The Problem with Leftism
Everyone complains about the Left, but no one does anything about it. Or so it would seem. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that many in the public have mistaken notions about what “the Left” is and how it operates, and thus they more or less mindlessly support it, or oppose it, as the case may be. Hence it is high time for a hard look at this nefarious political entity, in order to devise better and more appropriate responses to it.
Let’s start with conventional views. A constant theme of right-wing and conservative commentators is that the Left dominates America today. This holds true across nearly the entire spectrum of conservatism, from the dissident- and alt-Right to conventional Republicans, to Pat Buchanan, to Fox News, to the Wall Street Journal, to the pro-Trump crowd. In fact, it’s about the only thing they all agree on. The primary concern seems to focus on media and on politics, the latter via the Democrats and the Biden regime. Many would include academia, Hollywood, and the public schools as well. Furthermore, this is universally seen on the Right as a disaster—and it is a disaster, but for reasons other than they presume—as well as something that poses a fundamental threat to America, to the “American way of life,” and to our very health and well-being. The Left, apparently, is the root of all evil.
But what exactly is “the Left,” and why are they so evil? This is rarely explained, likely because it is a relatively complicated matter that requires more than the usual 10 seconds of thinking. Given the importance of the topic and the seriousness of the threat, however, we need to dive a bit more deeply into it.
To anticipate my main conclusion: I think “the Left” is largely misnamed and misconceived—it is a kind of diversionary concept invented to distract from the real power-brokers and the real conflicts at hand. “The Left” is actually a kind of fake Left, portrayed as opposing “the Right,” which is in reality a fake Right. The net effect is to create a false antagonism and to encourage the unthinking masses to pick sides, even as they ultimately support the same side in the end. Unsurprisingly, the Jewish Lobby plays a large role here, as I will show.
Real Leftism
I think many would be surprised to hear that real leftism is not what is commonly portrayed, and that it is actually (gasp!) not so bad. At the risk of being pedantic, let’s look at standard definitions of both “Left” and “liberal,” since these seem to nominally be at the heart of the problem. As I like to say, we need to know what we are talking about, if we hope to make any progress on these vital issues. Here, then, is a typical definition of “Left”:
Left n, cap a: those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established political order, and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. b: a radical (as distinct from conservative) position.
Thus stated, this is relatively benign. Anyone unhappy with an existing political administration will of necessity seek to reform or replace it, and thus we can all agree with this. However, it is surprising to see the Left defined as striving for increased freedom for the average individual, when today it is more common to decry the “liberty-loathing left.” It is true that those in power are working to diminish or restrict peoples’ freedoms—but this doesn’t make them leftists. In fact it makes them anti-leftists, at least on this definition. More problematically, we can have no doubt that “the Right” in anything like current forms, including neo-con and Judeo-Trumpian conservatism, would certainly (and in some cases did) institute their own forms of liberty restriction; hence ‘liberty-loathing’ is no hallmark of “the Left.”
As to the “radical” aspect, I would argue that this is largely in the eye of the beholder. To be a radical in this sense is simply to press for far-reaching and qualitative change, as opposed to “tinkering around the edges,” which can be considered a conservative approach. Clearly one can be a “radical right-winger” as much as one can be a “radical leftist,” and so part (b) does not offer much illumination.
What about “liberal,” or more generally, “liberalism”? Here’s what we might find:
liberalism n: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Again, we find woefully little to object to here. I think we all are in favor of “progress,” even though we may have different ideas about what exactly that means. What about “the essential goodness of man”? That’s a strange phrase. It is almost a religious idea, almost like saying we are all “children of God” or something. But that’s nonsense. I guess we can agree that most people, most of the time, are good; but still, there are bad, malevolent, and detestable people out there whom I would never declare to be “essentially good.” That phrase might have been better stated as a general optimism about human nature, perhaps. And I can agree to this. I am generally optimistic about humanity; it is primarily aberrant conditions that cause the worst in people to come out. In a mass technological society, “people” can seem incredibly dull, ignorant, and short-sighted, but this is more a consequence of social structure than anything else. Much more needs to be said on this, but I defer that to another time.
“Autonomy of the individual” and “protecting civil liberties” are again, perhaps, a surprise. But they should not be. Liberalism, like liberal, derives from the Latin liber (free). A liberal is, literally, a free thinker; a key part of the definition of ‘liberal’ is the idea of “one who is open-minded.” Who among us does not claim to be open-minded? Hence a true liberal is a free-thinking, autonomous, civil libertarian. But doesn’t that describe the vast majority of “the Right”? What are we to make of this?
We are beginning to see the nature of the problem. Many of us, based on these definitions, would be forced to call ourselves “leftists” and “liberals.” And yet, many would never do this, even on pain of death. Somehow, politics has either become detached from reality, or it has altered the basic meaning of words so much that we, collectively, and quite literally, do not know what we are talking about. Or perhaps a bit of both.
If nothing else, all this suggests that the stereotypical right-left distinction has become almost meaningless, likely as part of a deliberate strategy of obfuscation. Clearly a more precise analysis is called for.
The Structure of the Fake American Left
The Left as commonly portrayed—the fake Left—is in reality a two-tiered system, composed of a small number of ideological leaders and propagators, and a large mass of people who generally self-identify as “Democrats” or “liberals.” In America today, ‘Democrat’ and ‘Left’ are virtually coextensive; nearly all Democrats are leftists, and nearly all leftists are Democrats. The terms are almost interchangeable. But here, I will focus on ‘Left’ and ‘leftism’ since that terminology has a broader international meaning than the American-only party of Democrats.
More revealing is who these people are. The elite leftists today are almost exclusively either Jews (of political, corporate, or academic stripe) or Gentiles, mostly White, working for and on behalf of Jews. (Whether these Gentile lackeys are aware of their subservient status or not, and whether they care, are good questions that I can’t address here.) In other words, the elite Left are either Jews or people beholden to Jews. Either way, Jewish interests and Jewish issues predominate.
We know this because, firstly, so many of the Democratic elite are themselves Jews (Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, George Soros, Jerry Nadler, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Janet Yellen, Tony Blinken, Rochelle Walensky…) or have Jewish family members (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomo family). The pervasive Jewish presence in the Democratic Party is a fact never mentioned in the MSM, and rarely discussed even by their strongest right-wing opponents.[1] This should tell us something.
Secondly, we know that a large majority of Democratic campaign money comes from Jewish sources. Over the past few decades, reported percentages of Democratic totals range from “about half,”[2] to 50%,[3] to “as much as 60%,”[4] to “over 60%,”[5] to as much as 2/3,[6] to “70% of large contributions,”[7] to 80-90%.[8] A recent study, “The Jewish Vote 2020,” cites a number of relevant statistics, including these:
- In the 2016 cycle, all of the top seven biggest donors overall were Jews (p. 11).
- The top 10 donors in 2016 gave $406 million, of which $357 million—an amazing 88%—was from Jews (p. 14).
- Of the top 50 donors in 2016, 20 (40%) were Jews (p. 14).
- And it reconfirms that, today, Jews comprise roughly 50% of “big individual donors” to Democrats, and 25% of the same for Republicans (p. 11).
Late in 2020, in the run-up to the presidential election, it was reported that 15 of the top 25 donors (for both parties combined), or 60%, were Jews. Top Democratic donors were Steyer ($54 million), Don Sussman ($22 million), James Simons ($21 million), Michael Bloomberg ($19 million), Deborah Simon ($12 million), Henry Laufer ($12 million), Josh Bekenstein ($11 million), Stephen Mandel ($9 million), Soros ($8 million—although he funnels many other donations through various nonprofits), and Steve Ballmer ($8 million). These days, anything less than $10 million barely warrants mention.
So much for politics. What about leftist media? We know the main culprits: CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Unsurprisingly, Jews fill top spots at all these organizations or their parent companies. CNN’s president is Jeff Zucker, and is owned by Warner Media, with Jason Kilar as CEO. MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, with CEO Jeff Shell, and top execs Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, and Ron Meyer. The NYT has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1896; the current owner and publisher is Arthur Sulzberger. The Washington Post has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1933, with the possible exception of current owner Jeff Bezos (status unknown), who acquired it from the Jewish Graham family in 2013 (“at the suggestion of his friend, Don Graham”).[9] We could include various other media entities, such as NPR Radio; elsewhere (note 10) I have shown that its on-air staff is over half Jewish.
In support of political and media Jews are the leftist “Big Tech” Jews, who include the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Larry Page and Sergei Brin (Google), Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube), Steve Ballmer, Andy Jassy (Amazon), Marc Benioff, and Michael Dell (Dell computers). Thus, between money, power, media, and technology, the leftist elite—Jews and their sycophants—have a near monopoly on discourse in America and much of the West.
What about the base of the fake Left? This is a large group of individuals, mostly White, who have been deluded as to the true nature of that ideology. We can get a rough idea of numbers by considering the fact that Biden received about 80 million votes, of which some 72% were Whites; thus, there are about 55 million Whites who presumably identify with or favor the leftist Democrats. To this number we can add the 15 million Blacks and 10 million Latinos who also voted for Biden. The leftist base is thus about 80 million people. This is a large number, though not overwhelming in a nation of 330 million.
By contrast, Trump earned about 50 million White votes; another 50 million or so Whites did not vote. Hence, in rough terms, the (fake) Left has a grip on only about one-third of Whites; two-thirds elude their grasp. This is a good sign—perhaps the best news among a raft of bad omens. Something like 100 million Whites are either opposed, or potentially opposed, to leftist ideology. There is much to build on here.
