Suppose a hungry donkey was placed exactly midway between two identical piles of hay. Could it choose one of the piles to eat or would it hesitate, growing ever weaker, until it starved to death? This was the question posed in the medieval problem of Buridan’s ass.
“And so on…”
It might seem an esoteric situation, but you can sometimes see human beings frozen like Buridan’s ass between two equally compelling alternatives. Here, for example, is the Canadian-born Jewish journalist Barbara Kay writing at Quillette in praise of the recently deceased English philosopher Roger Scruton:
Scruton did eventually get some recognition in his home country. He received a knighthood in 2016. But then in his last year, Scruton fell victim to the scourge of “cancel culture.” A few words, taken out of context in an interview, and then mendaciously twisted by the New Statesman, brought on a mobbing of the kind we are all too familiar with, with accusations flung at this gentleman of harbouring “white supremacist” views.
As the night follows day in this feckless new world, Scruton was stripped of a recent government appointment, and there were demands that he lose his knighthood, too, on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and so on — all complete fabrications. (Remembering Roger Scruton, Defender of Reason in a World of Postmodern Jackals, Quillette, 14th January 2020)
The strongly pro-Zionist Barbara Kay behaved like Buridan’s ass in the final sentence, when she wrote “and so on.” She had a choice, you see, between being completely honest and being completely dishonest. If she’d chosen to be completely dishonest, she would have written simply “on account of his homophobia and Islamophobia.” If she’d chosen to be completely honest, she’d have written “on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.”
The Board of Deputies is satisfied
As you can see, Barbara couldn’t bring herself either to admit the truth or to entirely suppress it, so she hid the uncomfortable truth beneath “and so on.” Unfortunately for her, she was still being dishonest. As I described in “A Philosopher Falls,” Scruton was accused of anti-Semitism by Luciana Berger, a prominent Jewish MP in Britain, and was removed from a government committee after intervention by the Jewish Board of Deputies, Britain’s most important and powerful Jewish organization. The Board of Deputies then self-importantly announced: “As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.”
It’s obvious, then, why Barbara Kay felt unable to mention the accusations of anti-Semitism against Scruton, who had criticized the subversive Jewish financier George Soros and mentioned the influence of Jews in Eastern Europe. Like the accusations of homophobia and Islamophobia, these accusations were “complete fabrications” and “mendaciously twisted.” But Zionists like Kay do not want to admit that accusations of anti-Semitism can be fabricated and mendacious. And Zionists like Kay are even less willing to criticize the Zionist Board of Deputies and Zionist MPs like Luciana Berger. The central Jewish role in censorship, identity politics and “cancel culture” is a can of worms that Barbara Kay and Quillette want to leave strictly alone. In other words, they don’t actually want to fight effectively against those pernicious things. Not if that means challenging what is truly important to them: Jewish power and Jewish victimhood.
No hints of a bigger story
But Barbara Kay did at least hint – “and so on” – at something more in the Scruton story. There were no hints of a bigger story in the propaganda issued by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) before this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain:
Leading football players and managers have taken part in a video to be shown at fourth-round FA Cup matches this weekend urging people to stand up against hatred and discrimination.
The two-minute video, marking Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, features Harry Kane, the England men’s captain, Steph Houghton, the England women’s captain, Frank Lampard, the Chelsea manager, Jürgen Klopp, the Liverpool manager, and the Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker alongside two dozen others.
Close-ups of their faces are cut with images from the Holocaust as they deliver an uncompromising message directed at football fans and others who fail to call out racism and discrimination.
“We remember those who stood by, those who did nothing, those that shook their heads. … We remember those who turned away, who watched the deeds of others but did nothing. We remember the good people, the decent people, all the regular people who didn’t hate but encouraged and supported hatred through the power of their silence,” they say.
Against images of antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus, they continue: “When we see racism, antisemitism, discrimination or hatred, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant … we mustn’t stand by, we need to stand up, we need to stand together.”
The video – made by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum – will be shared on social media by clubs and players on Holocaust Memorial Day, which this year also marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland. (Top footballers to mark Holocaust Memorial Day with anti-racism video, 24th January 2020)
Is the message of the video sincere or insincere? Let’s suppose it’s sincere and see where that leads us. The National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) are telling us that we mustn’t stand by and allow evil to triumph. And in recent years, the United Kingdom has been shaken again and again by scandals about the authorities standing by and allowing evil to triumph, even though they were fully aware that it was taking place. From Rotherham in the north to Oxford in the south, from Manchester in the west to Newcastle in the east, we’ve heard about girls and young women being raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered by gangs of brutal, misogynist men.
