    Very few in the USA public perceive the takeover that is occurring and its implications going forward.

    I was surprised our US Jewish government allowed the abandonment of war materials in Afghanistan . They are likely to be made available to various anti Israel groups and countries.

    • Irish Savant
      Irish Savant says:

      Interesting point. But it seems strange that the most militant Islamists like ISIS never attack Israel or Jewish targets. Could that have been a condition imposed by their CIA paymasters?

  6. Plotinus
    Plotinus says:

    I’m so glad he didn’t get to be a supreme court judge. But I suppose it doesn’t matter as the deep state moves the country toward perdition.

  7. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    Personal contact between client and bank? Banks now and then depend on money supply, interest rates and fractional reserve, controlled externally. Global trade needs international finance.
    An update of James Petras’ “Power…” (2006) that takes in Lucky Larry Silverstein [see Wikispooks on 9/11] and Sleepy Joe Biden (on the Taliban) is needed.
    Meantime, a Happy New Year (Tishri 1-2 5782) to all your closest readers, monitors and scrutineers.

  8. anonym
    anonym says:

    As usual they bite off more than they can chew, and choke on it. Just one more act of chutzpa, and critical mass will be reached. If it doesn´t lead to a domestic war, it feels lika a certainty that a war with Iran will take care of it. (The false flag events and the media indoctrination storm is probably already planned.) Hopefully it won’t be as grisly this time as before in history.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Tony Blair urged democratic governments not to close confidence in using military force to export their values (“The Guardian”, September 7, 2021).

  9. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    Here is the following statement from the ACLU regarding the vaccine: “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable, people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated, and communities of color hit hard by the disease.”

    The same ACLU that promotes “my body – my choice” regarding on-demand abortion.:

    The ACLU is suing the states of Iowa and South Carolina to force ALL children to wear masks all day while in school. It is a given that it will be the same cabal behind their latest sinister plot against Americans.

  10. Spraguer Droevig Imas Haas Mulder
    Spraguer Droevig Imas Haas Mulder says:

    Amazing how Sovietized America has become.
    I wish I could say it’s a new or recent thing, but it’s not.
    The truth is, the transformation has been a very slow, systematic process.
    However, with law enforcement now sovietized, corporate America sovietized, the MIC sovietized, the MSM sovietized, it’s basically check mate.
    The US power structure is not even remotely legitimate today.
    Our government does not function like the American government did 200 years ago or even 100 years ago.
    The change is one of kind, not of degree at this point.
    It’s a different kind of governmental system altogether, run by altogether different people.
    There is nowhere left to run. Fight or perish, white man.
    We are in deep & getting out will require an epic struggle.

  11. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    was surprised our US Jewish government allowed the abandonment of war materials in Afghanistan . They are likely to be made available to various anti Israel groups and countries

    I believe it more probable that this was planned, as a subset of the until mess, ending in deliberate humiliation and scorn from our allies. In The Illusion Of Stability, The Inevitability Of Collapse.

    The author outlines causes and reasons behind pivotal events that are as ticking time bombs for the West’s economies. I believe we will not see the end of the decade before the USSA breaks down and fractures along racial lines. Of course, this will be the immediate consequence of an economic collapse. When there is no more pillage and extraction to be stolen from the working makers, the takers will go on a rampage. The Demonrats will tell them that Whites Supremicists have engineering the hole catastrophe, in order to deprive them of their unearned sustenance. And they will believe it, because they want to, are ignorant, and have generally now aptitude and knowledge. You should be prepared, and seek assistance from the Smith and Wesson Brothers.

    Scenes like this will be much more commonplace: once you are trapped, there are no options, your fate is sealed.
    It is time to rediscover Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube.