In sum, the nominal Left is a fake Left, adhering to virtually nothing of the meaning of a true leftism. Rather, it is influenced and run, directly and indirectly, by wealthy and influential Jews. This fake Left is a Jewish Left, ideologically speaking, and it operates largely by and for Jewish interests. Likewise with liberalism, which today is a fake liberalism: an ideology that is fully aligned with Jewish interests. In fact, the marriage of convenience between Jews and liberalism has long been known. Consider this revealing passage:
Throughout the nineteenth century and later, the fate of the Jews would be linked inextricably with that of liberalism itself. Their loyalty to liberalism would be intense and abiding, nurtured on gratitude for rights received and determination to establish a permanent place for the Jews in the modern European world. Liberals, although scarcely ecstatic over persistent Jewish religious and social particularism, would reciprocate with toleration and increasing measures of equality before the law. Both parties, but especially the Jews, would be acutely aware that Jewish emancipation stood or fell with the fortunes of liberalism.[10]
For well over a century, a majority of Jews have allied themselves with liberalism and leftism solely because it served their interests—the welfare of native populations be damned. In a sense, they hijacked an otherwise virtuous ideology and perverted it to their own benefit.
The Real Right
Now that we have done some preliminary analysis of the Left, let’s turn to the Right. In a popular sense, the Right has some stereotypical characterizations. We know the catchphrases: “Guns, God, and country”; “Don’t tread on me”; “Liberty or death”; and various takes on the notion of freedom. Again, these are constant themes across the conservative spectrum.
But how do these conventional ideas match up with the formal notion of “the Right”? Earlier I cited standard definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘liberal,’ and to be fair, I need to do the same for their nominal counterparts, ‘Right’ and ‘conservatism’. Here they are:
Right n, cap (1) individuals favoring traditional attitudes and practices, and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order. (2) a group or party that favors conservative, traditional, or sometimes authoritarian attitudes and policies.
conservatism n: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
As before, there are some surprises—mostly in what is not here. On the one hand, we find an emphasis on tradition and stability, gradual change (“reform”), and potentially anti-democratic policy, if this is how we may interpret ‘forced authoritarianism’ in this context. On the other, we notice what is missing: God, religion, rights, liberty, freedom. Nothing on “small government.” Even terms like ‘nation’ and ‘country’ are absent. What are we to make of this?
It would seem that, as with the Left, that the Right has also been distorted from its formal and definitional meaning into a kind of caricature. The current obsession with religion, freedom, patriotism, and formal democracy have been introduced by those who would like to divert people away from the true ruling entities in the US—Jewish money and power, Judeophilic lackeys, the ultra-rich, and a techno-industrial system that is spinning out of control—in order to confuse and distract the masses.
A true Right, composed of true conservatives, would do the following:
- They would be less concerned about formal, representative democracy and more about the integrity of society, human welfare, and long-term sustainability of their own people. If this demands the use of “undemocratic” policies, so be it.
- They would actively oppose any corrupt and malevolent minority from attacking the basis of society and from seeking to exploit it for their personal gain.
- They would strive for social homogeneity, both racially and ethnically, knowing that multicultural and multiracial societies are inevitably prone to conflict, disruption, instability, and ultimately decay.
- They would oppose an advancing high-tech society, knowing that potent and uncontrollable technologies not only empower our social overlords but also destroy traditional society, damage human health, and promote the destruction of the natural world upon which all real stability is grounded.
- They would support the disintegration of large, unstable political systems like modern America and encourage the devolution and decentralization of political power; large complex societies have, of necessity, more laws, more constraints, and less freedom. They are also more easily manipulated by unscrupulous minorities.
Incidentally, one troubling fact of the January 6 “insurrection” is that most of the people there were pro-America and pro-democracy (or so it is claimed). But true conservatives would not hold these views. True conservatives realize that “America,” in both practice and theory, is anti-conservative and unsustainable. America needs to be replaced with something else—something new, something different, something that will protect and defend the social well-being of the American majority and the ecological basis for it.[11] Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have had any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics. Most of those people, I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right”—a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.
The True Problems with “the Left”
Returning to the main theme, the fake Left is a heavily Jewish enterprise. But most people, Left and Right, don’t know this or don’t acknowledge it, and they therefore don’t object to that fact. When those on the Right object to the Left, it is usually to more concrete (but secondary) issues. We can make a short list: leftists are for “big government”; they support “open borders”; they want to take our guns; they stifle our freedom of speech (or freedom generally); they are authoritarian; they conduct “cancel culture”; they demonize Whites; they are anti-Christian; they tyrannize the public, as via their over-hyped Covid panic; they “tax and spend.” Maybe even “they hate America” (if we listen to Tucker Carlson). Doubtless we could add more, but I think this covers the main concerns for most on the Right.
I cannot argue with these points; I think all of them are basically true. But there are deeper factors at work that help to explain this collective phenomenon, which is why we need to press a bit harder to really understand the process at work here.
When I consider the many objectionable features of what is called the Left, I compile a different sort of list. For what it’s worth, I find it to have the following negative qualities:
A desire to impose their beliefs and values on others. This is the “controlling,” “authoritarian,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect. Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system. They are the antithesis of “live and let live.” They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions. They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, and so they suppress it.[12]
They are blind to the realities of race, biology, and genetics. For the Left, most all of human nature is a “social construction”—something pliable and malleable, something that can be defined and redefined almost at will. Humans are merely a plastic biology; the many races are rather like different colors of Playdough, all equally moldable into new shapes and forms. This results in an over-inclusive and naïve egalitarianism.
But this is not reality. The fact is that there are profound and unalterable differences between human beings, both between and within races. These are manifest in physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and cultural ways. They are rooted in genetics, and cannot be wished away. But leftists have deeply imbibed the fallacy of human equality. Many are also functional relativists who cannot bear to make value distinctions. (I should note here the difference between the leftist elite, who espouse views that they don’t really believe, and the naïve leftist masses, who generally do seem to believe them.) As a result, leftists say incredibly stupid things and make incredibly stupid policy proposals.
No concept of a noble humanity. When one swallows the myth of human equality, one condemns the human race to a miserable mediocrity. If all are equal, then none are better, and in fact no one can be better. Equality denies the existence of superior individuals, who are the very ones that drive society forward. When such superior individuals do appear—as they inevitably do—they are suppressed, censored, attacked, perhaps jailed, perhaps killed. Superior individuals put the lie to the myth of equality, which is one reason why they are so dangerous to the Left. Because leftists have repudiated the whole concept of a noble humanity, they represent a profound threat to human well-being. They effectively destroy the future of our race.
A pathology of pity. Leftists are pity-mongers in the extreme. They wallow in pity. They praise pity. And they sell pity.[13] Great individuals and great societies do not wallow in pity. They accept pain, hardship, and loss, and then they move on. They give a fair respect to all of humanity, but they don’t elevate the lesser or the weak. They don’t allow the lesser to dominate or even to consume inordinate time or resources. The lesser of one’s own race are cared for, quietly, and the lesser of other races are excluded. Such an approach can seem harsh, but such is life.
Dangerous and possibly fatal naiveté. By accepting false but comforting myths, by failing to address the real threats to society, by adopting a de facto philo-Semitism, and by wallowing in an over-socialized and misdirected form of pity, leftists dodge the hard reality of the modern world. In doing so, they doom society to inevitable suffering and decay. Life is hard, evolution can be brutal, and choices are painful. Leftists, though, prefer the easy way out; they seek to avoid all conflict and confrontation, and are happy to surrender control of their lives to, for example, a Jewish elite who would like nothing more than to use them, exploit them, and utterly crush them in the end.
Only by addressing these deeper failings of the Left can we get to the root of the problem.
Where Is the Opposition?
As I mentioned above, all sectors of the Right oppose leftism, but most are half-hearted—or worse. Let’s take a specific example. Perhaps the most visible and vocal critic of the Left is Tucker Carlson of Fox News. In my essay Dissecting Tucker Carlson, I have critiqued his modus operandi, but here I want to emphasize his deeper alignment with the Left.
Let’s compare Carlson’s worldview to that of the typical leftist. (A) The leftist, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. The leftist never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, the leftist maintains his status and material well-being.
(B) Tucker Carlson, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. Carlson never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, Carlson maintains his status and material well-being.
I trust that we can see the similarities here.[14] And yet Carlson is supposedly an exemplary member of “the Right.” Sadly, he is not alone; the above description applies to a large majority of the nominal Right. This is precisely why the alleged Right is a fake Right, and why so many populist conservatives are fake conservatives.
If Carlson and others were true right-wingers, and true conservatives, they would display the characteristics I cited above. They would be openly and explicitly anti-minority, anti-egalitarian, explicitly “racist” (or “racialist”), anti-Semitic, pro-environment, anti-technology (and not just anti-Big Tech), and perhaps even anti-democratic. They might be anti-capitalist, knowing the disruption caused by unrestrained free-market capitalism. God forbid, they might even be a little socialist! They would be not so much patriotic—which implies a kind of naïve acceptance of the ruling class and the existing political order—but rather truly nationalist, in the sense of defending the interests one’s own race and ethnicity, which is, after all, the true basis of a “nation.”[15]
Where, then, are the true conservatives? Where lies the true Right? It is almost impossible to find, even in the big wide world of the Internet. Thank God for organizations like The Occidental Observer, The Unz Review, and National Vanguard, who are willing to call a spade a spade. Thank God for individuals like Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Anglin, William White Williams and David Duke, who are willing to speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question. Thank God for the small circle of leading Holocaust revisionists, who work relentlessly to undermine the keystone of Jewish mendacity.[16] Without such individuals, we would be lost. With them, we have hope.