The early stages of genocide
Worse still, the brutal men and their victims come from different racial and religious groups, and the men have often used racially and religiously abusive terms against their victims. The horrible crimes therefore fit neatly into “The Ten Stages of Genocide” laid out by the organization Genocide Watch: “Mass rapes of women have become a characteristic of all modern genocides. Rape is used as a means to genetically alter and destroy the victim group.” Therefore, if the NHCM had been sincere in its message about combating evil, it would have mentioned those horrible stories about misogynist rape-gangs and their many thousands of victims.
But the NHCM didn’t say a word. It found “antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus” worthy of mention, but not the stabbing and drowning of an abused 17-year-old girl by two men who described her as a “kaffir [i.e., infidel] bitch” or the incineration of an abused 16-year-old girl with her mother and sister by another of the men’s co-religionists. And those are only two examples of the murder, sexual violence and psychological suffering visited for many decades on one racial and religious group in Britain by another racial and religious group. So why did the National Holocaust Centre and Museum not mention any of it?
Safeguarding and extending Jewish power
The answer is quite simple. The Holocaust Cult in Britain does not exist to combat evil or defend the vulnerable, but to safeguard and extend Jewish power. It does this by insisting on a series of lies and by suppressing historical facts that contradict those lies. The scandals I mentioned above are, of course, about non-White Muslim men abusing White girls from at least historically Christian backgrounds. This contradicts a central lie of the Holocaust Cult: that the majority is always the aggressor and minorities are always the helpless victims of the majority. It also contradicts another lie of the Holocaust Cult: that it’s always Christians who attack Jews and Muslims, never vice versa. For Jews, Muslims are “natural allies” against the White British, so any evils inflicted by them on the White British or other Christians are simply omitted from their account.
For example, on the website of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust you can find some brief discussion of how “the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire were systematically persecuted, deported from their homes and murdered.” This followed “a period of deterioration in relations between ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire.” But if you want further details, you won’t get them from the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. You will not be told that the Armenians were Christian or that their genocidal oppressors were Muslim and possibly also a crypto-Jewish group called the Domneh. That does not fit the propaganda of the Holocaust Cult at all! In the Holocaust Cult, Muslims are like Jews: a saintly minority who must be defended against the hate of the White Christian majority.
Jews as oppressors and mass-murderers
And of course the Holocaust Cult does not even mention communist atrocities, like the genocide committed against the Ukrainian people in 1932–3, which is estimated to have claimed between 7 and 10 million lives. Again, communist atrocities contradict the lie that minorities are always helpless victims. The Ukrainian Holodomor, or “death by hunger,” was directed and enforced by a heavily disproportionate number of Jews, from figures at the top like the little-known Lazar Kaganovich, who oversaw the genocide in Ukraine, to the ordinary, hard-working Jewish police, executioners and torturers who followed his orders. The Soviet communist party as a whole was disproportionately ruled and staffed by minorities like Jews, Georgians and Latvians who held historic grudges against the Russian and Ukrainian majorities. That was at the beginning of the twentieth century, but minority tyranny has not gone away. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can see the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, which consists of an Alawite minority elite tyrannizing a Sunni majority after a prolonged period in which they were victimized by the Sunnis.
It is not true that minorities are always victims and that majorities are always victimizers. But the Holocaust Cult can’t admit this glaring historical fact, because the Holocaust Cult is a vehicle for the interests of Jews — the very same minority that supplied so many commissars, executioners and torturers to communist parties in Eastern Europe. And Jews believe that it is in their interests to flood Western nations with Muslims — the very same group that committed the Armenian genocide and another genocide in Bangladesh in the early 1970s. Once Muslims are in the West, the Holocaust Cult simultaneously works to suppress discussion about their predation on the White majority and to incite them to increased hatred of the White majority.
Working for genocide
In other words, the Holocaust Cult is working to promote evil and increase the risk of genocide. The Cult laments the civil war and genocide that took place in the marvellously diverse former Yugoslavia when an authoritarian regime collapsed and separate groups turned on each other. At the same time, the Cult is working to turn all Western nations into new versions of Yugoslavia and new potential sites of civil war and genocide. As Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Diversity + Proximity = War.” But that doesn’t bother the Jewish proprietors of the Holocaust Cult, because they think they can stay on top and avoid harm themselves this time. The impending chaos can be managed from the top, and they will emerge unscathed.
The Holocaust Cult is a Hollow Cult because it isn’t sincere and isn’t interested in truth and historical objectivity. But its hollowness doesn’t render it harmless. The Trojan horse was also hollow and not what it pretended to be on the outside. And the Trojan horse succeeded perfectly in bringing down a great civilization. The Hollow Cult of the Holocaust is trying to do the same to Western civilization.
