As if on cue, only a couple of weeks after my article wondering whether – given its bizarre admissions formulae – Harvard was any longer fit for purpose comes the astounding story of Kaitlyn Younger (see Douglas Belkin, “To Get into the Ivy League, Extraordinary Isn’t Always Enough These Days,”  Wall Street Journal [April 21, 2022]).

Kaitlyn Younger is a high school senior in a public school in McKinney, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.  In addition to an uncountable number of after school activities and a 3.95 grade average, she just happened to score 1550 on her combined SAT’s.  These reflect on – math and English – an average of 775 each.  Or perhaps 800 on her English, 750 on her math.  OK, so maybe she is as dumb with numbers as in the bottom quartile (which starts at 780) of MIT students.   In any case, this score places her in the top one half of one percent of US applicants.  In comparison, the loose and easy National Merit Scholarships require only that you be in the top 1% to be a coveted National Merit Finalist.  Given that approximately 1.5 million students took the SAT in 2021, 2021 SAT Suite of Assessments Program Results – The College Board , this means she is in the top 7,500 SAT test-takers in the country.  Combined with the 1.2 million who took the ACT instead, How Many People Get a 34, 35, 36 on the ACT? Score Breakdown (prepscholar.com),with the combined total being 2.7 million, and assuming no overlap, she would still be in the top 13,500 students in the U.S.  Although that might not entitle her to an automatic admit to the Ivys, which in aggregate admit 11,700 (approximately) undergraduates annually, it is worth noting that her combined SAT scores exceed the average combined SAT scores of every school in the country, including Harvard, Yale, MIT, University of Chicago, and, incredibly, even Cal Tech.  See summary list below.

The McComb business school at the University of Texas, where she was rejected, has an abysmal average SAT of 1350 (625 average math/english), plus a lot of black faces on their website.  USC, the ultimate richy, rich, rich party school, good for contacts if not for education, has an asserted – though not quite believable – average SAT of 1440 – 110 points below Miss Younger’s.  Cornell’s average appears to be 1480, 70 points below Miss Younger’s, although it may be somewhat higher for the schools to which she presumably applied, either the College of Arts and Sciences or Dyson.*

Well, now for the punch line.  She applied to 12 schools, including Harvard, Yale, Brown, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, Berkeley, Northwestern, all of which rejected her, Rice (waitlist), University of Texas (Austin) (accepted but not at her preferred school, McComb), and the University of Arizona (accepted) plus one other, not named in the article.

Nitpickers could argue that she made a strategic mistake in not applying to the rest of the Ivys and the University of Chicago (probably superior in a lot of respects to the Ivys).  Perhaps she would have gotten into one of those.  But then again, perhaps – even probably – not.  Each of the other Ivys and the U of C, for example, are more selective than Cornell, Northwestern, USC, and the University of Texas, all of which rejected her.  Nitpickers could also argue that a middle class girl from Texas had no more chance getting into a “lunch club” school like USC (read:  the Beverly Hills crowd on the dumb end) than she would have of getting into the Knickerbocker or Brooke Clubs in New York based on a blind application and SAT scores.

That notwithstanding,

To put this in perspective, the total students admitted to the Ivys to which she did apply along with their “lower than Kaitlyn” SAT averages are as follows:

Here is the “dumber than Kaitlyn” crowd:

Enrolled

Harvard                                               1,600   (Average SAT 1520)

Yale                                                     1,600   (Average SAT 1515)

Brown                                                 2,500  (Average SAT 1485)

Cornell*                                              2,000   (Average SAT Arts: 1480 – not clear if A&S higher)

(1,000 if Arts and Sciences only; 2,000 incl eng.)

Total Ivy applied to:                            7,700

Plus, Ivies not applied to:

Columbia                                             1,500   (Average SAT: 1505)

Princeton:                                            1,345   (Average SAT:  1505)

Dartmouth                                           1,200   (Average SAT:  1500)

Grand Total Ivies:                              11,745

Plus:  (Non-Ivies she applied to)

Stanford                                                 2,000   (Average SAT 1505)

Northwestern                                         1,900  (Average SAT 1495)

USC                                                      3,700   (Average SAT 1440)

Berkeley                                                6,400  (970 if count only out of state attending/admits)

Grand Total All Applied to

by which rejected less USC:          12,600 (rounded, counting only 970 out-of-state at Berkeley)

Total including USC:                          18,300 (rounded)

Plus others she applied to, to which not accepted:

Rice                                                        2,000 (approx)  (1505 SATs)

University of Texas (McCombs)            1,200 (estimate) (Average SAT 1350 – 625 each !!)

Grand Total Applied to

and not Accepted:                             15,800 (not counting USC)

Grand Total Counting USC:                 19,500 (counting USC)

Comparison:

MIT                                                                    (Average SAT 1535)

Cal Tech:                                                            (Average SAT 1545)

University of Chicago                1,100   (Average SAT 1520)

Total ideal application list:

Ivies, plus Stanford,

University of Chicago and

Northwestern and Berkeley                17,715 (Berkeley: counting 970 out of state only)

One would think that if she had applied to all the Ivies, plus Stanford, University of Chicago, and Northwestern, a total matriculant pool of approximately 17,700  she would have been accepted in at least one.

However, not so fast.  Far more disturbing than the fact Kaitlyn applied to an inadequate number of top schools – and failed to get in any she did apply to — is the sub-text of the above-linked article by Douglas Belkin for the Wall Street Journal.

The sub text is that even if she had applied to the whole top-tier group she probably would have gotten in nowhere.

Namely, that the intake pool of Whites is now about half the total intake pool of 17,700 for the top Ivy and Ivy-equivalents computed above.  That gets you down to 8,350.  And of that, half are legacies and athletes.