    • Oscar Wilson
      Oscar Wilson says:

      The trouble with some grand conspiracy theories is that they cannot integrate inconvenient evidence into a framework resting on a limited base. You get ever complex sci-fi epicycles to cope like the Ptolemaic theory of the universe based on the centrality of a stationary earth like the centrality of an omniscient, omnipotent, eternally evil Jooo-whoo-hooo.

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        Further “Credible.”

        Carl Sagan had a saying ‘Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proofs and guess what where climate change being the work of God is concerned it is all available. Do you know that what we are being told by the authorities is a total and complete lie? No, how could you when the one source well actually a number of sources teaches us the direct opposite that it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with industrial pollution at all. But alas when the baby gets thrown out with the bath water especially here on this blog because it goes into Jewish history how will one ever know what the truth actually is? For that one has to guess what open a bible because within its pages is a huge amount of information on the subject which gets substantiated by not only the archaeological record but Church history as well. Sadly this is just so oblivious to all. Please can we stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Please!

        Ignorance is not bliss, a good example is surely this additional quote from the same book as posted above which I’d imagine the author of above essay will find extremely important and as you read I’d imagine you’d be saying to yourself I had no knowledge of this whatsoever! Why?


        Headlines of this nature were being seen more and more frequently in many areas of the nation. In studying the various articles, I discovered that the announcement was received by many Americans with mingled consternation and confusion. One article read as follows:

        The national energy ..crisis,’, here yesterday and gone tomorrow, seems almost elusive, and the experts dis_agree even on its existence. Now it seems the people directly affected by the current fuel shortage, have different opinions, as two stories by Associated press at left, and International press at right, reflect. Is there an Energy Crisis? Facts are facts, but it depends on who you ask and when.

        As I followed the reactions of our nation’s leaders, I turned my eyes and interest again to the Dallas Morning New, January 16. The top half of l l-A was devoted to an article headlined,


        And on the bottom half of the same page, ran a second headline: KOSYGIN TOURS OIL GAS AREA IN USSR TO BOOST DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

        The two stories on the same page did not come as a total surprise to some of us who had followed the developments of these events for several months. On November 12, 1972 I was in Eugene, Oregon. I picked up the daily paper, the Register Guard, and read an article reprinted from the Washington Star, which said,

        Washington Star News reports U.S. may buy as much as forty billion dollars’ worth of natural gas from Russia during the next twenty-five years. U.S. companies backed by federal financing would buy 36.5 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas. The head of one of the oil and gas producers’ groups said:

        Russian gas would cost six times more than the wholesale price of U.S. gas.

        In response to that announcement in November, Tom Medders, Jr., head of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said,

        It is disturbing that our government is willing to encourage development of the Soviet Union’s gas at such a cost when it is pursuing regulatory policies that are discouraging the needful capital expenditures to develop our own natural gas resources at home.

        Serious-minded leaders, such as Senator Henry Jackson and Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson, and others, raised the question,

        Would it not be unwise to make our nation dependent on an energy source that was held in the hands of a foreign nation?

        In spite of the fact the alarms were being sounded, there was every indication that Americans would be subjected to gas rationing in the near future. Men as prominent as Mr. O’Leary, member of the Atomic Energy Commission, predicted rationing in the near future.

        Russian Wheat

        While America was discussing the purchasing of 36 trillion cubic feet of Russian gas, the Russians were occupied with the task of importing 20 million tons of wheat, which they had purchased from the United States, at a price of over $ I billion. Although the Russian press sought to keep this tremendous importation of wheat a secret from their own people, the free world was told it was because of a drought in the USSR. Some indicated the drought in Russia was the worst in a
        hundred years, and affected 27.5 million acres of land.

        Several years previously, I recalled reading an article by Sterling Slappey. His article carried the headline,


        Mr. Slappey quoted a report from the reputable German Institute of Industries. They declared the Soviets had greater need for wheat to distill into industrial alcohol than to turn into bread. They said that it took nine tons of wheat to make two tons of alcohol, which in turn would make one
        ton of synthetic rubber. They also declared the Russians needed 550,000 tons of industrial alcohol for the purposes mentioned. Some who read Slappey’s article and his quotations from the Institute of German Industries, said,

        We do not mind as taxpayers subsidizing cheap wheat for Russian bread, but we would resent subsidizing the wheat purchase to the USSR if it were to be used for military production.