The Chief Rabbi speaks
Roger Scruton was supposedly a doughty defender of Western civilization. But he never criticized and condemned the Holocaust Cult. That’s one reason I can’t join the Zionist Barbara Kay in singing his praises. Then again, if Scruton had criticized the Holocaust Cult, Barbara Kay would never have sung his praises. Nor would Mark Steyn. Or Douglas Murray. Or any of the countless other admirers of Scruton who turn a stern eye on Muslim claims of Islamophobia and on transgender lunacies while ignoring the central Jewish role in censorship and identity politics. But surprisingly enough, if you do want the truth about that central Jewish role, it was supplied thirteen years ago by Jonathan Sacks, the then Chief Rabbi of Britain:
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.
“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
The Holocaust Cult is at the heart of the “culture of victimhood” described so well by Rabbi Sacks. It is being used to drive the West towards tyranny, social collapse and civil war, which leaves us with a simple choice. Either we destroy the Holocaust Cult or it destroys us.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2020-02-03 08:36:342020-02-04 02:37:05The Hollow Cult: Sins of Omission in the Rhetoric of the Holocaust
In historiography, the term “Dark Age” may describe intervening centuries for which we have little or no documentary evidence. Accordingly, the time period between the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization to the birth of the polis is known as the Greek Dark Ages by historians, simply because there are no contemporary written sources. In this essay, the term Dark Age will be used to designate a period of civilizational decline, with particular reference to Western Europe’s Dark Ages (c. 500—1000 AD). This was quite possibly the worst period of civilizational decline in Western history, but is important because it shows us that civilization is separated from the worst bestial depravity by a thin line. What George Santayana wrote is instructive: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Although this adage has become a cliché, it bears repeating since it’s well-supported by past experience. If we must focus on the Old Dark Ages, it is because we risk forgetting how fragile civilization really is. If this is the case, we are in danger of rushing heedlessly into a New Dark Age—if we have not already entered one—since we have failed to internalize the lessons of the past.
The causes of the Dark Ages in Western Europe are considered complex and multifaceted by modern historians. The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperium Romanorum lacked the ability and competence of the Imperial government. The result was inevitable. Under barbarian rule, there were “very substantial simplifications in post-Roman material culture in the fifth to seventh centuries.”[1] Among these “simplifications” were the collapse of the empire’s infrastructure, the decline in the production of manufactured goods and use of coinage, widespread depopulation and de-urbanization and, most devastating of all, the loss of much of the ancient world’s cultural and intellectual patrimony. Although some contemporary historians stress continuity between Rome and the barbarian kingdoms, this is contradicted by the extensive archaeological record. From 500—700 AD, there was a massive decline in European living standards since Roman times, when the Dark Ages had reached their lowest point.
As terrible as these Dark Ages were, it is not the only dark period in Western history, nor will it be the last. A New Dark Age has returned, more terrible than the first. We are its passive witnesses, confident that nothing can be done to stop it. The West is crumbling because the White race has collectively decided—at the instigation of a hostile Jewish-dominated globalist elite—that White racial suicide is a moral imperative. The visible signs of this deterioration are so obvious they can no longer be ignored, at least by those who can see beyond the smoldering ruins of this decaying civilization.
A New Dark Age?
The signs of an emerging New Dark Age are fourfold, affecting the biological, intellectual, demographic and economic spheres of Western man’s existence. This decline is apparently unstoppable; as time goes by, the darkness over Europe will only become darker. In the biological and intellectual sphere, we have seen IQs steadily decline since mid-19th century. This has no doubt been masked to a considerable extent by improvements in nutrition and healthcare, resulting in longer lifespans. On the other hand, feminism and women’s sexual liberation have aggravated the decline: Low-IQ women breed prolifically, while high-IQ women influenced by feminism delay marriage for the sake of careers and education. It does not take a fertile imagination to realize the kind of dysgenic effect this has on society. In the largest North American and Western European urban centers, we see the crumbling infrastructure and growing social decay that comes with overcrowding and mass Third World immigration. More non-Whites shoveled into Western cities by globalist elites, many with anti-White ethnic agendas, means lower average population IQ, followed by a corresponding decline in quality of life as low-IQ people become an ever-increasing burden on society in terms of homelessness, drug addiction, lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc. In the absence of a technologically sophisticated elite able churn out inexpensive consumer goods, this would result in increasing “simplification” of post-Western material culture, analogous to the kind of “simplifications” archaeologists say occurred during the Old Dark Ages. Given declining IQs and racial hygienic standards, life will inevitably become a much simpler, but more brutal Darwinian struggle for survival, just as it was over a thousand years ago.