So the remaining pool for high IQ, non-connected, Whites is a tiny 4,175 – essentially the intake pool of two lesser Ivies.  In other words, not only are whites being shoved aside for minorities, but the admissions process purposefully shoves aside the smart Whites in favor of not-so-smart Whites.

Although all these numbers are approximate and inexact, the message to any recruiter at these top schools is that, if the applicant is a White, he is probably dumb.  The high-IQ Whites are purposefully being squeezed out of the most prominent schools, so that they will have fewer opportunities to get the truly good and high paying jobs that allow the elite to accumulate capital and dominate society:  The message?  Whites no longer wanted in the elite.

They are being squeezed out.  Their oxygen is being cut off.

As Belkin reports “Nearly half of white students admitted to Harvard between 2009 and 2014 were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or on the dean’s interest list—applicants whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard, according to a 2019 study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“At Harvard, low-income students with top academic scores had an admit rate of 24% compared to 15% for all other applicants, according to a 2013 study by the school. Harvard has said it believes enrolling a diverse student body is important because the school wants students to learn to work with people from different backgrounds.

“The middle class tends to get a little bit neglected,” said Hafeez Lakhani, a private college counselor in New York who charges $1,200 an hour.” .

No kidding.

How much better for society that a brilliant White like Kaitlyn be buried at the University of Arizona (her choice after her passel of rejections), from which she can launch into a middle-level job in an auto dealership.  How much better this than having her be a superstar stand-out at Harvard, Penn, or Cornell (which, given her massive IQ she undoubtedly would be), taking one of those coveted jobs at Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley which can make you several times a millionaire before you hit age 35.  How much better to grind her hard working all-too-White, all too admirable family down into the dust of the soon-to-be destroyed lower-middle class than to allow her any chance at wielding power, accumulating capital, or getting anything else she might want in our society.  How much better that she had never even been born.

Ok, honkey:  so much for the oxygen.  Its gone.

As they say in the outer boroughs:

Whacchya gonna do now, big boy?

Notes:

• Note, the Dyson school of undergraduate business has the lowest admissions rate – 2.9% – of any at Cornell, followed by the 7% admissions rate of the College of Arts and Sciences – 7.9% –so the school to which she applied may – in part- explain her rejection at Cornell. Likewise, the Penn admissions rate was 9%; the Wharton undergraduate business school (at Penn) admit rate was lower, approximately 7.9%.

Russian Jewish Oligarchs, from left: Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, Moshe Kantor,
Roman Abramovich

The subject of Jews and money is controversial and essential, and yet not without its darkly comic aspects.  Back in November I wrote an essay on criticism of Bram Stoker’s Dracula for its alleged anti-Semitic qualities, and noted one scholar’s angst about a scene in which Jonathan Harker slashes at Dracula with a knife, cutting the vampire’s coat and sending a flood of cash to the floor. Instead of fleeing immediately, Dracula snatches up handfuls of money before sprinting across the room. The offended scholar, Sara Libby Robinson, complained that “This demonstration of putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life shows that stereotypes regarding Jews and their money were alive and well in the late nineteenth century.”

Those who spend enough time observing Jews, however, will know that the curious thing about them is that associated stereotypes have an uncanny habit of finding constant empirical confirmation. Take, for instance, a recent news article pointing out that Israel has experienced an influx of Jewish refugees since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24. The punchline is that the influx has involved many more economic refugees from Russia, who are seeking relief from Western sanctions and dropping currency values, than Ukrainian Jews seeking safety from violence. Faced with warfare, Jews really are “putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life.” In one of my favorite anecdotes from the Ukraine crisis thus far, the Russian-Israeli immigration lawyer Eli Gervits claims to have received thousands of calls from Russian Jews issuing an appeal he calls SOS: “Save our Savings.” This remarkable story is emblematic of the fact Putin’s war in Ukraine is a net negative for the Russian-based international Jewish oligarchy, and the international Jewish networks that survive and thrive on their patronage.

The Fall of Moshe Kantor

Few things have raised my spirits in recent times like the news the UK government has finally imposed sanctions on Moshe Kantor. Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and one-time president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress, Kantor is the quintessential strongly-identified Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group. A devoted Zionist, Kantor is a citizen of Israel, as well as both Russia and the UK. Kantor, with his curious blend of citizenships, didn’t so much straddle East and West as use plunder in the former to fuel activism in the latter. One of his primary projects in recent years has been to lobby the European Union for greater restrictions on individual freedom and for the imposition of a vast, draconian apparatus for the protection and enforcement of multiculturalism across the continent. In his treatise Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, Kantor writes with Orwellian flair that “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” Reading between the lines, the message becomes clearer: “Restrictions on Europeans are necessary for the freedom of Jews to live a secure life.” Among Kantor’s proposals was the creation of a continent-wide apparatus for internet surveillance targeting opponents of multiculturalism, enforced promotion and ‘education’ on multiculturalism across Europe, and a significant increase in prison sentences for all infractions against the cult of diversity.

Kantor escaped the wave of Western sanctions on Russian (often Jewish) elites until last week, but was finally targeted because of his role as the largest shareholder of the fertilizer company Acron, which has strategic ties to the Russian government. Needless to say, the sanctioning of yet another one of their hugely influential oligarchs is sending shockwaves through international Jewish institutions reliant on the wealth and influence of such figures. On April 6, the European Jewish Congress, Kantor’s primary vehicle for the advance of his war on European freedoms, issued a statement stressing that it was

Deeply shocked and appalled by the decision today of the British government to sanction Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, the World Holocaust Forum Foundation and the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation. The decision is misguided and lacks any factual or evidence-based merit. Dr Kantor is a British citizen who has lived for over three decades in Western Europe, many years of which has been in the UK. He is a long-standing and respected Jewish leader, who has dedicated his life to the security and wellbeing of Europe’s Jewish communities and the fight against antisemitism, racism and xenophobia. … We call for this decision to be reversed as soon as possible.