        Was the fuel crisis in America genuine, or was it somehow linked to the possible purchase of Russian gas? If the suggested deal with Russia should develop as outlined, the 25-year contract for $40 billion worth of Russian gas would be the biggest transaction in the history of man.

        Preparation for Shortage

        Right or wrong, true or false, one thing seemed certain:

        the world was moving toward a ration system in the immediate future. Many people living only for the day awakened to the announced crisis with dismay. But others prepared for the future.

        end first quote

        admit that the only God was Mao-Tse-tung, head of the Communistic Government. A former Communist said,

        They asked me to forget Katyn Forest. Forget the slave labor camps, forget the genocide of the captive nations, forget the butchery of Budapest, forget the annihilation of 30 million people, forget their anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-church, and anti-home doctrines, and to forget all that is dear and place our faith in them.

        With amazing courage some of Russia’s finest writers have dared to express the true feelings of their hearts. Alex Solzhenitsyn, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest author writes,

        The USSR is guilty of committing spiritual murder, a variant of the gas chamber but more cruel.

        In an edition of the Los Angeles Times in April, 1973, Murray Seeger tells how the government leaders in Russia seek to control men’s minds and spirits. He describes the heavy volume of anti-religious action and propaganda which have been continued in all parts of Russia against many different faiths ever since the Bolshevik Revolution took place 55 years ago. In light of the Communist attitude toward Christians and Jews, are men not justified in asking why this government should receive favored treatment?

        Why should American taxpayers pay $300 million in taxes to subsidize cheap wheat for the USSR? Or why should Russia get 200,000 tons of butter from The European Common Market for 20 cents per pound, when the British pay 60 cents for the same butter? Perhaps some of the international bankers might shed some light on this. They might tell us how the Communist banks were able to borrow 40 billion Eurodollars six months before the dollar was devalued 10% on February 6th, 1973 and comment on the extraordinary good fortune of their timing. For when this debt is repaid, it will be repaid with dollars valued at 90 cents which means a net profit of $4 billion for the borrowers.

        “Only one thing IS clear wrote one economist from Europe,” and that is the mystery that surrounds these strange actions.”

        That Russia was receiving favored treatment was beyond any question.’ It had been ever since the birth of the United Nations. When it was organized in1945- there were only 50 nations of the world represented in the UN. In the l0 vears following its birth however, Communism had spread across the world” at a rate of 44 square miles per hour.’

        As new nations’ were being born and being admitted to the UN, the roster revealed the young and struggling being admitted were often those who had accepted the doctrines of Communism. This doctrine thrived especially in underdeveloped areas estimated to be at least 72% of the whole.

        With the apparent domination of the Communistic personalities in control “UNESCO and the International Police Force, reflected in the UN charter it was difficult to understand how the the United States could  be removed much further from the position of leadership.’

        ln the 21 years following the-establishment of the UN there were 22 presidents of the UN General Assemblv’ Not one was an American. The same could be said about the highest office that of the  or Secretary-General’

        Close quote 2

        and finally

        Financial Crisis, June 19-23, 1970

        On June 19, 1970, the American people escaped a national economic crisis by a mere hairline. The sixth largest enterprise in the United states, the largest railroad of the country, the Pennsylvania Central, went bankrupt. The bankers were confident that the government would bail them out. They gathered in the northwest conference room of the tenth floor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to sign the papers as soon as the word came from Washington.

        But Congressional disapproval had been hardening.

        Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking Committee, refused to grant the $200 million loan, declaring it would be “only the beginning of a welfare program for the giant corporation.”