The West’s declining IQs have led to declining educational standards. The universities are no longer bastions of intellectual inquiry, like they were during their heyday, i.e., La Belle Époque, but liberal indoctrination centers with little intellectual content. In this respect, they are similar to the late medieval universities that once policed orthodoxy and discouraged freedom of thought (i.e. the Catholic Aristotelians of the medieval arts and theology faculties who opposed the new astronomy of Galileo). The people who run them, far from being interested in knowledge for its own sake, are there to reap the rewards of an easy, well-paying job where they are able to spew leftist propaganda—at the expense of their students, who still believe—albeit naively—that degrees are needed for good jobs. Mass education, far from being a benefit to anyone except the system’s architects, has lowered curricular quality and increased prevalence of grade inflation across the board.
On a side note, Western philosophy—the most important intellectual endeavor beside theoretical physics—has been particularly hard hit by PoMo relativism. From the empyrean heights of Plato and Aristotle, it has descended to the low level of a feces-encrusted cesspit. The writings of Martin Heidegger—liberal academia’s biggest superstar—are considered holy writ by his legions of adoring fans, even though they are pretentious, rambling, jargon-laced diatribes only famous because they can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone. Far from being a means of defining terms and refining methods to achieve greater clarity and understanding—the way Socrates intended—modern (especially continental) philosophy seeks to feign profundity through an unnecessarily turgid and obscure prose. Meanwhile, impenetrable jargon has become the trademark of the rest of the humanities, personified by academic superstars like Judith Butler.
White populations worldwide are hurtling toward demographic free fall. The declining birth rates in virtually all White Western Hemispheric nations are symptomatic of the collapse of the monogamous family, the result of decades of indoctrination in feminist ideology and women’s sexual liberation. Since women are no longer expected to settle down and marry, the worst aspects of female nature are now on full display. Student debt incurred by buying largely worthless (for many) college degrees is affecting the decision to marry. If there are no traditional values—and Western society has done its best to jettison these in the name of fatuous “human rights”— society will not adequately replenish itself, eventually withering away and dying.
Finally, Western economies are being undermined from within by their own elites. Outsourcing by multinationals has decimated manufacturing sectors in all White Western countries, worsening the lives and prospects of the White middle- and working-class majority populations. Chinese goods have been allowed to flood Western markets, often with the collusion of domestic manufacturers who are able to outsource their labor costs. Real wages have stagnated and affordable housing has become increasingly scarce, as excess Third World immigrant demand places home ownership beyond reach of the ordinary citizen, particularly in the large urban centers.
Moreover, the importation of this cheap, non-White labor has a contraceptive effect, putting downward pressure on real wages which, in turn, put downward pressure on White fertility rates; working-class wages have stagnated since the 1970s. In the West, the growing reserve army of labor disincentivizes industry from rationalizing production and channeling surplus profits into research and development. Far from getting better, the economy worsens as wealth accrues to the top 1 percent of the population; meanwhile, the middle class shrinks and poverty becomes more widespread.
Because of all of these factors, life in most of the White Western countries has progressively worsened, only made tolerable—but just barely—by the superabundance of inexpensive Chinese-made goods. That the majority of Whites and their globalist elites interpret these signs of deterioration as “progress” and “improvement” is just more evidence we really are in a Dark Age.
Old and New Dark Ages Compared
The similarities and differences between New and Old Dark Ages may be grouped under the following headings: (a) the reasons for demographic decline; (b) Western man’s conscious decision to abandon his own civilization vs. Roman decline due to internal civilizational weaknesses, and; (c) the role of Christian ideology in the decline of Rome and Jewish ideology in modern Western culture.
First, we begin with Rome’s decline, which had a demographic dimension. After Hadrian had abandoned the territories conquered by Trajan—for administrative and fiscal reasons, the quest for new land and new bodies to rule over ground to a halt. This precipitated a crisis. The number of bodies left to till the fields and man the auxiliary forces along the frontiers declined as the vices of civilization took root. Because of the dearth of bodies and taxable wealth, the empire lacked the capacity to control its vast territories. To remedy this, the Romans recruited barbarians from burgeoning migrant populations along the frontiers or from the armies of the defeated. The historian Cassius Dio says Marcus Aurelius, after defeating the barbarians in the Marcomannic Wars, would either send them on military campaigns or settle them on land in Dacia, Pannonia and elsewhere.[2]
By the fourth century, barbarian recruitment into the armies had increased; by the mid-5th century, the ranks of the army were largely occupied by Germanic and Hunnish mercenaries, at which point even the military chain of command was thoroughly barbarized. The magister militum, the most important position in the empire after the emperor himself, was occupied by Romanized Germans for most of the fifth century. These men were more powerful than the succession of weak emperors they could make or break with a single utterance. According to the “barbarization thesis”: “Rome was fatally weakened when, in the fourth and fifth centuries, her army largely made up of foreigners no longer represented the people.”[3]
The Imperial administration’s need for barbarians was in some ways similar to Western elite demand for non-White immigrants. Like immigrants, the barbarians were cheap and expendable. Non-Whites are imported by globalists to do the work “White men don’t want to do.” Similarly, the barbarians were recruited into the armies and allowed to settle Imperial lands because fourth- and fifth-century Romans had become the “soyboys” of antiquity—soft, effeminate, milquetoast, peace-loving and totally lacking in all of the warrior virtues. Finally, like Western elites, the Imperial administration was a tax-hungry beast; but Roman justification for taxation was pragmatic, not ideological. This difference is best illustrated by the Western neoliberal economic model; predicated on perpetual growth, it serves as pretext for the White majority’s suicidally impulsive need for never-ending supplies of non-White “fresh meat.” In the Roman case, a constant stream of bodies was needed to maintain an empire overextended beyond its logistical and financial capacities. By late antiquity, this state of affairs had become militarily and financially unsustainable. The barbarian invaders were simply kicking in the doors of an old house that was rotten to the foundation.