The Way Forward
In sum, the popular Left-Right divide in American politics is a fake dichotomy, constructed by and serving the interests of a Jewish elite and their well-paid Gentile lackeys. When people focus all their attention and energy on this contrived distinction, they are distracted from, and thus overlook, the true and deeper causes of social crisis in this country. The fake Right and the fake Left both serve their Jewish masters. Only by moving beyond this superficial divide can we get to the root of things.
There are positive aspects of both real leftism and real conservatism. We should indeed be open-minded, free-thinking, non-dogmatic, and progress-oriented. We should indeed defend individual autonomy, and political and civil liberty, while promoting the better instincts of humanity. At the same time, we should be truly nationalist: that is, defending the integrity and well-being of White Americans. We should work toward a relatively homogenous, monocultural, mono-ethnic nation, which is the only type of nation proven to be stable and sustainable. We should be ardent environmentalists, preserving wild nature, expanding wilderness, and protecting indigenous species; without this, we cannot hope for a flourishing society. We should put sharp limits on free-marketeers, finance capitalists, and financial speculators; if this means moving toward a limited socialism, so be it.
Above all, we should end the constant clamor over the bogus Left-Right confrontation, and focus on what really matters: subverting the dominant Judeocracy, creating a manageable and ethnically-uniform nation (or nations), and getting down to the hard work of restoring a sane society. I fear that we haven’t much time to spare.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!. All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com. For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
[1] It will be a cold day in hell before Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity ever speak explicitly about the Jews on the Left.
[2] Jewish Power, by J. J. Goldberg (1996), p. 277.
[3] Jerusalem Post (27 Sep 2016).
[4] Washington Post (13 Mar 2003), p. A1.
[5] Jewish Power in America, by B. Feingold (2008), p. 4.
[6] Jewish Telegraphic Agency (7 Jun 2011).
[7] The Hill (30 Mar 2004), p. 1.
[8] Passionate Attachment, by Ball and Ball (1992), p. 218.
[9] This fact alone is damning; I know of no instance in which Jews have sold a major media company to a non-Jew. And the fact that Bezos turned over operations of Amazon to another Jew, Andy Jassy, is a further indication.
[10] The Jews in Weimar Germany, by Don Niewyk (1980), p. 1.
[11] More needs to be said on this, which I will address in a subsequent essay.
[12] Again, the Left has no monopoly on this issue. The Right can be just as imposing.
[13] One need only watch any episode of popular television shows, especially so-called reality TV. Shows like “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” are endless parades of sob stories. Crying contestants are de rigueur.
[14] There are, of course, differences: Carlson is anti-immigration, pro-Christian, Covid-skeptical, and withering in his critique of the Biden regime. But the similarities are more significant and more consequential than the differences.
[15] ‘Nation’ comes from Latin natus or natio, that is, those who are “born together,” or of similar birth.
[16] Among whom I would include Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jürgen Graf. Any discussion of Holocaust revisionism that does not mention these men is not worth its salt.
I prefer to cut to the chase. ‘The Left,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive,’ ‘Jew’ and related terms do not usually appear on ballots. ‘Democrat’ does. In our communications with others, we should always remind them who Democrats are and their the contents of their agenda.
Great article by Thomas Dalton. I like his analysis and deconstruction of American politics. He gives us many useful facts and ideas.
Sample quote: “Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have had any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics. Most of those people, I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right”—a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.” – exactly correct.
JEWRY IS THE MOTHER OF MARXISM
“Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism.”
~ Jewish Voice, July ~ August 1941.
COMMUNISM AND CENTRAL BANKING
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the largest banks? Ho-ho! The Communism of Marx seeks an enormous centralization of the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which profiteers from the labour of others, will always find a way to prevail. In reality, for the proletariat, this would be a barrack regime, under which the working men and the working women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of the drum.” ~ Bakunin (1814-1876)
Marxism, to which all branches of Socialism necessarily adhere, was originated by Jew Karl Marx, himself of rabbinical descent and has been dominated by them from the beginning. Marx did not actually originate anything; he merely “streamlined” Talmudism for Gentile consumption.
This list suggests there was nothing ‘Russian’ about the ‘Russian Revolution’, yet this fact is mostly obscured by contemporary historians.
1. “Some call it Marxism, I call it Judaism.” – Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, in the American Bulletin of May 15, 1935.
2. “The revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution” – The Maccabean (New York), Nov. 1905, p, 250.
3. “Jewry is the mother of Marxism.” – Le Droit de Vivre, May 12, 1936.“Judaism is Marxism, communism” – Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 64.
4. “The communist soul is the soul of Judaism.” – Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 143.
5. “We Jews cannot be called upon to denounce Communism.” -The American Hebrew (New York), February 3, 1939, p. 11“The picture which the Soviet Union presents today is one that should bring rejoicing to world Jewry.” – The Youngstown Jewish Times, Sept. 18, 1936, page 51.
6. “It would be absurd to deny the intensity of the Jewish participation in the Russian revolutionary movement.” – Leon Dennen, in The Menorah Journal (New York) July-September 1932, p. 106.
7. “That achievement – the Russian-Jewish revolution – destined to figure in history as the overshadowing result of World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct.” – The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920.
8. “The Bolshevik Government of Russia is the key-stone of the arch of the proof of the Jewish conspiracy for radicalism and world-domination.” – William Hard, The Great Jewish Conspiracy (New York: American Jewish Book Company, 1920), p. 31.
9. “The Jewish elements provide the driving forces for communism” – Dr. Oscar Levy, in George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution (Oxford, 1920), p. ix.
10. “The Jews have been furnishing for the Bolsheviks the majority of their leaders” – The Jewish World (London), April 16, 1919, p. 11.
11. “Russian Jews have taken a prominent part in the Bolshevist movement” – The American Hebrew (New York), November 18, 1927, p. 20.
12. “Jewry has come to wield a considerable power in the Communist Party.” – Dr. Avrahm Yarmolinsky, in The Menorah Journal (New York), July 1928, p. 37.
13. “The East-Side Jew [Trotsky] that Conquered Europe” – The Liberator (New York), March 1920, pp. 26-27.
14. “The real East Sider [New York Jew Trotsky] is at the head of things in Russia.” – M. L. Larkin, in The Public (New York), November 23, 1918, p. 1433.
15. “It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this is in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews.” – Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 148
16. “Karl Marx, who came from an old family of rabbis and brilliant Talmudic scholars, was to point the path of victory for the proletariat.” – L. Rennap, Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question (London, 1942), p. 31.
17. “Among his [Karl Marx’s] ancestors were Rabbis and Talmudists, men of learning and keen intellect.” – Henry Wickham Steed, in The American Hebrew (New York), December 9, 1927, p. 206 “The peculiarly Jewish logic of his [Karl Marx’s] mind” – Henry Wickham Steed, in The American Hebrew (New York), December 9, 1927, p. 206.
18. “Mr. Wickham Steed lays the rise of Bolshevism at the doors of Jewry.” – The Jewish Guardian (London), November 28, 1924, p. 4.“The Bolshevik Revolution has emancipated the Jews as individuals” – Dr. Avrahm Yarmolinsky, in The Menorah Journal (New York), July 1928, p. 33.
19. “There are many Bolshevik leaders of Jewish extraction” – D. L. Sandelsan, in The Jewish Chronicle (London), February 20, 1920, p. 22.
20. “There is no Jew who does not hope with all his heart that the Soviet Union will survive and be victorious” – Zionist Review (London: Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland), September 26, 1941, p. 7.
21. “Communism and internationalism are in truth and in fact great virtues. Judaism may be justly proud of these virtues” – Harry Watan, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), p. 80.
22. “If the tide of history does not turn toward Communist internationalism … then the Jewish race is doomed.” – George Marlen, Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin (New York, 1937), p. 414 “The [Jewish] Commissaries were formerly political exiles. They had been dreaming of revolution for years in their exile in Paris, in London, in New York, in Berlin, everywhere and anywhere. They saw in the Bolshevist Movement an opportunity of realizing the extreme ideas of Communism and internationalism to which their fate had compelled them.” – Dr. D. S. Pazmanik, in The Jewish Chronicle (London), September 5, 1919, p. 14.
23. “The Jewish people will never forget that the Soviet Union was the first country – and as yet the only country in the world – in which anti-Semitism is a crime.” – Jewish Voice (New York: National Council of Jewish Communists), January 1942, p. 16.
24. “Anti-Semitism was classed [by the Soviet Government] as counter-revolution and the severe punishments meted out for acts of anti-Semitism were the means by which the existing order protected its own safety” – The Congress Bulletin, (New York: American Jewish Congress), January 5, 1940, p. 2.
25. “There is no official anti-Semitism in Russia; anti-Semitism in Russia is a crime against the State.” – Dr. Chalm Weizmann, The Jewish People and Palestine (London: Zionist Organization, 1939), p. 7.
26. “Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism.” – Jewish Voice (New York: National Council of Jewish Communists), July-August 1941, p. 23.“The part which Jews play in the [Communist] Government of the country [Russia] does not appear to be declining” – Harry Sacher, in The Jewish Review (London), June-August 1932, p. 43.
27. “The Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. This is the historic destiny of the Jews” – Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites (New York Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1939), pp. 99-100.