        What could be done? The Federal Reserve System had been criticized for cutting off money too abruptly in 1966 and of increasing it too fast in 1967 and early 1968.

        If stockholders across the nation became concerned that their stocks in this or any other company were to lose their value, they could commence a run on banks in seeking to cash in their stocks that would deplete the reserves of the banks of America and throw the entire nation into chaos. Needless to say, tension was high, and furious action was taken to stave off a national panic that could have created havoc in those days between June l9 and 23. Bankers of the nation lined up for loans of $1.7 billion hoping to be able to meet the demands for money that would be brought to them by fearful stockholders wishing to exchange their paper stock for money. Too few Americans realize that the banks of the nation operate much the same as the “Fractional Money Lenders” of the past. If a large number of people were to desire their money from the bank at one time, the banks would have only a fraction of the amount needed. A national scare like the collapse of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad could have started such a situation. This is why private banks strove to borrow extra money from the Federal Reserve in the face of such an impending crisis.

        close quote 3 from book The Day the Dollar Dies by Dr. Willard Cantelon 1973

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          As a regular contributor to “East-West Digest”, who helped organize the 1967 Albert Hall multi-national Commemoration of the Victims of Communism, and opposed the technological collaboration between UK PM Wilson (GRU codename “Olding”) and USSR PM Kosygin (Chechen killer), I would point out that “western” commercial subsidy to the Soviets was hardly unknown, from John Birch Society to AFL-CIO publications; Antony Sutton, Miles Costick, Alexander Wolynski and Charles Levinson produced substantial evidence. The strategy is always to get the future victim to subsidise his own demise; cf, welfare and charity subsidies at home and abroad.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          blockquoteln the 21 years following the-establishment of the UN there were 22 presidents of the UN General Assemblv’ Not one was an American. The same could be said about the highest office that of the or Secretary-General’<blockquote

          Neither was a President of the United States an American, either.

          • Gerry
            Gerry says:

            What a failure the UN is yes Poupon Marx?

            The Justice of the United Nations

            Foundations of the United Nations were laid by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, from August 21 to September 28,1944, in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington. Immediately afterward, the Republic of China became one of the five founding
            nations, and was given lifetime membership in the Security Council. Her population was larger than 3/4 of the nations who held membership in the UN. Even in Taiwan, she maintained diplomatic relationship with 60 countries of the world. In the field of commerce, she exported over a billion dollars’ worth of merchandise annually, and yet when Albania, with a population half the size of Philadelphia, made a motion that the Republic of China be expelled, the smaller nations rallied to the suggestion in a demonstration of emotionalism and bias that left a permanent blemish on the record of the UN. Ambassador Bush said on October 25, 1971, “Never have I seen such hate.” The late David Lawrence, respected news journalist and editor of the U.S. News & World Report, said,

            “Can any nation be safe in an atmosphere of such irresponsible and emotional action?”

            The Chinese leaders returned to Taiwan in tears. They carried with them a record free from blot or blemish. Their dues had been paid. Their position had been held with honor. But without a single grievance against them, they were expelled and not even granted the courtesy of being permitted to speak for themselves. Someone dared to sug-gest before their departure that perhaps Communist China and Nationalist China could each have a seat’ The pro-Cornmunist block pounded their desks and shouted down the proposal. A few days later’ they.were willing to talk about 2 seats being given to West Germany and Communist West Germany to sit side by side.

            The UN and Peace

            When asked if the UN hoped to end all wars’ international lawyer Ambassador J’ Reuben Clark’ Jr” said’

            There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based on the belief that if the Charter is put into effect’ wars will end. . ‘ ‘ The Charter will not certainly end war. The Charter provides for force to bring peace’ but such use of force is itself war. The Charter does take from us the power to declare war and to choose the side on which one must fight’

            If men hoped the United Nations would bring peace to the world, their hopes proved groundless’ The list of wars fought since 1945 seemed almost endless:

            Indonesia, 1945-1947
            China, 1945-1949
            Kashmir, 1947-1949
            Greece, 1946-1949
            Israel, 1948-1949
            Philippines, 1948’19 52
            Indo-China, 1945-1954
            Malaya, 1945-1954
            Korea, 1950-1953
            Formosa, 1950
            Kenya, 1952-1953
            Sinai, 1956

            etc etc etc hundreds more yes?