The inevitable result of Imperial greed for taxes and manpower was ethnic demographic replacement of the Roman population across wide swathes of Imperial land. This wasn’t a conscious decision on the part of the Roman aristocracy. Given the empire’s multi-ethnic character, the Imperial administration could not refuse entrance to barbarian migrants on ethnic grounds. The problems that afflicted the Imperium during late antiquity were the outcome of earlier expansionist policies that overextended the boundaries of empire, making it difficult to maintain and control without a constant supply of warm bodies and a steady flow of taxes. Population replacement by large numbers of foreigners, the end result of failed Imperial expansionist policies and Volkerwanderung, led to the alienation of the citizenry from the institutions from their own government. The more Germanized the empire became, the less people identified with it. In time, too much Germanization meant very little patriotism; no loyalty to Rome meant no desire to prevent the barbarian invasions from overrunning much of the Imperial territories. When Africa was lost to the Vandals, there was hardly any will to recapture the territory, despite its status as breadbasket of the empire. It even meant Roman contempt—and sometimes outright ethno-racial hatred—for the Germanic and Hunnish invaders. The second time Rome was sacked in a millennium—by Alaric’s Goths in 410 AD—the underlying reason was contemptuous treatment of her barbarian auxiliaries and their sacrifices by the Romans, the outcome of reliance on cheap and expendable foreign labor.
The Volkerwanderung is not the cause of the empire’s collapse, as its internal weaknesses date from the civil wars, natural disasters and barbarian invasions of the third century; however, Germanization, combined with lack of identification with Romanitas, played a role in hastening its decline. The barbarian successor states that replaced the Imperial administration lacked the know-how to run a civilization as sophisticated and as advanced as Rome, resulting in barbarism replacing civilization in most of Western Europe.
Even though the causes of the Dark Ages in Rome and the modern West are different, it is instructive to note the final outcome in both cases was ethnic replacement by hostile foreigners, none of whom possessed the ability to maintain the civilizations they acquired either through force or by invitation. Among the main differences, the barbarians who terrorized Rome were mostly White, whereas the ones being imported by Whites into their own Western countries are overwhelmingly non-White. Unlike Rome, which at least valued Romanitas to the bitter end, the contemporary “West” aggressively pursues its own racial demise at the hands of its non-White colonizers. While Rome’s decline was the outcome of events rotting the Imperium from within, the collapse of modern Western societies and their descent into the New Dark Ages is entirely the fault of Whites being dominated by a hostile ruling elite.
Many Whites, under the influence of an alien Jewish-dominated media elite, encourage their own women to prostitute themselves to non-White foreigners, while making it harder for men of their own race to reproduce by implementing aggressively feminist, women’s liberationist and multicultural policies. This is a reason why fertility has declined to below replacement levels since the beginning of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become the new Western values of the emerging post-Western cultures of Western Europe and North America, thanks to elite manipulation of White racial consciousness. As a result, the traditional values embodied by the institutions of monogamous marriage and the nuclear family unit are no longer influential. The image of the White woman in the minds of the non-White males encouraged by globalists to invade White-majority countries, is of a promiscuous and nymphomaniacal slut who will bed any man who desires her. This image has been exported abroad by Hollywood, but it is far from the truth, since women everywhere are biologically hypergamous. But there is no doubt this is a powerful draw for the Third World’s oversupply of single males, who cannot afford wives for themselves in their own native countries. These policies are prudishly justified as much needed “civil rights legislation” and “multiculturalism,” but more appropriate labels would be pathological ethnomasochism and delusional racial self-hatred.