28. “We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do, will meet our needs and demands. We will destroy because we need a world of our own.” – Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, page 155.
29. “The Russian intelligentsia . . . saw in the philosophy of Judaism the germs of Bolshevism – the struggle of … Judaism versus Christianity.” – Leon Dennen, in The Menorah Journal (New York, July-September 1932, p. 105.
30. “Soviet Russia has declared war on Christianity, and on those who profess this faith. In the Russian villages today Bolsheviks and Herbert H. Lehman . . . were called the ‘secret government of the United States’ and were linked with ‘world communism.’” – Dr. Louis Harap, in Jewish Life (New York), June 1951, p. 20.
“Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism.”
Jewish Voice (New York: National Council of Jewish Communists), July-August 1941, p. 23
STALIN AND ANTISEMITISM
J. Stalin
January 12, 1931
Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States
In answer to your inquiry:
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.
In the U.S.S.R. anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty. [*]
J. Stalin
January 12, 1931
First published in the newspaper Pravda, No. 329, November 30, 1936
SOURCE:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm
STALIN’S JEWS
We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
Sever Plocker|Published: 12.21.06 , 23:35
Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.
Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.
We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.
Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.
In his new, highly praised book “The War of the World, “Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University’s Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.
Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined “terror officials,” cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.
All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union’s archives have not yet been fully opened
to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD’s and KGB’s service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of “How could it have happened to us?” As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.
And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.
LIST OF JEWS IN SOVIET RUSSIA
The Bolsheviks Of Russia
Most of the top Bolshevik officials in communist Russia from 1917-onward were Jewish by race/ethnicity. The few non-Jewish officials in the list below are specifically noted as being not Jewish. [Note on name spellings: Russian names are spelled differently depending upon the source, e.g., Yoffe is also spelled Ioffe and sometimes Joffe; Grigory is sometimes Grigori or even Grigorii].
It should be noted that most of the Bolshevik leaders who were not Jewish nonetheless had Jewish wives, e.g. Bukharin, Rykov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, Dzherzhinsky, Lunacharsky, so there children were Jewish. As such, the Jewish taproot that ran through Soviet government from 1917-onward is larger than many people realize. Also, the term ‘Bolshevik’ is used rather loosely here.
1.Vladimir I. Lenin [1870-1924]: first Premier of the USSR; Marxist theoretician; a lawyer; founder of the Bolsheviks [1903]; supreme dictator of early Bolshevik regime; founder of the Comintern; author of the Marxist handbook “State and Revolution”; Lenin was one-quarter Jewish, and is rumored to have been married to a crypto-Jew, however, evidence of that seems lacking.
Monday, Jun. 13, 2011
Vladimir Lenin Was Part Jewish, Say Declassified KGB Files
By Emmanuel Grynszpan
(MOSCOW) — A recently opened exhibition in Moscow’s State Historical Museum is shedding some light on a long-guarded Russian secret: the origins of Soviet founding father Vladimir Lenin. Lenin’s maternal grandfather, the exhibition revealed, was born Jewish.
This fascinating morsel of information, gleaned from declassified KGB files, is not a minor detail in a country where anti-Semitism was a recognized state doctrine for decades. Starting in the 1930s, the Soviet regime —spurred on by its leader Joseph Stalin — launched a violent discriminatory campaign against Jewish citizens.
Born in 1870, Lenin identified himself simply as Russian. His official biography mentions only his Russian, German and Swedish origins. But one of the exhibition’s priceless pieces adds a key new element to the official narrative.
In a letter to Stalin in 1932 — six years after Lenin’s death — Anna Ulyanova, Lenin’s older sister, wrote that their maternal grandfather “came from a poor Jewish family and was, according to his baptismal certificate, the son of Moses Blank.” Blank was born in Zhitomir, Ukraine.
In her letter, Ulyanova said her brother “had always thought highly of Jews.” She also urged Stalin to reveal Lenin’s Jewish background, concluding that “it would be wrong to hide it from the masses.”
Stalin, however, ordered Ulyanova to keep Lenin’s Jewish roots under wraps. A few years later, Stalin began to purge Jews from among the leaders of the revolution. Prior to his death in 1953, furthermore, he was preparing to send the whole Jewish population living in the Soviet Union to concentration camps in Siberia.
Most provincial Russian towns have a main road named Lenin Street. You can usually find shops selling luxury goods and banking centers there. They tend to contain all the flashiest symbols of the country’s now capitalist society.
In the middle of virtually every central square, including in Belarus and in Ukraine, there is a high-rise statue of Lenin looking down on the rowdy shopkeepers. The Lenin paradox even goes further. Lenin is revered by Russia’s radical fringe — people who feel nostalgic for the Soviet regime in general and for anti-Semitic Stalinism in particular.
The cult of Lenin has its physical focal point in Moscow’s Red Square, where Lenin’s mummified body is on permanent display in a mausoleum. In the past, Soviet citizens were expected to carry out pilgrimages to the Communist leader’s resting place.
Lenin’s legacy is the subject of debate. Some Russian Communists want Lenin’s cult to endure forever. But there are Russian Orthodox Christians who loathe Lenin because he destroyed Tsarism and because he turned atheism into a cornerstone of the official ideology. The latter, like many ordinary Russian people, want the man to be buried — with or without the honors reserved for a statesman.
Russians who began their working lives after the fall of the communist system often see things in the same ambivalent way. “Soviet children almost regarded Grandfather Lenin as Santa Claus,” says Daria Beliaeva, a 30-year-old financial analyst who looks back at the Soviet era with nostalgia. “But later, I heard that the Germans sent him to Russia in an armored train to trigger the Russian revolution. I also heard that he ordered the destruction of about 100 churches,” the practicing Orthodox adds disapprovingly.
Daria wasn’t particularly moved one way or the other when she heard the Soviet idol had Jewish roots. “He had elements of good and evil in him. He put his mark on Russian history. Now, he needs to be buried.”
Political expert Boris Kagarlitski, a former dissident and proud Leninist, says:
“the Russian authorities are using the debate about Lenin’s Jewish background and about his burial as a pretext for taking people’s minds off the real problems and issues facing our society.”
Even if latent anti-Semitism does not play an active role in contemporary Russian politics, the Lenin exhibition could end up cutting into the famed revolutionary’s enduring popularity. It might also persuade authorities to once and for all put his embalmed body to rest.
2. Joseph Stalin [1879-1953]: an early Bolshevik; supreme dictator of Soviet Union from 1927-1953. After V. Lenin’s death, and prior to 1927, the Bolshevik regime was run by a triumvirate composed of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin. Stalin was the editor of the Bolshevik newspaper, Pravda [“Truth”]. Stalin was married to a Jewess, i.e. his third marriage, which apparently wasn’t officially formalized. Stalin was not a vigorous supporter of forcing Communism upon other countries — unlike Trotsky — a feature which likely prevented a Soviet assault upon various Western countries. [Not Jewish].
3. Leon Trotsky [t/n Bronstein] [1879-1940]: Trotsky was a Menshevik; was Commissar of Foreign Affairs; supreme commander of the Soviet Red Army; member of Politburo; he rebelled against Stalin and his supporters and was murdered by Stalin for that reason. Trotsky strongly advocated the idea of global — not simply local — Marxist revolution.
4. Lazar M. Kaganovich [1893-1991]: a prime director of mass-murder for Stalin; held a series of vocations, including commissar of transport, heavy industry and the fuel industry; a Politburo member; he was Stalin’s brother-in-law and also his chief advisor; many execution orders bore Kaganovich’s signature [1], evidence that he had the power to order the deaths of civilians [2]. During the 1930s, he was in charge of the deportations of “enemies of the state” to Siberia; was nicknamed the “Wolf of the Kremlin” because of his penchant for violence. He was considered by many to be the most powerful and important man under Stalin. Died of old age in Moscow.
5. Grigory Zinoviev [aka Apfelbaum; aka Radomyslsky] [1883-1936]: great pal of Lenin; member of the Central Committee; chairman of the Comintern; member of Politburo; executive of secret police; first president of the Third International; A. Lunacharsky called him “one of the principal counsellors of our Central Committee and [he] belongs unquestionably to the four or five men who constitute the political brain of the Party.”
6. Grigori Y. Sokolnikov [1888-1939]:a Bolshevik; friend of Trotsky; Commissar of Finance; a diplomat; member of the “Left Opposition”; Soviet ambassador to England; creator of the “chervonetz,” the first stable Soviet currency; was part of “Russian” delegation that signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1918; member of the Central Committee and Politburo.
7. Moisei Uritsky [1873-1918]: Uritsky was a Menshevik; chief of the Petrograd Cheka, in which capacity he ordered many people who opposed Communism to be executed as “counter-revolutionaries”; Commissar for Internal Affairs in the Northern Region; the commissar of the Constituent Assembly; member of the Central Committee; a member of the “Revolutionary Military Center.”
8. Felix Dzherzhinsky [1877-1926]: a Pole; a high-strung fanatic; founder/director of the Cheka [All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage], which was later renamed the State Political Directorate [GPU], which later became the OGPU and then the NKVD [Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs]; member, Central Committee; Commissar of Transport. [Not Jewish but philosemitic and married to a Jew].
9. Maxim Litvinov [aka Wallakh] [1876-1951]: Soviet foreign minister/diplomat/ambassador; in 1933, he persuaded the United States to recognize the Communist Soviet government as “legit” — thanks, in part, to America’s president F. D. Roosevelt being part-Jewish; first chairman, State Committee on the Anthem [official musical anthems].