            On August 10, 1962 Herbert Hoover said:

            I urged the ratification of the United Nations by the Senate, but now we just realize the United Nations has failed to give us even a remote chance of lasting peace. Instead it adds to the dangers of wars which surround us.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          Years ago a crewman aboard my ship-he was a Yemeni, very polite, diligent, and civil-told me about a case in his country, whereby a male kidnapped a young girl, raped and killed her. When he was arrested, he denied vehemently the accusation. However, the evidence against him was ironclad, and as the details emerged, it was seen as a particularly vicious and barbaric act.

          So, he was convicted. The judge pronounced the sentence. All his worldly assets were confiscated and given to the girl’s family. He was to be taken to the public square and beaten (lashed) severely. Then, still very much conscious, he was taken to a high building, and pre-announced a crowd gathered. He was pushed of the building, screaming all the way down and hit the pavement with a splat. The entire crowd erupted in a fervent, “Allah Akbar”, etc, etc.

          And that was that. What impressed me about the punishment is that its brutality matched the crime. And thereafter, the criminals would very likely fear the power of the police and courts.

          Meanwhile, in the enlightened countries of the West, e.g., Sweden, a similar crime might warrant a handful of years in a “prison” resembling a Holiday Inn. With internet, conjugal visits, free medical care, etc.. Just would you would expect at a stay of a moderately priced motel or inn.

          Much of our hubris, self image and opinion of ourselves in the West, is delusion and illusion, based on stale palaver, baseless abstractions, phony references (especially relijewish in nature, and conceit. Sorry Jim Morrison, “The West Is Not The Best”.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        The choice of epicycles to illustrate your point is a poor one. Galileo was no adherent of the Ptolemaic system, as you might have learned at one time or another, yet he was as addicted to epicycles as any orthodox Ptolemaist. Only when Kepler showed that the ellipse rather than the circle was nature’s default in ordering the rotation of the heavenly bodies did the Copernican system rid itself of epicycles. Consider doing likewise.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        There is always an inherent danger of using “Pure Ideas” (as Nikos Kazantzakis found out) and flying abstractions which are not connected to the concrete. Western Man has become addicted to serial logic, where one step of thought is necessarily predicated and dependent on the previous. Additionally, his mind has been conditioned to exclude categorically, those which are not pre-defined and arbitrary constructions,. Observations that do not fit into neat and tidy categories are disqualified because of lack of Enlightenment methods of validity. The only bridge between this chasm of stupidity is Buddism, the inductive scientific method of observation and evaluation, building UP to deductions, construct and opinion, melded with meditation -which is composed of connecting allowing the Mind freedom to explore unrestricted by the carpings of lesser men

        The use of “inconvenient” as a descriptive word is tried to this slavish trench-like method. It is meaningless, just as Al Gore Rhythm used it in his propaganda of lies and omissions. Truth is elusive, as just the definition and scope of the concept are multi-faceted.

        As I dun sayed s’meny time befo’, thinking and evaluating using Eastern methods of analogy, parallel, and comparison and metaphor/similie yields more clarity, fecundity, and immediacy than fractional Aristotelian limitations, in many if not most instances.

        The curse of The Caucasian was Christianity, its virtual partial lobotomy and insistence of compartmental thinking, its external events as revelation, spiritual path, and guidance, its reliance of miracles, tricks, absurd assumptions, and suspended critical thinking, its derivative-and therefore limiting and dumbing down of the Human Spirit-are all parasitic drag. Just like ice on an airfoil and barnacle and slime growth on the bottom of a marine vessel.