Lastly, the state religion of Rome had become Christianity in the fourth century. This deprived the Imperium of her ablest and most talented men. This late classical “brain drain” further hastened a process begun during the crisis of the third century, when the Roman empire was divided between warring factions.
Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano writes:
“The Church attracted the most creative minds—St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, Hilarius of Poitiers, St. Augustine in the West; Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea in the East: almost all born rulers, rulers of a type which, with exception of the scholarly emperor Julian, it was hard to find on the imperial throne. …
Gibbon was simplifying a very complicated issue when he insinuated that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the empire, but he perceived that the church attracted many men who in the past would have become excellent generals, governors of provinces, advisers to the emperors. …
People escaped from the state into the Church and weakened that state by giving their best to the Church. This is a situation which in its turn requires analysis and explanation. But its primary importance cannot be overlooked. The best men were working for the Church, not for the state.”[4]
The rise of Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages—an event without any single underlying cause—but it did not help matters either. As the Christian church increased in wealth and power, more people took an active interest in pursuing clerical careers. Under the pagan emperors, familiarity with the classics was mandatory for those who wanted to work for the state, but it wasn’t necessary for those who worked for the church. There was a “reduction in the number of administrative posts in the Roman empire’s Western successor kingdoms because taxation was simplified and some administrative levels … disappeared entirely. This rendered classical culture less attractive, because the effort and investment necessary to master it became less socially profitable.”[5] As a result, the classical curriculum declined in importance, becoming no longer necessary for secular advancement. In the early medieval period, the “clericalization of the culture became the sociological norm after 550.”[6] In the late sixth to seventh centuries, the classical education system was either replaced by monastic training or the study of patristics. This development negatively affected the survival of the ancient world’s secular knowledge. Dirk Rohmann writes:
Many early Christian clerics and ecclesiastical authors felt that the pagan texts of the past were completely unnecessary to lead a Christian life-style. … As classical education came to be less and less important for worldly career paths, and clerical career paths became more and more attractive, the preservation of the works of old was endangered.”[7]
Somehow these writings had become so “endangered” that almost none of them survived the sixth and seventh centuries, when Western man had sunk to the lowest depths. How could such an enormous loss occur in so brief a period of time (relatively speaking)? In the standard work on classical and medieval textual transmission, scholars Reynolds and Wilson write:
There can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction.[8]
The growth of the Christian church meant loss of interest in the ancient world’s greatest achievements. Works of secular poetry, philosophy, science, and mathematics were left to rot on Western Europe’s bookshelves. Reynolds and Marshall write: “The copying of classical texts tapered off to such an extent during the Dark Ages that the continuity of pagan culture came close to being severed.”[9] The monks who dominated the medieval apparatus of textual transmission made sure to preserve thousands of copies of Greek and Vulgate New Testaments, but rarely copied the classics. According to Rudolf Blum:
Of the Greek literature created before 250 B.C. we have only a small, even though very valuable, part. We do not even have the complete works of those authors who were included in the lists of classics compiled by the Alexandrian philologists. Of all the works of pagan Greek literature perhaps only one percent has come down to us.[10]
Rohmann wrotes: “It is estimated that for Latin literature less than one per cent of titles survive in total.”[11] Because of its indifference to the achievements of the past, the Christian church had inadvertently prolonged the Dark Ages for centuries. It wasn’t until the rediscovery of classical literature—Aristotle, Plato, Euclid and so on—beginning in the twelfth century, that Western man was able to free himself from the brutal indifference and crass superstitions of the Christian church.
Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has played a similar role in the New Dark Ages, but with an important difference. Christianity did not cause the empire’s disintegration, but only hastened its decline, whereas cultural Marxism is a central causal factor in Western decline. Under Cultural Marxist influence, globalist elites have aggressively promoted feminism, multiculturalism and mass immigration. Homosexuality, transgenderism and miscegenation have become enshrined as the new values of a decaying post-modern civilization. The church did not need to suppress classical culture to ensure Christian hegemony in Western Europe; there were a few skirmishes here and there, but indifference was more than enough. Cultural Marxists, unlike Christians, actively suppress knowledge of racial and sexual differences using social pressures, i.e., ostracism and shaming language (“You racist! You sexist!”); economic pressures, i.e., depriving right-wing dissidents of their livelihoods, and; legal pressures, i.e., hate speech and anti-Holocaust denial legislation. On top of this, the globalist elites even have the power to shape the consciousness of the masses. By altering human perception of objective reality through control of mass media, such as newspapers, television, radio and billboards, they seek to neutralize the opposition, while proclaiming their new religion of liberal egalitarianism.