10. Lavrenti Beria [1899-1953]: member of the Cheka; later became head of the Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs [NKVD] in Georgia, then later the NKVD proper. Beria had large numbers of prisoners executed [3]; was involved in the Atomic Bomb project in the USSR; [Beria was roughly 1/4 Jewish from his mother’s ancestry].
11. Yakov [Jacob] Sverdlov [aka Solomon] [1885-1919]: member, “Revolutionary Military Center”; member, Central Committee; close buddy of Lenin; aided Lenin with Lenin’s political theories; Sverdlov ordered the massacre of the Czar’s family in 1918. Sverdlov succeeded Kamenev and became the second Jewish president of the so-called “Soviet Republic.”
12. Sergei M. Kirov [1886-1934]; early Bolshevik; member of the Politburo; Secretary of the Central Committee; Communist Party boss in Leningrad. Stalin used Kirov’s murder in 1934 to justify the party purges and treason trials of the late 1930s. [Apparently not Jewish but married to a Jew].
13. Nikolai V. Krylenko [1885-1938]: an early Bolshevik; member of editorial board of Pravda; member of the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet; famous chess player; member of the Communist Party Central Committee; a military commissar; as President of the Supreme Tribunal he prosecuted most political trials in the 1920s; in 1931, Stalin appointed Krylenko Commissar of Justice; he was involved in the convictions of many Communist Party members during the Great Purges. [Not Jewish].
14. Karl Radek [aka Sobelsohn] [1885-1939]; early revolutionary; old confidante of Lenin; member of the Central Committee; an “international” Communist activist; a key player in the creation of the Comintern; a writer for the Soviet government newspaper Izvestia; participated in the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations with Germany; he also was active in Germany, working with Jewish-German Communist Rosa Luxemburg.
15. Viacheslav I. Molotov [1890-1986]: early Bolshevik; helped found Pravda newspaper; head of the Ukrainian Communist Party; member of the Politburo; Commissar for Foreign Affairs; headed a Politburo commission to “eliminate the kulaks as a class.” [Apparently not Jewish but philosemitic; his wife was Jewish, named Zhemchuzina].
16. Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko [1884-1939]: a former Menshevik; Chief of Political Administration of the Red Army; an unofficial ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Poland; Commissar for Military Affairs in Petrograd; Commissar of War; led the Red Army invasion of the Ukraine; led the attack on the Winter Palace; editor of the Menshevik “Nashe Slovo” newspaper.
17. Yakov [Jacob] Yurovsky [y/b/d unknown]: head of Ekaterinburg Cheka; “Commissar of Justice” for Ural Regional Soviet; the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murders of Czar Nicholas II and his family in 1918. The murder of mild-mannered Nicholas was carried out almost completely by Jews, including Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, in addition to Yurovsky.
18. Grigory Sergo Ordzhonikidze [1886-1937]; member of the Politburo; Commissar for Heavy Industry; helped solidify Bolshevik power in Armenia and Georgia; Chairman of the Caucasus Central Committee of the Communist Party; First Secretary of the Transcaucasian Communist Party Committee; Chairman of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party; became Stalin’s top economic official. [Apparently not Jewish].
19. Genrikh [Henry] Yagoda [1891-1938]; a Polish Jew; former Cheka member; an officer in SMERSH, the Ninth Division of the OGPU, its liquidation arm; People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs; chief of the NKVD; also in charge of gulag forced-labor camps. Developing fast-acting poisons was a Yagoda hobby; he created a laboratory for that purpose.
20. Lev Kamenev [aka Rosenfeld] [1883-1936]; member of the Central Committee; Chairman of the Moscow Soviet; member of Politburo; author of Marxist handbook “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” 1920; was elected first President of new Bolshevik government, aka “Soviet Republic” [Lenin was Premier]; was married to Trotsky’s sister.
21. Anatoly V. Lunacharsky [1875-1933]; an early Marxist; Commissar for Education and Enlightenment; League of Nations ambassador; key player in persuading Russian workers to support the Bolshevik Revolution; was an author – wrote the “Revolutionary Silhouettes” of top Bolshevik pals; [Apparently not Jewish but married to a Jew].
22. Fedor [Theodore] Dan [1871-1947]: was a Menshevik; was a member of the editorial board of the Menshevik journal “Iskra”; was author of the book “The Origins of Bolshevism” [1943], where he claimed that Bolshevism had been chosen by history to be “the carrier of socialism”; but he was actually an opponent of most Bolshevik ideas; he was sent into exile in 1921 after being arrested; he was married to Menshevik leader Julius Martov’s sister.
23. Nikolai Bukharin [1888-1938]: Lenin’s chief Marxist theorist; general secretary/chairman of the Comintern; member of the Politburo; member, Central Committee; he was editor of Pravda and also Izvestia, a political newspaper; led, with Rykov, the “Right Opposition” to defend the NEP [New Economic Policy]; [Apparently not Jewish yet married to a Jew].
24. Nikolai Yezhov [1895-1939]: early Bolshevik; served in various capacities in the Cheka, GPU, and OGPU; was military commissar in various Red Army units; was G. Yagoda’s deputy; People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs; head of NKVD; was deputy People’s Commissar of Agriculture for the USSR.
25. Mikhail I. Kalinin [1875-1946]; early Bolshevik; cofounder of the newspaper Pravda; nominal, “puppet” president of Soviet Union until 1946; replaced Sverdlov as Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party; Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.
26. Isaac Steinberg [y/b/d unknown]; Commissar of Justice. Later brought Jewish-flavored radicalism to Australia.
27. Alexei Rykov [1881-1938]; Premier of Soviet Union until 1930; member of Lenin’s Politburo; Commissar of the Interior; Chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy; Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars; led the “Right Opposition” with Bukharin to defend the NEP [New Economic Policy]. [not Jewish, but married to a Jew].
28. Matvei D. Berman [y/b/d unknown]: chief of gulag system and Deputy Commissar of the NKVD; brother of Boris.
29. Naftaly Frenkel [y/b/d unknown]: a director of the gulag prison camp system; Turkish-born; was works chief/chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor [White Sea-Baltic] canal project in Russia, a canal linking the White Sea and the Baltic, built from 1931–34; it was created entirely with slave labor; 60,000 workers died building the canal, the project having a mortality rate of roughly 10%.
30. Adolph Yoffe [aka Ioffe] [1883-1927]: Commissar of Foreign Affairs; ex-Menshevik; close friend of Trotsky’s; helped publish the Pravda newspaper; delegate at the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations; member of the State General Planning Commission; was later Soviet ambassador to China, Japan and Austria.
31. Lev Inzhir [y/b/d/ unknown]: chief accountant for the gulag prison system.
32. Boris Berman [ -1938]: served as the Byelorussian NKVD’s Commissar until 1938; brother of Matvei.
33. K. V. Pauker [y/b/d unknown]: head of the Operations Department of the NKVD.
34. Aleksandr Orlov [aka L. Feldbin] [1898-1970]: member of the Cheka; advisor to Spanish Communists in Spain; commander, Soviet Red Army; later worked at the Law School of the University of Michigan in America [!].
35. Ilya Ehrenburg [1891-1967]: Soviet propaganda minister during WWII; delegate for Moscow in the Supreme Soviet; Communist writer; organizing member of JAC [Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee]; worked for Izvestia newspaper; performed research regarding Spain for the NKVD; author of book “The Ninth Wave,” and winner of two Stalin Prizes.
36. Yemelyan Yaroslavsky [t/n M. I. Gubelman]; [birth/death dates unknown]; head of the Central Control Commission; apparently was in charge of stopping the Christian religion in Russia.
37. Pavel [aka Paul] Axelrod [1850-1928]; co-founded Russia’s first socialist party with Georgii Plekhanov.
38. A. B. Khalatov [ ]; Commissar of publishing, head of food allocations in the Soviet Union.
39. Yona Yakir [ -1937]; Soviet military general; a commander in Kiev; purged by Stalin.
40. A. A. Slutsky [ ]; boss of Boris Berman [see above].
41. Semyon [aka S.G.] Firin [ ]; a commander at the White Sea-Baltic canal project.
42. Jacob [aka Yakov] Rappoport [ ]; a Latvian Jew; deputy commander at the White Sea-Baltic canal project.
43. V. Volodarsky [t/n M. M. Goldstein] [1891-1918] ; a Bolshevik; press commissar in Petrograd; Ukranian; lived in America for some time; assassinated.
44. G. D. Sachs [1882- ]; a Bolshevik; a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee which directed the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.
45. Dziga Vertov [t/n Denis or Dennis Kaufman] [1896- ]; involved in Soviet propaganda programs involving film/movies.
46. Mikhail Koltsov [ ]; a top Communist journalist in Russia.
47. Jaan Anvelt [1884 – 1937]; head of the Estonia government controlled by Moscow.
48. Martyn Latsis [ ]; top Cheka official; author of an early book about the Cheka.
49. I. A. Teodorovich [ ]; Commissar of Provisions.
50. Simon [aka Simeon] Dimanstein [ ]; Commissar of Nationalities; author.
51. Jacob Fuerstenberg [aka “Ganetzsky”] [t/n Jakub Hanecki] [1879-1937]; Polish; a top aide to Lenin and a key player in Lenin’s rise to power.