        If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this image should explain much:

        Jesus-and the Christian depictions-feature J.C. and church officials as “keeper of the flocks of sheep”, with cane that is curved to loop around the neck of the lambs to keep them from wandering. The sheep are you, barely sentient animals, “baaaaa”, unable to navigate instrinsically, dependent on a higher being who is interpreted a thousand different ways, and of course the lambs (that’s you) ALWAYS defer to the shepherd, who in churches like the Catheter and Mormon, are appointed with mystery abilities and specious qualifications.

        So without these Leaders of The Flock, you are perpetually lost, have no agency, inadequate innate resources. A similar claim to superior ability to direct your life comes from the Jewish Chosen Case Sunstein in his book, “Nudge”. The theme is straightforward, simply a surrogate for the Catheter Church, another catheter. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Christianity set up a whole peoples to be EXTERNALLY guided and and cognitively structured to be empty INSIDE, knowing nothing without an “OTHER”, all from WITHOUT, NOT WITHIN.

        • Milan
          Milan says:

          You know when Jesus said before His crucifixion that no one takes my life from me rather I lay it down of my own volition which means what exactly? No one could kill Christ no one! No one could lay a hold of Him no one! No Roman Centurion, no Jew no one could touch Him period. In fact all of human history stood in the balance for if Jesus so desired He could have ended the human experiment right then and there. When Christ said, ‘Do you not think that I can call to my Father and He can put at my disposal 12 legions of angels?” Get this throw your head Jesus that silly guy you dare mock could have with a few words ended the Roman Empire period! Standing there in the Garden of Gethsemane He could have picked Caesar up by the scruff of the neck and threw him clear out into the street and shut the doors to his place.

          Poupon isn’t that a mustard all slime and greasy and terrible taste? Mock and hate all the churches you want but disrespect Christ and we have a problem. Maybe go here and read the comments preceding this one and learn about Jesus the military commander with His own weapons? and start your re-education Poupon Marx@!!!!!!!

  12. RonaldB
    RonaldB says:

    The concept of federalism is the central government with overriding powers that are limited by the strictures of the Constitution. The residual powers are allocated to the individual states. The writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers pointed out that the framework of the Constitution gave the federal government enough power and leeway to allocate all power it itself. In other words, the specific limitations of power could easily be overcome; an example is the “Commerce” clause, giving the federal government the power to enforce a concept that itself was not limited.

    The alternative was the old Articles of Confederation, which treated each state as sovereign and voluntarily allocating part of its authority on an ongoing basis to a central confederate government. The original Constitutional Convention was tasked to write amendments to the articles of Confederation, but wrote an entirely new Constitution in strict secrecy. The anti-Federalists pointed out that the “Federalism” of the Constitution contained the seeds of tyranny, which it does.

    The main argument for a strong central government is, it is strong enough to overcome foreign enemies. The Union had a tremendous advantage during the Civil War because Lincoln ruled as a dictator under the Constitution, while Jefferson Davis presided over independent states who supported the war effort only as they saw fit.

    The author, Solovyev, had the insight, generally rare, that “defund the police” meant “defund the local police”, not “do away with all tyrannical authority”. A central police is paid and commended by a bureaucracy with no ties whatsoever to the people locally affected and is equivalent in every way to the standing army concept so feared by even the Federalist as the instrument of tyranny.

    Paradoxically, freedom may only be rescued by the existence of strong, nationalist, independent countries with enough governmental authority to maintain the coherence of their borders and their culture. In other words, no open gay pride parade and no public displays of effeminate men. The US is one vote away from a complete progressive sweep of the entire government, and a perpetual majority guaranteed by whatever voting arrangements the rulers see as necessary to maintain their power.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Well, if the eminent Professor Dever has instructed mortal men how to think on this matter, who would be so temerarious as to say him nay?