Moshe Kantor hobnobs with the boss

The most recent statement issued by the British government is low on detail, stating only that Kantor will be subject to an “asset freeze.” Since Kantor owns, and spends much time in, a substantial mansion on London’s Winnington Road, where property prices average over $8 million, this is sure to be a sore point for the oligarch. Much more worrying for Kantor is that the European Union followed suit a few days later, issuing its own asset freezes and travel bans. His bank accounts, homes, and other economic interests across the continent have been locked down.

Hungary and Austria, influenced by Zionist sympathies, both attempted to save Kantor from sanctions, with the Hungarian envoy expressing “surprise at the blacklisting of somebody he described as a highly decorated man.” However, Kantor’s fence-sitting strategy of being an Eastern kingpin and Western multiculturalist preacher has been demolished by the Ukraine conflict. Like a game of musical chairs, he finds that the music has stopped and he’s left standing, his hands full of Russian assets that were once so precious and central to his power. Ironically, the envoys of Estonia and Lithuania, two countries accused of anti-Semitism and fascism by Russia, successfully urged their partners not to remove Kantor, one of the most influential Jewish activists in Europe, from the list. And so poor Moshe, who once proposed that restrictions were a pathway to freedom, will now have to live by his own words. As his homes and possessions are seized by European governments, as the value of his companies declines, and as he finds himself with fewer places to go, I can only offer to Moshe the reassurance of his own dictum: Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life!

Stadtlans in the Spotlight

As leader of so many groups and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlan—Court Jews of the early modern period who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. Look at any country of significance and you will find not only a Jewish clique ensconced in the heart of its political machinery, but often also a small number of Jewish individuals so influential that they can be regarded as political actors in their own right. These figures are the tip of the spear of Jewish activism, and in the past such men and their families have been so impactful on the course of history that their names have passed into common parlance — Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg, and more modern corollaries such as Soros, Adelson, and the constellation of Jewish billionaires infesting Ukraine and orbiting Vladimir Putin.

For these eastern Jewish elites, the war in Ukraine has had the doubly concerning effect of impacting their finances and raising their profile. Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, German Kahn, Roman Abramovich, Alexander Klyachin, Yuri Milner, Vadim Moshkovich, Mikhail Prokhorov, Andrey Rappoport, Arkady Rotenberg, Boris Rotenberg, Igor Rotenberg, Viktor Vekselberg, God Nisanov, Oleg Deripaska, Alexander Abramov, Gavril Yushvaev, Zarakh Iliev, Vladimir Yevtushenkov, Arkady Volozh, Eugene Schvidler, Leonid Simanovskiy, Yuri Shefler, Kirill Shamalov, Aleksandr Mamut, Lev Kvetnoy, Yevgeniy Kasperskiy, Yuriy Gushchin, Oleg Boyko, Leonid Boguslavskiy, are just some of those who have hidden in plain sight for some time, but now find themselves not only discussed, sanctioned, and blacklisted, but also grouped together in lists that highlight the startling patterns of their wealth accumulation and ethnic partnership.

In 2018 the U.S. Treasury department published a list of Russians they were considering for sanctions, and the list has continued to cause unease in Jewish circles. The Times of Israel recently tried to downplay the Jewish prominence by arguing that “At least 18 of the figures on [the Treasury list] are Jewish oligarchs,” while adding that the list consists of 210 names (meaning a Jewish representation of 8.5%). But they don’t mention that the Treasury separated their list into 114 politicians and 96 oligarchs, and there are in fact 29 confirmed Jewish oligarchs in the latter list, with a further two (Aras Algarov and Alisher Usmanov) married to Jews and raising Jewish children. In other words, at least 30% of Russia’s most influential oligarchs are Jews in a country in which Jews comprise an estimated 0.1% of the population. One cannot honestly speak of the eastern oligarchs without on some level discussing the Jews.

Russia’s billionaire Jews might be almost untouchable, but they have a history of worrying that their Jewishness might become a topic of public discussion. In 1998, the Irish Times published an article outlining the beginning of the end of the Yeltsin era. Titled “Russia Bows to the Rule of the Seven Bankers,” the article explained that Russia had fallen largely into the hands of six Jewish financiers (Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman and Vitaly Malkin), and a token gentile (Vladimir Potanin). The most interesting part of the piece is the discussion of the old Jewish strategy of using a European frontman to disguise the Jewish nature of the power structure:

In the run-up to the 1996 election, the tycoons contributed millions of dollars to Yeltsin’s re-election campaign, spurred on by Berezovsky, who later boasted that the seven members of the club controlled half of Russia’s economy. It was an overstatement but reflected their hubris. After the election, according to several sources, the tycoons met and decided to insert one of their own into government. They debated who — and chose Potanin, who became deputy prime minister. One reason they choose Potanin was that he is not Jewish, and most of the rest of them are. They feared a backlash against Jewish bankers.