52. Alexander Israel Helphand [aka “Parvus”] [1867-1924]; helped Trotsky develop the theory of “permanent revolution.”
53. David Riazanov [aka Goldenbach] [1870-1938]; responsible for Soviet government publication of Karl Marx’s literary works.
54. Mikhail Milshtein [ ] a military officer; deputy director of Soviet military intelligence during WWII.
55. Gregory Gershuni [1870-1908]; an early revolutionary in Russia; was involved in the assassinations of Russian political leaders.
56. Polina S. Zhemchuzhina [1884 -1970]; wife of Molotov; Deputy Commissar of the Food Industry; Commissar of the Fish Industry.
57. Nikolai N. Sukhanov [aka Nikolai Gimmer] [1882-1940]; an economist; a member of the Contact Committee; an author.
58. I. P. Meshkovsky [aka I. P. Goldenberg] [ ]; a member of the Central Committee.
59. David A. Dragunsky [1910-1992]; a Colonel-General in the Soviet army.
60. Ivan D. Chernyakhovsky [1906-1945]; Soviet military general.
[1] Kaganovich’s signature as appearing on execution orders/lists: the book “The Black Book of Communism,” Harvard University Press, USA, 1999, page 189, hardcover.
[2] Beria instigating the mass executions of the Katyn massacre: book “The Black Book of Communism,” page 368-369, hardcover.
[3] about Kaganovich’s crimes:
Sources for the above document include, but are not limited to: the book “Red October,” by Robert V. Daniels, Scribners, 1967; the book “The Harvest of Sorrow,” by Robert Conquest, Oxford University Press, 1986; the book “The Black Book of Communism,” by Stephane Courtois et al, Harvard University Press, 1999; plus web searches and public library research.
Lazar Kaganovich: The Chief of Stalin’s Willing Executioners. Implications for HOLODOMOR, The Great Terror, and Katyn Massacre
This review is from: Iron Lazar: A Political Biography of Lazar Kaganovich (Anthem Series on Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies)
This work presents a great deal of information not only on leading Communist personages, but also on the functioning of the Soviet Union. I focus on a few main themes:
THE JEWISHNESS OF LAZAR KAGANOVICH
Author Rees repeatedly refers to Kaganovich as a deracinated Jewish revolutionary (e. g, p. 215, 268, 275). However, a better term might be the NON-JEWISH JEW, in accordance with the Jewish Communist Isaac Deutscher. [See my review.] In any case, the young Lazar Kaganovich had attended a Jewish school (KHEDER)(p. 3). Well into adulthood, Lazar openly identified with his Jewishness. Thus, in 1916, at the age of 23, he worked in a factory under the name of Boris Kosherovich (Yiddish-kosher), indicative of pride in his Jewish background, according to Rees. (p. 8). In later years, Kaganovich strongly opposed Zionism and other forms of Jewish separatism, but, then again, so did various other assimilationist Jews.
One common exculpation for Jews in Communism is their professed idealism, their professed identification with the disinherited, and their professed desire for a more just world. In the case of Kaganovich, at least, the motives were almost the exact opposite. Rees quips, “Kaganovich already in 1919 advanced a Machiavellian conception of how Bolshevik state power should be organized. He displayed a disregard for democracy.” (p. 275).
Let us put Kaganovich in broader context. Leading Jewish Communists showed different degrees of extremism in their Communist radicalism. For instance, during the 1918-1921 civil war, Zinoviev called for the extermination of the bourgeoisie as a class. (p. 23). In addition, during this time, Kaganovich endorsed Trotsky’s controversial policy of shooting military commanders and commissars for breaches of discipline. (p. 27).
Author Rees has some strong words about Kaganovich, portraying him a selfish opportunist, “Other examples of Kaganovich’s cowardice—his failure to defend his brother Mikhail, Mikoyan’s claim of his loss of nerve in 1941, his failure to resist the anti-Semitic course of Stalin in the later years—fit the stereotyped image of the ambitious but cowardly, self-serving Jew.” (p. 258).
NO ERRAND-BOY TO STALIN: THE POWER AND SIGNIFICANCE OF LAZAR KAGANOVICH
We sometimes hear the exculpation that Jewish Communists were not all that important in the scheme of things. [Much the same was claimed by Adolf Eichmann in his “cog in the machine” and “banality of evil” dissimulations.] Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rees identifies Lazar Kaganovich as the most prominent Jew in Soviet public life (p. 246), and as a person who was indispensable to Stalin in the 1930’s. (p. 247). Rees also says that Kaganovich, “contributed more than any other individual to shaping the [Stalin] regime in its formative years.” (p. 271). Between 1930 and 1935, Kaganovich was—according to Rees—“a figure of enormous power” who, moreover, appeared to be a possible successor to Stalin. (p. 273).
——The following [except for the titles in CAPS, and explanatory comments in brackets] are direct quotes——
KAGANOVICH RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UKRAINIAN FAMINE-GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)
Kaganovich, as general secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party, was a forthright exponent of forcible grain seizure. He now defended a policy of exploiting the peasants, a policy which, when advocated by [fellow Jews] Zinoviev and Trotsky, had had denounced only in November 1926. (p. 83).
He [Kaganovich] was the principal author of the Urals-Siberian method of grain procurement of 1929-30 that acted as a prelude to forcible collectivization. He facilitated the mass deportation of the kulaks and played a key role in expulsion of Kuban peasants in 1932. In the years of famine he was the most vocal supporter of Stalin’s draconian law of 7 August 1932… (p. 272).
[Note that Kaganovich was at the height of his power as Stalin’s deputy, in 1930-1935. (p. 123). This covered the years of the HOLODOMOR].
KAGANOVICH AND THE COMMUNIST WAR AGAINST THE KULAKS
It was in the context of collectivization and dekulakization that Stalin (the Man of Steel) applied to him the appellation ‘Iron Lazar’. (p. 209).
Kaganovich, in a lengthy report to the plenum [January 1933], castigated the kulaks, offering them as scapegoats for the catastrophic failure of official policy…Only by breaking kulak resistance had it been possible to consolidate the KOLKHOZY, he claimed, thus confounding the direst warnings of Rykov, Tomsky and Bukharin, who had wished to see a slackening of the class struggle. [pp. 111-112; See also p. 96, about Lenin, already by 1916 dissenting from Bukharin, and arguing against any soon-to-be withering-away of the state.]
At the XVII Party Congress, in January-February 1934, Kaganovich described the “revolution from above” as “the greatest revolution which human history has known, a revolution which smashed the old economic structure and created a new KOLKHOZ system on the base of the socialist industrialization of the country.” (p. 115).
SOVIET COMMUNISM GROWS EVER MORE ONEROUS—THANKS TO STALIN AND KAGANOVICH
Under the pressure of the radicalization of policies after 1928-30, the Bolshevik party-state evolved through a series of cycles of repression, culminating in the Terror of 1937-8. But Stalin managed the terror and was prescient enough to check these processes when they jeopardized the regime’s survival. Kaganovich was Stalin’s willing accomplice. He played a key role in promoting the Stalin cult and in developing the Stalinist political system. (p. 227).
KAGANOVICH AND THE GENOCIDE OF SOVIET POLES (1937-1938)
[Lazar Kaganovich evidently had a long-term enmity towards Poles. Already by the mid-1920’s, he had thought that his rule over Ukraine could serve as a model for an eventual Polish Soviet Socialist Republic. (p. 72)].
[During the Great Terror, NKVD Order No. 00447 led to the genocidal murder of over 100,000 Soviet Poles. Kaganovich, and other Politburo members, signed 38 decisions that expanded the number of victims. (p. 195). The “Polish Operation” was well-named. In addition to all this, Kaganovich was involved in moves to restrict the cultural rights of various non-Russian peoples. (p. 195).]
In one of his final interviews, Kaganovich asserted that the arrests and executions of 1937-38 had been done according to Soviet law. He thus ignored his own role as a leading advocate of Soviet state lawlessness. (p. 267).
KAGANOVICH AND HIS COMPLICITY IN PRECIPITATING THE KATYN MASSACRE (1940)
Kaganovich’s role in the Great Terror and his role in authorizing the murder of the Polish officers are among the most heinous of his crimes. (p. 274).
——-End of direct quotes———
STALIN AND THE JEWS (ZYDOKOMUNA): WHY STALIN DID NOT TRUST THEM
When it comes to rivals for Lenin’s position, Kaganovich appears to always have been on Stalin’s side. Otherwise, Rees generalizes that, “Most of Stalin’s opponents in the 1920s were Jews, but for many years thereafter, he had promoted Jews into important positions.” (p. 268). In fact, Stalin’s chief rivals for the succession of Lenin were Trotsky [Jew], Zinoviev [Jew], and Kamenev [half-Jew]. (p. 59).
At later times, Jews worked in collusion (Jewish ethnic solidarity?) against Stalin. In 1925, with Trotsky eliminated, Zinoviev and Kamenev challenged Stalin’s concentration of power. (p. 53). At the Central Committee plenum in July 1926, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky spoke out against Stalin. (p. 56).
Not surprisingly, Stalin feared people who could potentially become his enemies. For instance, in the mid-1930s, with the Jew Genrich Yagoda as head, the NKVD was a powerful agency not entirely under Stalin’s control. (p. 165). No wonder that Stalin felt more comfortable replacing him with Yezhov, a non-Jew. In 1935, Stalin even demoted Kaganovich out of the conviction that no deputy should get too powerful. (p. 224).
https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R7H5OLVHJ9SUI?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl
More details on the Beria genealogy welcome.