        • Jimmy Williams
          Jimmy Williams says:

          Moses may have been an historical personality in some respects, but to regard Genesis and Exodus as historical accounts and literally true in every respect, especially with many parallels in other mythologies and legends, is simply ridiculous. Was Moses the “wise leader” described by Diodorus or just another “Evil Yid” as some nutters suppose?

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            With respect, Jimmy, the question is not whether these books are historical accounts and literally true in every respect—even among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, let alone serious Catholics and Protestants, few would endorse such a claim—but whether Professor Dever has sufficient expertise and authority to make his absolutely unqualified assertion about Moses’s historicity. Plainly I don’t think he does.*

            As for parallelisms, I ask that for the moment, you put aside your own convictions, whatever form they may take, and think about the matter afresh. You might agree that the existence of parallelisms neither reinforces nor negates the bases on which Christians account the books of the Old Testament uniquely “inspired.” Furthermore, though there is a widely held opinion that knowledge of the existence of parallelisms is entirely a product of modernity, it can be demonstrated that Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, Athanasius, and other learned men concerned with the scriptural canon during the first five centuries of the Christian era were aware of many such.
            *The historicity of Moses himself is of course not the same thing as the question whether he “wrote” the first five books of the OT more or less in their entirety, as most Jewish authorities have always asserted. Excepting a subset of Fundies and Evangelicals, few Christians of the past several centuries have truly cared whether he did or didn’t. Put otherwise, their interest has been in who the actual Author is.

        • HUGO FUERST
          HUGO FUERST says:

          Professor William Dever is no amateur slouch in the fields of relevant archaeology and scriptural study, and his skepticism about Moses is shared by other credentialed specialists.
          There is nothing unusual about peoples inventing myths or legends about their origins or early heroes, and TOO readers will hardly need to be told that Jews too have written up aspects of their history to bolster their “reputation”; see Professor Norman Cantor’s “Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews” (1995) chh.1 & 2. On the possibility that Moses was an invented personality, see D M Murdock, “Did Moses Exist?” (2014).
          Both “Testaments” of the “Bible” have been subject to careful historical and literary scrutiny by Christian and Jewish, as well as atheist scholars, and they cannot just be “swallowed whole” as factually reliable history, as Muslims accept the Quran or Latter Day Saints the Book of Mormon.

      • Alastair Ross
        Alastair Ross says:

        Bullrushes is a word describing any given film director’s daily viewing of Hollywood’s latest Judeo / Marxist anti – White ordure.

  13. Oscar Wilson
    Oscar Wilson says:

    Paul Hellyer is worth reading on fractional reserve, &c. No “offence” taken or given.

    Pompous Pierre is no scriptural scholar comparable to even pre-Vatican2 Catholic commentators on the Apocalypse like Cardinal Newman, Cyril Martindale or Ronald Knox; and one must not cite Wikipedia for further references, in case he blows a gasket.

      • Oscar Wilson
        Oscar Wilson says:

        @ P de C.
        Your “telepathy” is characteristically driven by a frankly unpleasant personality. On my shelves within almost immediate access at this very moment are the NT commentaries by Monsignor Ronald Knox, the third of which includes the Apocalypse (Revelation to Protestants), which I bought as a much younger man in the then Burns Oates bookshop in near Westminster Cathedral, along with his Catholic Truth Society pamphlet on Miracles; I no longer have his translation from the Vulgate, but I still have his debate with Arnold Lunn on “Difficulties”. I won’t go on with the impertinence about Cardinal Newman (“New Eve”, “Papal Antichrist” &c) but what is the point? You are not a courteous critic.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Pierre is not in any way pompous . It does not necessarily follow that a valued commentator who is better educated , more erudite ( tautologically speaking ) than one is oneself deserves that pejorative.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Try Oxford’s Prof. CEM Joad’s book “The Recovery of Faith”.