Putin’s Increasing Control of the Jewish Oligarchs

As with Yeltsin, the seven bankers, especially Berezovsky, initially claimed to have promoted Putin and insisted on his candidature as a Prime Minister and President. As the Guardian pointed out in 2013, Berezovsky’s fatal flaw was simple: he misread Putin:

Berezovsky met Putin in the early 1990s, when the KGB spy was working for St Petersburg’s mayor. The two socialised and even skied together in Switzerland. By the late 1990s, Putin had become head of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. Yeltsin’s entourage was seeking a successor to the ailing president. They dispatched Berezovsky to offer the job to Putin — who became prime minister in the summer of 1999, succeeding Yeltsin as acting president six months later. Berezovsky had reckoned that his friend would be a pliable successor — and that he, the ultimate Kremlin insider, would continue to pull the strings. It quickly became apparent that Putin had his own vision of Russia: a darker, less democratic place, in which the country’s spy agencies would play a vanguard role, and with Putin unequivocally in charge. The two clashed; Putin seized Berezovky’s ORT TV station; and Berezovsky decamped to London. Their feud was nasty and would lead ultimately to Berezovsky’s death at the age of 67 in exile.

Other members of the Semibankirschina (Seven Bankers) were either exiled or brought to heel. Gusinsky left Russia in 2000 following accusations of misappropriation of funds. Khodorkovsky was arrested by Russian authorities in 2003 and charged with fraud. He served 10 years in prison, during which time his wealth was decimated, and he fled to Switzerland and then London upon his release. Alexander Smolensky sold off many of his assets, lowered his profile, and reportedly moved to Vienna. Vitaly Malkin became an outward Putin loyalist, while trying for almost 20 years to relocate to Canada, investing millions in Toronto, and taking Israeli citizenship. Curiously, Vladimir Potanin, the lone gentile among the Semibankirschina, prospered most under Putin, becoming Russia’s wealthiest man.

Ukraine-born Mikhail Fridman has steered a mostly steady course, focusing on financial matters, cultivating an East-West persona from his London mansion, and avoiding political confrontations. The wheels have recently started to come off for Fridman, however, thanks to the Ukraine conflict and his desire to avoid personal financial repercussions. Fridman was one of the first oligarchs to make clear his opposition to the war, and in a later interview with Bloomberg he admitted that his statement decrying the conflict as a tragedy “could make it dangerous for him to return to Russia.” The Bloomberg interview highlights the shock that Fridman felt on finding himself frozen out of the Western sphere despite, like Moshe Kantor, investing years in careful networking:

None of this helped him avoid the fate of some fellow Russian tycoons. Nor did his years of networking in the U.S. and Europe. On Feb. 28 his lawyer pulled him out of a meeting with the news that the European Union had sanctioned him and his longtime business partner, Petr Aven [also Jewish], who was heading Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest privately held bank and a key part of Fridman’s Alfa Group Consortium. The lawyer started to rattle off what it meant: travel bans, frozen accounts. Fridman could barely register the words. “I was in shock,” he tells me. “I almost didn’t understand what he was saying.”

Fridman claims that sanctions are politically useless because the oligarchs have no influence over Putin, only business relationships:

What’s clear to him now, he says, is that the EU doesn’t get how power actually works in Russia. If the point of sanctions is to motivate people like him to apply pressure on Vladimir Putin, he says, that’s worse than unrealistic. “I’ve never been in any state company or state position,” Fridman says. “If the people who are in charge in the EU believe that because of sanctions, I could approach Mr. Putin and tell him to stop the war, and it will work, then I’m afraid we’re all in big trouble. That means those who are making this decision understand nothing about how Russia works. And that’s dangerous for the future.”

Sanctions and other economic impacts of the war have already wiped out a third of Fridman’s wealth, and although he’s still incredibly rich, he is more or less trapped in London and has no access to cash. Stephanie Baker, interviewing Fridman for Bloomberg, points out that “he now must apply for a license to spend money, and the British government will determine if any request is ‘reasonable.’” Jewish organizations in Ukraine keep calling him asking about progress on a $10 million donation he promised them but can no longer fulfil. Baker adds,

Fridman’s argument that he’s not positioned to exercise influence over the Kremlin reflects how the role of Russia’s billionaires has been turned on its head since the 1990s. Back then, Fridman was one of the original seven oligarchs, the semibankirschina. As a group they backed President Boris Yeltsin’s reelection campaign and had sway over the Kremlin. When Putin came to power in 2000, he imposed his own model: The new deal was that if they stayed out of politics, they could continue running their businesses. Putin destroyed oligarchs who violated that arrangement.

Fridman’s inability to contain his frustration at sanctions, and willingness to express opposition to the war, may well mark the end of his direct involvement in Russian life. Perhaps more than any other oligarch, his actions provoked the now infamous speech in which Putin attacked anti-war oligarchs seeking after their own economic interests:

The Russian people will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors and will simply spit them out like a gnat that accidentally flew into their mouths — spit them out on the pavement. … I am convinced that such a natural and necessary self-purification of society will only strengthen our country, our solidarity, cohesion and readiness to respond to any challenges.

“A natural and necessary self-purification of society”

News that thousands of Russian Jews are fleeing to Israel to protect their money, and the ongoing signs that many Jewish oligarchs now outside Russia may never return, are suggestive that Putin’s “natural and necessary self-purification of society” will involve a reduction in the Jewish presence, in Jewish wealth, and in Jewish influence in the country. As well as the oligarchs already mentioned, there are several Jewish billionaires, including the recently sanctioned Boris Mints, on Russian most-wanted lists, for a variety of crimes including embezzlement and fraud. Leonid Nevzlin, a Jewish oligarch, friend of the exiled Khodorkovsky, and former oil tycoon who fled to Israel from Russia 20 years ago in order to escape a life sentence for murder and financial crimes, recently undertook the symbolic act of renouncing his Russian citizenship. Russian requests for Nevzlin’s extradition have been repeatedly ignored by Israel. Nevzlin recently told a journalist: “I was one of the first to be hit by Putin. He threw my friends in jails, and killed some of them.”