More proof also welcome of Stalin’s post-WW2 deportation plan for Jews, an allegation developed by Zionists, Neo-cons and morbid camp-obsessives like Avraham Shifrin.
I have been attacked bodily 5 times [in my life]:
1954, my best buddy across the street, Billy FELLBAUM, put a long padlock through the spokes on my bike, making it useless. I called him and said “remove or I use hacksaw.” He removed.
1962, best buddy Ron KISH collared me- “where’s that five bucks you owe me?” This was the first I heard of it. I said “get your hands of me-” he did- I was 6-3, 185.
1963- A classmate threw a football, hitting Curtis FRANKS. I laughed, Mr. FRANKS thought that I must have thrown the ball, as I was laughing- he jumped me, and starting pounding. I said I didn’t throw it, Over.
1965, at a party talking to Drew SOBEK’s GF- “maybe you should separate.” Again attacked out of the blue, by a larger SOBEK, I started sprinting thinking “he wants to kill me.” I outran him. All were drinking.
1986, Did car work for best buddy Steve MILLER [had a Jewish mother]. He paid $500 in advance. I had some difficulty, Miller lost patience and simply gave the car away before I could proceed with the job.
Then he mysteriously parked his car about 10 inches from my driver side door- I was immobilized just like 1954! I believe he was pissed as I failed to give him a refund, But he never asked, just like Ron Kish!
He never explained why he blocked access to my car. Then we sat in another car and he took out a knife, held it near the windshield, and waved the knife in a threatening manner. This happened again a few days later. HE NEVER SAID WHAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT. He never asked for the return of the balance of the money. . .He gave the car away totally on whim, taking away my chance to finish the job. Force was the first resort, communication the last. [The surnames of these folks are on the Avotaynu Jewish surname list]
Hello Moderator — Can we stifle ridiculously long comments like “Power”s? This is clearly a spamming attempt.
I thought it was interesting. You don’t have to read it.
Interesting or not, it is a 6,700-word comment. Dalton’s whole essay is only 5,000 words! Seems inappropriate somehow. (If it’s that good, publish it as a lead article.)
I agree with you Kevin. Phillip posts some very good, interesting info. Maybe you can cut out some of the fluff next time if it bothers a lot of folks, or ask him to. Or just leave it all there 🙂
Excellent reply Mr. Macdonald! What a stupid observation!. As if the quantity of the words in an article had a bearing and relation with the intrinsic quality of it!
Prof. MacDonald: Please ignore fatuous objections to the length of Mr. Power’s submission. I consider it edifying and extremely informative. Content should triumph over form.
“What about “the essential goodness of man”? That’s a strange phrase. It is almost a religious idea,” – It is precisely a religious idea, namely rejection of the idea of original sin. Perhaps we need to look more closely at religion as a force in the world.
“….religion as a farce in the world”. An overgeneralization, I believe. Buddhism is not a religion, but a set of teachings.
I believe that the public crucifixion of Charles Lindbergh over a couple of weeks in September of 1941, after his speech pointing out that Jews (and the Brits) were waging propaganda operations to push America into the war in Europe, against the wishes and best interests of the American people was the true beginning of speech suppression in the US.
Read the description of the speech’s aftermath in Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s memoire and you’ll see how devastating it was. Considering that Lindbergh was arguably the most admired man in America at the time, no other public figure needed more warning about ‘anti-Semitism’. Unfavorable mention of Jews in the MSM disappeared at that time. Today, Jews have to scout out fringe figures to crush for anti-Semitism, as no widely known figure would get within a hundred miles of it. Read all the books on Soviet espionage in the US — endless lists of -bergs, -steins, -baums, -witzs, Cohens, and Levines never prompts a mention of their race. The omissions are glaring. Which is itself further warning against any line-crossing.
You may be right. My account of this whole affair is here, p. 8 ff.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PrefacePPB.pdf
The ‘Brits’ would not have been at war if Roosevelt had not bullied Chamberlain into offering the Poles a guarantee of support if Germany attacked Poland, which Germany did in response to Polish provocation.
Excellent piece.The Talmud makes it very clear whites are to be the servants of the superior Jews.This is taught in Hebrew School to the males prior to age 13 bar mitzvah . The Talmud teachings are rarely revealed to the gentile public.A succinct monograph by Professor Dalton would be helpful to understand what is unfolding in the USA.
(To his credit Soros has come out in strong opposition to his fellow NY Jewish fund operators huge investments in Chinese business- with American money.American Jews are financing America’s number one enemy;including their defense industry.)
The author’s criticism of Tucker Carlson is unjust and rooted in defeatism (in previous articles, he has written along the lines of “If Tucker Carlson was a real threat, he wouldn’t get a show on Fox” etc)
The reality is that Tucker does push the envelope and isn’t anywhere near as cowed by Jews as other television hosts, like Hannity. Carlson recently even talked about the ADL’s hypocrisy in regards to multiculturalism in the West and Zionism for Israel.
You have to be truly brain dead or just plain jealous to think that people like Tucker (or rather just Tucker, no other show host is comparable) are secretly advancing the leftist agenda because they won’t rant about how Jews control everything on TV.
Tucker is a major media figure and a good pipeline to get Whites into more rational modes of thoughts and away from the “Democrats are the real racists” nonsense.
You are correct, I believe. It is a logical fallacy to ascribe digitally-an all or nothing decision-regarding phenomena, qualitatively or quantitatively. Sometimes things are black and white. Is any one person all bad or good?
David Duke 🙂 now , there’s the real problem… most of these “right wingers” are plants that secretly work for the system . Crazy Bill Cooper was another…you know…for all the hours and hours of listening to old Bill talk and talk ..I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a broadcast that wasn’t recorded loud and clear and crisp 🙂 it hit me one morning…this guy is full of s#-$
Thanks Thomas. One of your best.
I don’t own a TV., so I listen to the radio. I listen to everything but when listening to talk radio, mostly the conservative shows. Mollie Hemingway, who I don’t know too much about, I know that she writes for the Federalist, wrote a book called; “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” She’s been on all of the big conservative shows promoting her book (I have not read it yet). She’s claims that the 2020 election, was more bought than stolen. According to Mrs. Hemingway, Mark Zuckerberg spent over $419 million, yes you read that right, going into blue states and taking away the voting apparatus that was in place. Buy his side in this endeavor, was one Mark Elias, a Jew lawyer who specializes in election law, voting rights and redistricting, according to his Wikipedia profile. I had an ‘Ah ha,’ moment when I also read on Wiki that Elias is from Suffern, New York. I myself grew up not too far from Suffern, NY. Parts of Orange County, New York which is the county that Suffern is in, and even more so, Rockland County, New York, and close by Ramapo, New Jersey, are all heavily populated with orthodox and Hasidic Jews along with secular Jews. Many of these towns have exclusively Orthodox, Hasidic Jewish communities; Google Kyris Joel which has now become its own town!
And so, we all know what Elias was learning when he was growing up – destroy the White Christians! Of course as has been written about here at TOO, the Biden Administration is mostly all Jewish.
As more time goes on, it seems to me that the Jewish elite are ‘condensing,’ much like the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks did pre 1917 Jewish takeover of Russia. You end your piece, “I fear that we haven’t much time to spare.”
We certainly don’t.
While there is no doubt that Marx and communism – the extreme “left” – are Jewish in nature, I have long posed the following rhetorical question(s) Does North Korea have open borders? Does China have open borders? Did the old Soviet Bloc have open borders? Anyone who supports mass immigration is neither “left” nor “conservative”.
It’s time people started waking up to the fact that a commercial transaction is not capitalism. If it were, all the “commies” would be capitalists when they went to a store to buy a product. Capitalism is the concentration of capital. It is the flip side of the same shekel to communism’s concentration of capital. It’s all in how you define the commune.
jewish supremacy is the main problem as they are the sole cause of the anti-white agenda.
jews control both “sides” by donating to both sides.
And now they steal elections, so……we can’t vote our way out.
That leaves only one alternative.
Fascism sucks (militarism, collectivism, give up your life for the people, surveilance, no free media, no free art…).
Communism sucks. Not working economic system, nor private ownership, no motivation from profits, state can be hijacked by racemixed idiots, no freedom of speech, no free press…
The burgeois, conservativatism sucks. “Everrything old is good…” it will allways loose to progressive movements… Not to say that a lot of old things and tradition is bad. Tradition can be great way for people to find new ways of doing things for example.
Liberalism has bad ides, everyone for themselves, ego ego ego…
Nazism, not great: militarism, propaganda, controlled culture, give up your life possibly for the people, anti freedom of speech, pedophile leadership, stupid wars…
I mean all ideologies have good and bad points. Everything I have seen on this site when it comes to new ideologies has been faschist in nature hence terrible in my opinion. All due respect to Mr. Kevin MacDonald though, he did not write these articles.
So this is a failure. You end up with old money guys like Trump that will push for agendas that are quite often AGAINST the white working class…
Marx’s main demand- abolition of private property. So we basically should be advocating private property.
This includes the right the right to choose one’s associates, and to form communities based on racial exclusion, with money formed in the market, not by the state. Since most of our problem stems from governmentally enforced monopolies, they would be banned. Freedom and contract the first resort, the State the last resort.
Private property plus contracts for Whites only. Groups can own private property. A gated community can form monopolies [by contract] since they would not be based on State coercion. Restrictions can be put into place, again by contract. You can’t paint porno on the side of your house, all agreed to this, it is not government.