      It was engendered by Joad’s Balliol High Table discussions with his Oxford friend, CS Lewis.

      Two cheers for CS Lewis though , if only because he moved Joad only from wavering Agnosticism to Belief.

      White men in Africa have seldom converted such intellectually distinguished targets.

      I’d like to have been a guest ( comfortable in post – War majority Atheism ) at Balliol’s High Table on the evening of Joad’s Damascene inversion.

      • Oscar Wilson
        Oscar Wilson says:

        My criticism applied to our friend’s “ton et maniere”, although I am not overly impressed by his sneering “erudition”. I have not read the particular work by Joad to which you refer, though I still have the book trouncing him by Arnold Lunn. The “grey-flannel and tobacco” atmosphere of Oxbridge England in the late 1949s and 1950s has its attractions, as do many books and broadcasts by the Inklings, especially in contrast to the present scenery of decadence. However, arguments about theodicy and NT origins have moved on since “Mere Christianity” and “Problem of Pain”; but this thread is hardly the place to discuss the rise and fall of Christian apologetics.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          So it’s “ton et manière” that galls, is it? What a relief, especially as an impartial reader might be pardoned for thinking that your true complaint is my lèse-majesté!

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Indeed, so would I! To roughly the same extent, I wish I could have overheard the discussions/arguments between Tolkien and Lewis as to the proper way to go about constructing self-consciously mythopoeic fiction.

        • Oscar Wilson
          Oscar Wilson says:

          Maybe apocryphal: when Tolkien proudly announced his latest “English Epic”, Lewis remarked: “Not another fucking elf!”

          • Al Ross
            Al Ross says:

            Just as apocryphal as Jack Lewis’s passing the post prandial port at High Table and telling JRRT , “tonight I’ll fucking pray for you.”

  14. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Great piece V.S. Thank you so much.

    Like I always say, we need to figure out how to get this information to the masses- difficult yes, but I believe that it is somehow doable.

    It would be interesting to know if Jen Psaki is Jewish. I believe she is on her mother’s side. If anyone knows please confirm.

  15. TJ
    TJ says:

    from avotaynu, Jewish surname list:

    745000 PSAKHE L
    745000 PSAKHIYA D
    745000 PSAKI KR
    745000 PSCHIK E
    745000 PSIK EK

  16. Jimmy Williams
    Jimmy Williams says:

    I don’t know how many of these bar mitzvah “bolsheviki” in US government believe in the first 5 books of the Bible, including the Passover “angel of death” or the perpetuity of Amalek, but I looked further into the historicity of their “greatest teacher”.
    According to OT Professor John Hayes (Emory) in the “Cambridge Companion to the Bible”, many stories about Moses are legends built on folktale motifs. The theme of the threatened child who becomes a great leader was “employed from Mesopotamia to Rome”; e.g. Sargon, Heracles, Oedipus, Romulus, Cyrus.
    The infant Bacchus was confined in a box and thrown into the Nile by order of the king, and had two mothers. As an adult he led his army dry-shod across the Red Sea, and divided the Orontes river by his rod, which could change into a serpent and draw water from rock. Bacchus also presented his Laws on stone tablets, according to Doane’s “Bible Myths”.
    Why believe comparable “miracles” attributed to Jesus, like sending demons into pigs or walking on water, some closely paralleled in the mythology of pagan gods like Bacchus, or in legends about real people like Apollonius of Tyana? How many Christians, especially bishops and scholars, still take them seriously?
    And some Orthodox rabbis have complained that the “religion” of Jewry today focuses more on the “Shoah” than “Hashem”.
    The religion-slot in many minds today is stuffed with Wokeism, but has anyone here noticed that Critical RaceTheorists, especially those of dusky hue, have turned on Zionism and added, more plausibly from a chronological viewpoint, Israel to the list of colonial usurpers along with Christian Americans, Australians and “Aotearoans”?

Comments are closed.