One of the most fascinating aspects of Putin’s political career is that it combines an often flamboyant rhetorical and performative philo-Semitism with actions that directly harm or obstruct Jewish interests. As mentioned in a previous essay, Putin is one of Europe’s foremost promoters of the Holocaust narrative, but it is a Holocaust narrative significantly less useful to Jews than the Hollywood/Spielbergian version we are so used to in the West. It’s a Holocaust narrative stripped of Jewish exclusivity, imbued with geopolitical moral codes favorable primarily to Russia, and unashamedly directed by, and for, Moscow rather than Jerusalem. In another curious example of rhetoric clashing with reality, in 2016 Putin invited Jews to come and settle en masse in Russia, presumably knowing full well that thousands of Jews were already leaving Russia at an increasingly rapid pace. In 2014, more than double the number of Jews left Russia than in any of the previous 16 years.

One of Putin’s strengths in overcoming Jewish financial power at the highest level, which he has unquestionably done, might have its basis in the fact he is not an anti-Semite in the classical understanding. He may well not think in racial terms, but, as a former member of the secret service, he is finely tuned to cliques, intrigue, subversion, and the subtleties of identity — the standard hallmarks of Jewish activism in European cultures. He appears fully capable of eliminating such strategies when he confronts them on an individual basis and with autocratic power. He can depose a Berezovsky, for example, not on the grounds of Jewishness, but, nonetheless, on certain behaviors and associations that are an outgrowth of Jewishness. They say a broken clock will still be right twice a day, and in the same way if one sets out to eliminate opposing, group-based strategies, even in a “race blind” manner, then confrontations with Jews become inevitable. In this way, Putin is a kind of accidental, or rather incidental, anti-Semite who has dominated or eliminated Jewish financiers in his country in a way probably not seen since the days of the Court Jews and the rise of parliamentary democracy.

Jews as Warmongers and Pacifists

There is an irony in the latest predicament of Russia’s Jewish financiers given that war, historically, has been very good for Jews. For this reason, it is worth looking for some historical precedent and parallels. Derek Penslar, in his Princeton-published Jews and the Military (2013), points out that Jews might be notorious for shirking actual military service, but have been prolific in profiting from conflicts all over the world:

Jews were prominently involved in an international banking system that derived considerable profit from lending funds directly to governments or packaging and selling government debt. Much of this activity took place during or in the wake of wars. During the American Civil War, the Union government’s debt skyrocketed from $65 million to $3 billion, some 30 percent of the Union’s gross domestic product. Much of that debt was marketed in the form of government bonds in small denominations and bought by ordinary citizens. The Rothschilds had pioneered this practice in France during the 1830s, and the banker Joseph Seligman picked it up in the United States during the Civil War. After the war, the Seligmans, along with the bankers Mayer Lehman and Jacob Schiff, energetically marketed U.S. bonds as well as those of cash-strapped southern-state governments.^[1]

It was Schiff who provided some $200 million in loans to Japan to fuel its expansionist aims in the Far East against a Czarist Russia that was much hated by Jews, and it was the Seligmans who “encouraged the United States’ intervention in Colombia in 1903 to carve out a quasi-independent Panama, where the Seligmans had invested in land along the prospective route of the canal.”^[2] One of the most obvious and notorious examples of a war for Jewish interests is of course the Boer War, 1899–1902. South Africa had been regarded as a rural backwater by the Jews until a diamond strike in 1884 and the discovery of gold in the Witwatersrand in 1887. Following these events there was a substantial influx of Jewish traders, who quickly became a clique of millionaires. Claire Hirschfeld, writing in the Journal of Contemporary History, describes how Jews “were able in a relatively short period of time to create powerful financial syndicates and extended empires within a Boer republic of farmers still clinging to a pastoral life-style.”^[3] Financial power soon evolved into a desire to achieve political domination, which required the toppling of the Boers. This would require the use of the British army, and Hirschfeld points out that much of the fever for war was whipped up by a British press dominated by Jews: Oppenheim’s Daily News, Marks’ Evening News, Steinkopf’s St. James Gazette, and Levi-Lawson’s Daily Telegraph. One of the foremost opponents of the war was the English Marxist Henry M. Hyndman, who accused “Semitic lords of the press” of hounding the government into a “criminal war of aggression” in South Africa. He was joined by the editor of Reynolds’ Newspaper, W. H. Thompson, who wrote at the beginning of the war:

At the bottom of the war are the Jewish syndicates and millionaires … counting the chickens shortly to be hatched. … The Stock Exchange pulls the strings and the government dances. But behind the Stock Exchange is the sinister figure of the financial Jew who is gradually enmeshing the world in the toils of the money-web which day and night the great racial freemasonry is spinning in every corner of the globe.

Penslar agrees that Jews worked together to profit from war, writing that “it is a fact, not an antisemitic fantasy, that Jews played vital roles in coordinating the allocation of raw materials during the First World War, not only in Germany but also in the United States.”^[4] This involved overlapping cliques of Jews profiting from every aspect of war production.

Conversely, Jews can flip the pacifist switch when it is judged that war can harm their interests. Penslar points out that the Rothschilds worried in 1914 that “a war could divide the great banking dynasty,” while Max Warburg began hastily dumping his shares in companies trading on the Vienna exchange. Baron Rothschild pleaded with The Times to tone down its anti-German rhetoric, only for the editor to publicly retort at this “dirty German-Jewish financial attempt to bully us into advocating neutrality.” The German-Jewish shipping magnate Albert Ballin looked on despondently when his merchant fleet sank to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Conclusion

The present war in Ukraine carries more echoes of Ballin than of the war against the Boers. Faced with the Russian invasion and the perennial question “is it good for the Jews?” the scattered Jewish oligarchs of Russia would probably answer a resounding “No.” The most important reason would, of course, be the decline in their individual and collective wealth. Billions have been wiped from their accounts, their businesses have been hobbled, their movement and ability to do business is restricted, and their access to cash is limited. The nature of international finance — politically, philosophically, and technologically — has evolved to such an extent that Jewish profiteering in the old style is more difficult than ever. In addition, it’s also made the individual targeting of financiers in the context of conflict and war not only feasible, but easy and immediate.