Like Christianity, cultural Marxism has its own belief system. “There is no such thing as race or sex,” proclaims the new religion, “all cultures are the same.” These beliefs are impervious to reason, just like the beliefs of the devout Christian. Like Christian religious epistemology, cultural Marxist epistemology is faith-based. This does not bode well for the survival of our current, albeit degenerate post-Western civilization. As Edmund Burke pithily observed: “A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.”
Christian indifference prolonged the Dark Ages and the suffering of the people of Europe, until what remained of ancient secular knowledge was recovered between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, giving Europeans a solid foundation upon which to build. Without the rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle and others, the modern world would have taken much longer to emerge, assuming it would have emerged at all. The cultural Marxists, far from being indifferent to the Western intellectual tradition, draw much of their inspiration from the liberal Enlightenment, especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and various Marxist heterodoxies, like the Frankfurt School. Unlike the church, which has never actively suppressed any branch of human knowledge, cultural Marxist fanatics go out of their way to suppress the West’s accumulated knowledge of race and sex differences, including the role of evolutionary biology in their origin and development. Although cultural Marxism is not an attack on all Western knowledge, its attempt to eliminate knowledge of racial and sexual differences will have the same effect as centuries of Christian indifference to the intellectual achievements of antiquity.
Because of the diligent efforts of cultural Marxists, few Westerners are aware of the size and extent of racial and sexual differences between populations, or even that such differences exist. This is not unlike the Christian theologians of the Old Dark Ages who hoarded what little remained of ancient philosophy, science and mathematics among themselves, while the populace remained totally ignorant of the intellectual achievements of classical antiquity. Cultural Marxism, unlike the Christian church, has not yet resulted in the loss of almost all branches of human knowledge, but its willful suppression of knowledge of race and sex differences is just as devastating, if not more so. At least there were still men of ability after the long, dark night of Christian indifference, able to rebuild on the wisdom of the past after the recovery of Aristotle in the twelfth century. With the abandonment of all knowledge of race and sex differences, the West’s vast storehouse of knowledge will be lost because of the biological degeneration and extinction of the original populations of Western Europe and North America. Whites will always be able to abandon crass superstitions—even if it takes centuries—but a gene pool, once contaminated by an inferior population’s low-quality genes, may never recover.
Will Western Man Survive The New Dark Ages?
The Romans of late antiquity were oblivious to the fact their now moribund Western empire was slipping into the Dark Ages, although a few were prescient enough to notice the extent of the rot before it was too late. One such prescient Roman was the fourth-century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote:
At the time when Rome first began to rise into a position of world-wide splendour, in order that she might grow to a towering stature, Virtue and Fortune, ordinarily at variance, formed a pact of eternal peace; for if either one of them had failed her, Rome had not come to complete supremacy. Her people, from the very cradle to the end of their childhood, a period of about three hundred years, carried on wars about her walls. Then, entering adult life, after many toilsome wars, they crossed the Alps and the sea. Grown to youth and manhood, from every region which the vast globe includes, they brought back laurels and triumphs. And now, declining into old age, and often owing victory to its name alone, it has come to a quieter period of life.[12]
Only Ammianus’s belief in an eternal Rome prevented him from swallowing the ultimate blackpill and taking his observations to their logical conclusion: Rome’s days as a civilization were numbered. The Christians and the Germanic barbarians would be more interested in wielding their swords and chanting Christian hymns than rescuing the decaying Imperium Romanorum from oblivion.
Even a few late-ancient Christians were not oblivious to the impending collapse of Rome. In a letter of 396, St. Jerome wrote:
My heart sickens when I go over the catastrophes that have happened in our time. For more than twenty years, not a day has gone past between Constantinople and the Julian Alps without the shedding of Roman blood. How many matrons, how many virgins dedicated to God, how many free-born women of noble blood, have fallen into the hands of those wild beasts, … bishops imprisoned, priests slaughtered, churches defiled, horses tethered to altars. … The world of Rome is falling to pieces.”[13]
The pattern is the same with the New Dark Ages that have blanketed all of Western Europe and North America. Few notice what has happened before voices of protest are silenced indefinitely. As always, the masses carry on as if nothing has changed. No one ever knows they have really gone through a Dark Age until it has been pointed out to them centuries after the fact. It was over 300 years after the “official” end of the Old Dark Ages when the fourteenth-century humanist Petrarch first noticed the lights had entirely gone out in Western Europe for over a thousand years, beginning with the crisis of the third century and continuing until his own day. He had a special term for these intervening centuries: aetas tenebrae or “age of darkness.”[14]
Ages of darkness, like the one first recognized and described by Petrarch, are necessarily characterized by regnant ideologies that reflect the general ignorance and stupidity of the masses. Medieval man fervently believed in this child-like superstition despite the pointless suffering it caused all around him. Our own day is no different; in our New Dark Age, race and sex are believed to be illusions invented by racists and sexists to oppress and marginalize what cultural Marxists believe are “disadvantaged minorities.” These beliefs are just as silly, but potentially more destructive than simple Christian beliefs. As religious or quasi-religious beliefs, they are impervious to reason because they are derived from faith-based epistemologies, which do not allow for the revision of the belief-system itself in light of new evidence.