“Private property” means that there is some item that is not under control of Dr. & Mrs. Narcissist. Therefore private everything should be abolished- anything they don’t control is evil.
Ayn Rand writes- “Objectivism [meaning AR] does not recognize anything that is not under man’s conscious control.” Does this mean that she opposes private property of others as she does not control it?
Introducing propertarianism:
For those who are heavily involved in online discussions of liberty, a relatively new yet disruptive voice has arisen in the form of Curt Doolittle and his advocates. Presenting many novel arguments on the nature of property and aggression, he has founded an institute in Kiev, Ukraine christened The Propertarian Institute and from which he supports “Propertarianism”.
https://medium.com/@theBosstiat/propertarianism-as-explained-by-a-libertarian-9ed8d3a50df0
Hans Hoppe [right wing libertarian] may be more helpful. Left libertarianism is as trashy as any other leftism.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hans+hoppe+racialism&t=brave&ia=web
@ “TJ”
No, Ayn Rand didn’t mean that. (Obviously.)
Her vitiating error, however, was to build on her own abstract concept of “man”, and indeed construct an entire skyscraper of “rational” argument that “logically” made Mickey Spillane superior to William Shakespeare. But she is well worth critical study, like Baruch Spinoza, Otto Weininger, Michael Levin, Steven Pinker, and Murray Rothbard (whose play “Mozart was a Red”, brilliantly satirises the old bubeleh).
Great article. It’s all about European homogeneity. The common denominator between Australia, Germany and Canada is not some ideology, it’s the European people. Socialism, liberalism and conservatism only applies to a European industrialized nation state anyway.
Conservatism is the core, guarding the integrity of the justice system, the traditions, the long view continuity, and making sure there is room for gifted ambitious people.
Socialism makes sure the wages are fair, that the working conditions are good, and that unfortunate people get help when they need it. It started in 1800:s Prussia, they called it State Socialism, or National Socialism. Health care and education for everyone, a safety net for widows and orphans, and fair wages. Marx and the Jews turned it into a Jewish pseudo religion, and a weapon against the European state.
Liberalism protects the individual from the collective, the government, and makes sure they can’t run over the individual.
A normal European nation state has a parliament where these parties make compromises and are complimentary to each other. You need all of them.
Harping on about “the Left” when “the Right” is dominated, or replaced, by Jewish degenerate libertarians and usurers, is stupid. It’s not “the Left”, it’s the Jews.
@ anonym
Australia: officially accepts the IHRA “definition” of “antisemitism” &c.
France: Zemmour vs both CRIF & “detoxified” Marine Le Pen; a contest whose outcome remains to be seen; but it is not in the long-term interests of Israel OR Europe to have a large Islamist =”antisemitic” bloc in western Europe.
Britain: clear from the CAA/Gideon Falter [qv Wikispooks website] and similar pressure-groups that “antisemitism” means any criticism of anything or anyone specified asJewish, but especially in defending the interests of Palestinians.
This is quite unacceptable to anyone who believes in freedom of speech, let alone European patriotism(s).
The paradox is that anyone who complains about adverse influence by Jews over public discourse is ipso facto accused of an established (!) “antisemitic trope” and can expect removal from public discourse. The irony of this “proving the point” is not as important as being able to say so, and certainly not as important as the actual restoration of non-violent freedom of discourse, all round.
Note, though, that Critical Race Theorists have added Israel to the “oppressive” colonial-settler states, like the USA, Canada, Australia & “Aotearoa”; cf. the David Miller fuss in the UK (search the internet).
In all things, extensive and precise analysis of the evidence is needed; e.g. the “Jewishness” of Marx is a complex matter, given his attacks on Jewish bankers and money-worship.
You can adopt socialism so long as no one is forced into it.
The article is a keeper.
Dr. Dalton needs to revise his 2020 election numbers. He says 72% of Biden’s 80 million votes were from Whites. This would mean 58.5 million of his 81.27 million actual vote total was from White voters. Dalton also says Trump only won about 50 million White votes, meaning that Biden won 8.5 million more White votes than Trump. But per Wikipedia, based on the Edison consortium of exit polls, presumably one of the most neutral and accepted sources available, Trump won 57% of the White vote versus Biden’s 41%, with 60% versus 38% of White men and 55% versus 45% of White women. Overall, Biden won 81.27 million votes versus Trump’s 74.22 million. Whites were 67% or 106.1 million of the 158.38 million total voters and 60.48 million of them voted for Trump versus 43.5 million for Biden. Blacks were 13% or 20.59 million of the 158.38 million total voters and 87% or 17.91 million of them voted for Biden. Latinos were also 13% or 20.59 million of the 158.38 million total voters and 65% or 13.38 million of them voted for Biden. Dalton underestimated Biden’s Black vote at 15 million and Latino vote at 10 million while greatly overestimating his White vote. The correct figures are actually much more favorable for White nationalists and separatists in the sense of showing both: (1) a greater racial divide or ethnic gap between Whites and non-White voters; and (2) Trump winning far more White votes than Dalton estimates (16.98 million more White votes than Biden rather than 8.5 million less, a difference of 25.48 million or 24% of the total White vote) while Biden won 6.29 million more Black and Latino votes than Dalton estimates, or 15.16% more of their total vote.
““The Left” is actually a kind of fake Left, portrayed as opposing “the Right,” which is in reality a fake Right.”
It is called the Bagelian Dialectic.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lpaE6S6RmWke/
A great article indeed!
I however, have to ask an all important question and that is what about the cult of Freemasonry? America is fast becoming a truly idolatrous nation and behind it isn’t the Jews so much but this cult of Freemasonry. There is a treason in the land and it works in secret and this paragraph alone sends shivers:
“A desire to impose their beliefs and values on others. This is the “controlling,” “authoritarian,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect. Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system. They are the antithesis of “live and let live.” They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions. They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, and so they suppress it.[12]
Replace “leftist liberals” with freemasonry and viola! Get this to they are of the belief that character is something that one is born with and so they think they were born better than everyone else? Sin doesn’t factor into their thought processes at all. Furthermore such a belief system would put them you would think anyway at odds with the Jewish people given their elect status? However, for the Freemasons their greatest hero is guess who? Hiram Abiff the chief architect of King Solomons Temple and they guess what again have a great desire to see that Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem? How did this happen a British White religious cult that worships a god named “jahbulon” in power in both houses of government and indeed in practically every government on planet earth? This is nothing short of Satan’s work period and if any need to see the unbelievable reality of this go and spend some time over at the Vigilant Citizen:
https://vigilantcitizen.com/
The “symbolic pics of the month” will be quite the eye-opener for sure their single all seeing eye of their deity being plastered everywhere in print and media? If the Jews did this on their own can you imagine the outcry even from their own rabbi’s but a white gentile race made up of the so-called respectable people working in secret is an altogether different matter I’d say. What a bunch of dupes really? Created largely to be a go-between us the Christian Church and our enemies. So much treason around these days even within the Christian Church wow? These Freemasons have fulfilled:
“This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” Galatians 2:4
Jews can’t do this on their own, they can’t stand being near Christianity, and so their go-between!!! The Treasonous white race working in secret!!!! Can’t you just hear the whisperings?
Doesn’t that sum up Dr. Dalton’s entire thesis “to make us slaves.”
Regarding Jeff Bezos and his supposed, and TOTALLY irrelevant, Jewish origins I will say this: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is a duck!
Bezos has proven to be spiritually 100% Jewish and that is what matters! Let’s remember that there have been (and still are) hundreds of thousands of bastards/traitors who, in spite of not having one drop of Jewish blood in their veins, have been (and are) fanatical defenders and supporters of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Actions are louder than words and by his actions, Bezos has demonstrated, over and over again, that he is an enemy of the White race and a lackey of international Jewry.
Spam was the staple diet of the British people during the “War for Freedom”!
Soros has attacked Israel and Zionists attack Soros. “They” do not always work together, unless they suspect or face a common threat. “Five Jews, six opinions.”
Who were these pedophiles in the Nazi government? The Germans waged a campaign against pedophilia among the Christian and Jewish “clergy”, and made the “gay” seduction of boys a capital offence in 1941. The notorious book-burnings were largely of porn and homosexual propaganda, though communist tracts were also included (the latter were otherwise confined to library “poison cupboards” for academic research).
The key features of fascist economics were (1) assured national access to food and raw materials, and (2) national control of credit. Read e.g. Mosley’s “Revolution by Reason”, “Greater Britain” & “Tomorrow We Live”.
‘Hitler’s Revolution, ‘ by Richard Tedor is a great read. Take a look at it Ned if you get the chance. Still available on Amazon as far as I know.
The vast mass of books about the Nazis include a few worth reading, including this one, and also Avraham Barkai and Rainer Zittelmann on economic policy, Christopher Hutton on racial research, and Werner Maser and (to some extent, Volker Ullrich) on Hitler. We still await objective, fully detailed studies of the impact of the International Boycott of German Goods and Services, the Comintern plans for violent revolution in pre-WW2 Germany, and all the Soviet fictions introduced at post-WW2 “war crime trials”.
Hitler cannot be exculpated entirely in the deaths not only of Jewish and Russian civilians but also the MILLIONS of Germans who died between 1939 and 1948, the elite of European civilization, but the constant obsession of television and book publishing with “The Holocaust” and the “Evil” Germans is beginning to be glaringly counter-productive.
I have an important question ? Why haven’t white people already organized this utopia , if it really is possible ,🙂 could it be that humans only can function in small groups peacefully. Remember the Salem witch trials ?