The oligarchs find themselves between a rock and hard place, viewed with hostility and suspicion by the West, despite years of Holocaust promotion and Jewish philanthropy (as if this actually contributes anything to the West), and increasingly distant from, and fearful of, the Kremlin. The natural settling place for most of them is Israel, which itself tries to cultivate a relationship with both East and West, dropping one and fawning at the other according to the winds of its needs. Even Israelis, however, are viewing the oligarchs as “toxic,” and have been warned by the US government about taking in “dirty money.”

Forbes has discussed speculation from some experts that Putin is secretly happy about the twilight of the oligarchs. Sanctions may force them into asset sales that ultimately benefit his security agencies. Or they may return to Russia and be forced not only to invest in the Russian economy rather than spread their wealth globally (like property empires in London, opulent yachts etc.), but also to adopt an even more servile position under Putin. Diminished oligarchs will lead to a vast diminishment in the coffers of international Jewish organizations. A key financial well will have dried up. Putin’s war may well have breathed some truth into an edited version of Moshe Kantor’s dictum: Restrictions on Jewish financiers are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.

^[1] D. Penslar, Jews and the Military (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2013), 146.

^[2] Ibid, 147.

^[3] C. Hirshfield “The Anglo-Boer War and the Issue of Jewish Culpability.” Journal of Contemporary History 15, no. 4 (October 1980): 619–31.

^[4] Penslar, 150.

Growing up in Southern California, I had always been around Jews. This is because many Jews attended the same public schools I did in the San Fernando Valley. My father had a business in Hollywood for almost 50 years, and a number of his clients and friends were Jewish.

I can’t honestly say I had any problem with Jews at the time. The only thing that stood out about them to me was their geekiness and somewhat frail appearance. I saw them as nerds and bookish types. They didn’t seem athletically gifted, and they were rather odd looking when compared to my WASP ‘jock’ friends in high school. I was happy when Jewish holidays arrived because a large portion of our student body would be gone, and no homework was assigned on those days.

In my twenties I had a Jewish friend I was very close with. Even though I knew nothing at the time about the Jewish Question, I distinctly remember how overtly ‘Jewish’ he was. He had all the stereotypical traits that we think of when we try to describe what Jews are like. One thing that stood out was how he tended to exaggerate everything he didn’t like or agree with. I had to constantly calm him and get him to see that things were not as bad as he imagined.

This characteristic of hyperbole and overblowing things, I would later discover, is very typical of Jews. It has served them well for the past two centuries in getting European Whites to fight wars on their behalf. It has also conditioned us to see Jews as victims, and to view even the slightest opposition to them as a threat to their survival.

The more Jews I met and developed friendships with, the more I recognized the same general characteristics among them. They also had good qualities such as their appreciation for education, their seemingly natural ability to understand finances and prosper, their ability to speak well, and their zeal for humanitarian causes. I don’t impugn Jews for having them. I also found them to be earnest in promoting liberal political issues, particularly those that were beneficial to their ethnic group. At the time I didn’t think much of it. My opinion of Jews was generally positive, although I was aware that a good many of them were neurotic and rather odd.

When I became racially conscious in 2002, I still had favorable opinions of Jews. But I soon learned that among those in the White identity movement, there existed some very critical opinions of Jews. And not just a few either, but a seemingly vocal majority. I was eager and ready to criticize Blacks and rail against illegal immigration, but I felt it was a bridge too far to criticize Jews.

I struggled with this because I saw it as “anti-Semitic” in nature, and “anti-Semitism” to me at the time was just plain wrong. Little did I realize during this period how deeply I had been conditioned to believe only the best about Jews.

I would regularly visit pro-White websites and interact with other commenters. Every time the issue of the disproportionate number of Jews who sat in the highest seats of our government was mentioned, including the control they have over our banks, Hollywood, and every form of media, I would reply that such criticism was merely due to jealousy on their part. They were envious that Jews were smarter and better than they were. I argued that due to their superior intelligence, it was quite natural that Jews would attain such lofty positions of influence and power. Ashkenazi IQ levels proved it, and so how could anyone argue to the contrary?

Little did I know at the time that Jews succeeded in gentile societies not because they were smarter per se. In many cases, they secured a foothold in a particular trade or profession and ruthlessly exploited it for their ethnic benefit. It was just a matter of time before they began to squeeze out all the non-Jews, soon replacing them with their fellow tribesmen. Jews succeed, then, largely by means of ethnic networking and not because of their ‘vastly superior intelligence’ as I had wrongly assumed.

I was content with my pro-Jewish arguments until I discovered in 2013 that the U.S. federal government annually gives billions to Israel in taxpayer dollars. This was not a recent thing either. It had been going on for decades. To me it seemed inherently anti-American to give to a foreign nation massive sums of taxpayer funds from hard-working Americans. This didn’t seem right, and it’s not.

I was pro-Israel at the time. Along with most conservative Americans, I viewed the Palestinian people as nothing more than a brood of terrorists who were unjustly killing innocent Israelis. And yet I was continually bothered by the fact that my government was regularly giving exorbitant amounts of money to Israel for their military defense even though the U.S. was suffering from high rates of unemployment, poverty, and a homeless problem that was out of control.

I recalled the cautionary words of President George Washington in his farewell speech to the young nation when he left office in 1796 that Americans should be careful to avoid “permanent alliances” and foreign entanglements.

Thomas Jefferson, during his inaugural speech in 1801, echoed something very similar: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.” These common-sense foreign affairs principles have been decidedly rejected by almost every American president since the beginning of the twentieth century (some more than others). It has been particularly evident among the past five American presidents, and Jews played significant roles throughout each of these administrations.

I discovered that the U.S. was top-heavy with Jews who sat in the most important and strategic positions within the government. Most of them, I suspected, had a greater allegiance to Israel than to the U.S. This was only confirmed when I learned of the favorable policies and preferential treatment given to Israel by the federal government, including the stranglehold that Israel has over almost all of Congress.

America, then, has morphed into a nation preoccupied with the welfare and safety of Jews and Israel. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has even gone on record to declare: “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid — and I don’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are” (Conference of the Israel-American Council, December 2, 2018).

In my case, then, it was the huge amount of funds given to Israel by the U.S. that aroused my suspicions of Jews. The lesson of this, I suppose, is that a variety of avenues can be used to awaken our people to the Jewish Question.

Moreover, the more I learned about Israel’s attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the disproportionate influence that Jews played during World War II, the Jewish origins of communism, the high number of Jews who served in leadership roles among the murderous Bolsheviks, the clearer it became that Jews were not as innocent as I had once presumed.

As I struggled intellectually with all of this, I repeatedly heard about a book written by a professor from Long Beach University. It was titled The Culture of Critique (1998) written by Kevin MacDonald who was a professor of evolutionary psychology (now retired). I was told often enough that if I really wanted to know the truth about the subversive role that Jews played among U.S political movements, I needed to deal with his arguments. And so I did.

I purchased a copy of MacDonald’s book and I was astonished in just the first few chapters at how pervasive and widespread Jewish influence was in our society. I was amazed at how ethnically conscious Jews were, and how they intentionally used their positions of influence and power to subvert non-Jews and their societies. This awareness among so many Jews of what they were doing to subvert our culture, to promote all forms of depravity among our people, and to do so for their own ethnic advantage over us was not just enlightening, but also revolutionary. It served as the impetus for a major paradigm shift in my thinking.

I was also surprised at how many American and European Whites throughout history viewed Jews as a problem for White societies. These people were not cranks and conspiracists who had an ax to grind against Jews because of some perceived jealousy. They were, instead, intelligent and discerning authors, historians, and statesmen who grasped the subversive reputation that Jews hold. MacDonald addressed the warnings of Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and others who tried to awaken the public often with little success because by then Jews had controlled most of the major newspapers and other important institutions.

Throughout The Culture of Critique, Professor MacDonald argues his case dispassionately. He is motivated by the facts alone. He repeatedly goes right to the source of what Jews themselves say in their own words. This was important to me because it’s one thing to be told by someone what Jews have said and believed, but it’s altogether different when one reads what prominent and influential Jews have said about non-Jews, the authoritarian structure of the traditional American family, U.S. immigration policies and the purpose behind the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, their reasons for spreading Boasian anthropology and   Freudian psychology throughout the American landscape, and the reasons Jews provide for creating and promoting radical political movements in America.

Professor MacDonald has described what Jews have done and continue to do as a “group evolutionary strategy.” As I understand it, Jews engage in various intellectual and political movements in order to undermine the cohesion of gentile societies which in turn increases the competitive advantage of Jews. These same movements serve as a means of combatting anti-Semitism within society. Such a strategy also serves to weaken the traditional American family. This certainly appears to have been the purpose of Theodor Adorno’s 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality, which pathologized healthy normal families that are the foundation for any functioning society; the same goes for psychoanalysis and its influence on our sexual mores.

There are other reasons why Jews engage in the cultural subversion of western societies. I’ll provide three of them that make the most sense to me, although I admit not everyone may necessarily agree with them.

(1) Jews promote mass immigration into White nations so that they will not be the sole and isolated minority group. They find protection (so to speak) among large numbers of various foreigners within a nation. If persecution were to arise, they would not be the only group attacked and possibly not even persecuted at all.

Other immigrant groups, then, provide more or less cover for them. Jews are able to hide or conceal themselves when they are better situated in a country flooded with other racial or ethnic groups. By doing so, their subversive activities do not become as readily apparent which would happen if they were the only minority group.

(2) Jews engage in cultural subversion because they hate Christ and Christianity. They view all their suffering throughout the centuries since 70 AD as having been done by Christ’s followers. Thus, they seek to forever destroy every last vestige of Christianity which has been the dominant religion among Whites throughout past centuries. This ongoing war against Christianity and Whites is both religious and racial in nature.

The hard-core Jewish pornographer, Al Goldstein, was once asked why Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the porn industry. He replied: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture.” (Wikipedia).

It’s important to note that many Jews do not separate European Whites from Christianity in the way we might think. The two are part and parcel. Oh sure, they may intellectually concede that not every White person is a Christian, but deep down great numbers of them view us all as followers of the Crucified One in some way. It is particularly so among the more religious Jews.

(3) Jews also oppose all forms of nationalism (except than their own) expressed by Whites as a threat to their ethnic survival. They imagine there is an inner-Nazi in all White people that can’t wait to come out and toss every Jew into a burning oven. Jews, then, are constantly on guard to make sure White nationalism and Christianity are always mocked and rejected by any society they control. It’s a constant concern to them. They think of it often. It’s a reflection of how strongly paranoid they are.

Recognizing this, it should not be a surprise to discover that Jews create intellectual and political movements in order to weaken and ultimately subvert the gentile-dominated nations they are a part of. It’s difficult for Whites to understand this degree of ethnocentrism because they have been so badly deracinated and demoralized for the past 70 years. They have problems identifying with any form of White racial identity. It is foreign to them and how they see the world around them. Yet as our society becomes even more hostile to Whites, they will be forced to embrace a racialist and White identity way of thinking. The cultural mood of the nation and circumstances will make it so.

Obviously, there are going to be exceptions to this way of thinking among Jews that I have described, but this is in large part how the mainstream Jewish community and Jewish activist organizations react to the thought of White racial solidarity and any resurgence of Christianity.

In my journey to the Jewish Question, I was amazed at the mountainous amount of information available on the subject. Recognizing Jews as a problem for White societies is not a recent phenomenon, but one that has been discussed and debated for thousands of years. Thomas Dalton’s book, Eternal Strangers: A Critical History of Jews and Judaism (2020), is but one of many books published that have documented the troubling role that Jews play in any society foolish enough to allow them a foothold inside.

I also learned how the Jewish Question can divide people and stir up emotional reactions the minute it’s brought up. This is because Whites have been conditioned to react negatively to even the slightest hint that Jews might be a problem and not so innocent after all. One would think that even racially aware Whites would be open to the Jewish Question, but this is not always the case. They too have been propagandized to believe that any negative assessment of Jews stems solely from anti-Semitism.

This is somewhat understandable because there is always a price to pay for publicly criticizing Jews. Yet isn’t this strongly suggestive of Jewish control? The proof of disproportionate Jewish power in the U.S. is found in the fact that we are not allowed to criticize Jewish power. To do so in any public way inevitably leads to being ostracized, de-platformed from social media, lambasted as a ‘Nazi’, and the real possibility of losing one’s job.

More proof of disproportionate Jewish influence and control can be seen in that it is illegal throughout much of Europe to criticize or disagree with the Holocaust. To do so in any public way can lead to being fined or even imprisoned.

Whatever one may of think of the Holocaust narrative, why should it be illegal to disagree with it? What is so harmful about questioning it? Why is it perfectly legal to challenge or deny the Armenian genocide or the genocide committed in the Cambodian “killing fields,” yet unlawful to do so with regard to the Jewish Holocaust? Why is it acceptable to deny the existence of God, to mock Christ and Christians, and to make fun of the Bible in any public forum, and yet if someone were to publicly declare that only 5 million Jews died in the gas chambers rather than 6 million, they would soon be apprehended and jailed by the authorities?

This is because Jews largely control what can and cannot be said in most Western societies. This is especially so when it comes to any public statements critical of them. Even certain terms or expressions that are not as explicit and merely descriptive of Jews are forbidden (rootless cosmopolitans, international bankers, globalists, George Soros, etc.). These subtle ‘anti-Semitic dog whistles’ are condemned just as vociferously as those that are more explicit.

Also, were enough people allowed to publicly challenge the Holocaust narrative, enormous and detrimental consequences to Jews would result. The “Holocaust Industry,” as Norman Finkelstein describes it, would lose an enormous amount of revenue. Reparations paid to Holocaust survivors and their families might possibly be threatened. Jews might no longer be viewed as the perpetual victims they have portrayed themselves to be. The entire image that most Westerners have of Jews could be shattered. This is not a risk Jews wish to take. So they come down hard on even the slightest hint of criticism among anyone who dares to voice their disbelief.

In my journey to the Jewish Question, I learned that Jews are not the sole cause nor the sole perpetrators of the problems Whites face in the West. There are plenty of traitorous Whites who have betrayed their own people (for the right amount of shekels, of course). Our own people have enabled Jews to accomplish their subversive goals, and it does us no good to deny it. Racially discerning Whites ought not be like Blacks or even Jews themselves who are quick to blame others for their woes. Their lack of introspection and dishonesty should not be the mark of our people. No, we must face the reality that Jews could do nothing against us as Whites had we not first allowed it.

And yet with that said, there can be no denial that Jews are the principal creators, strategists, organizers, funders, and agitators against all forms of White racial identity. Of all their concerns, it is this they find the most threatening to their existence. They see “white supremacy” as the greatest danger facing America even though there is not a shred of evidence for it. But it serves to demonstrate just how fanciful their paranoid minds work.

Even politically conservative Jews will not declare publicly that Whites have a right to be the sole or dominant demographic in their own countries. This is too much even for them. The comparably few Jews who might possibly do so are outliers. They are the exception and not the norm. They are in no way representative of the majority of Jews in America or Europe. If they even hinted at such a notion, they would be instantly condemned by their own people. It would be better for them to declare something akin to pedophilia than to declare the right of Whites to advocate on behalf of their own racial and cultural interests.

As I see it, understanding the Jewish Question does not justify being obsessive about Jews and their ways. It is easy to become focused on Jews in ways that are not healthy. Yes, there is the need to inform and warn our people about them. But we need to guard ourselves from any notion that simply educating Whites about the problems that Jews create in our societies is sufficient in and of itself to reform our people. We must also face the much deeper questions of why we have allowed ourselves to succumb so disastrously to Jewish influence? What is it within us that makes susceptible to such lies and self-hatred? Such questions must also include practical strategies that will help Whites to break free from the Globo-Homo matrix and to return to a more positive image of ourselves and our history.

Finally, Whites will likely be forced to confront the Jewish Question (which is really the Jewish Problem) whether they want to or not. This is because Jews have a persistent habit of overreaching. They seem unable to restrain themselves, to calm their hysteria, and to see things as they really are. To villainize Whites as Jews do will only backfire on them, causing history to once again repeat itself.

I wish it were not so, but after 109 times of committing the same stubborn habits, there can be little hope that Jews will reform their ways.