There are no real solutions to the problems that confront what’s left of Western societies. Only seismic shocks like what led to the Renaissance and Reformation were able to awaken medieval man from his “dogmatic slumbers,” to use Kant’s phrase. With the end of ecclesiastical authority in Europe, medieval man was able to wean himself from his crass superstitions and singlehandedly create the modern world. On the other hand, it seems unlikely a new Renaissance will be enough to jolt Western man—if indeed we can even call him that—from his own “dogmatic slumbers,” given his newfound faith entails mental and biological degeneration of his own subspecies.
Our only hope lies, not with any White awakening—a totally unrealistic fantasy at this point—but with natural selection. If even a few Whites can resist the poison of cultural Marxism, by breeding selectively among themselves and preserving their own bloodlines from non-White intermixture, they may be able to give future Whites the opportunity to rebuild a society of their very own upon the ashes of post-Western degeneracy.
[1] Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. London ; Penguin, Allen Lane, 2010, p. 7.
[2] “Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.Edu, 2019, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html. Accessed 2 June 2019, LXXII.11.
[3] Speidel, Michael P. Riding For Caesar: The Roman Emperor’s Horseguard. Routledge, 2011, p. 65.
[4]Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed. “Judeo-Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire.” The Conflict Between Paganism and Judeo-Christianity in the Fourth Century, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99.
[5]Inglebert, Hervé. “Introduction: Late Antique Conceptions of Late Antiquity” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, Oxford University Press, 11 Oct. 2012, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195336931.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195336931. Accessed 2 Nov. 2019, p. 11 (PDF version).
[7]Rohmann, Dirk. Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission. Waco, Baylor University Press, 2017, p. 198.
[8]Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, p. 34.
[9]Reynolds, L. D., et al. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983, p. xvii.
[10]Blum, Rudolf. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Madison, Wis., The University Of Wisconsin Press, 2011, p. 8.
[12]“The Roman Antiquities of Ammianus Marcellinus.” LacusCurtius, Uchicago.edu, 2011, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/14. Accessed 18 Jan. 2020, Book XIV.6.3-4.
[13]Letters, 60, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 22, p. 600. Quoted by Lidia Storoni Mazzolani, The Idea of the City in Roman Thought, trans. S. O’Donnell (London:1970), p. 235.
[14]Lynch, Jack, and John T. Lynch. The Age of Elizabeth in the Age of Johnson. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 21.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Ferdinand Bardamuhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngFerdinand Bardamu2020-02-01 07:55:192020-02-01 08:09:28The “New Dark Ages” in Western Europe and North America: Comparisons with the Fall of Rome
Last Monday there was a large pro-gun rally in Virginia’s capital. It turns out many freedom-loving Virginians aren’t exactly enamored with state gun laws, and have finally figured out that tyranny is at least as liable to arrive through the rule of law as it is to arrive in spite of it. When it comes to tyranny and totalitarianism, arbitrary rule is as often the exception as the rule. In many, if not most, totalitarian societies, the rule of law is largely intact. It is the laws themselves that are the problem.
Yet despite the hysteria and the hysterical decrees that preceded the rally, when the rally materialized, there was, oddly enough, hardly any law enforcement presence at all. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, democratic representative from the great state of New York, where full-blown communism is apparently very popular, implied that this was because the US Government ison the side of White supremacists. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. White supremacists and White nationalists are the perennial bane of the Cultural Marxist state, probably even more so than oath keepers and militia members (though there is some overlap between these groups/categories). Those folks still by and large accept the core values of the Cultural Marxist state: anti-racism, anti-sexism, equality-worship, diversity-worship, etc. They, like neocons and normiecons, are the unwitting allies of their enemies. They profess to oppose tyranny even as they aggressively defend its ideological foundations. They purport to revere tradition but defend the value system destroying it unconditionally. Those types naturally roamed around Monday’s gun rally, embarrassing themselves thoroughly at every turn, by making themselves available to any journalist who would hear them, as they proceeded to denounce “White supremacy” (but not our White supremacist Founding Fathers of course) and “hate” (always ill-defined) and whatever else the left opposes ad nauseum, as if it was going to get them somewhere with their diabolical leftist overlords, when all it really does, is divide the right, thereby weakening us all.
The real reason there was so little police presence at the rally is almost certainly because the government of Virginia and the federal government both, were genuinely terrified of inadvertently inciting a second civil war by overaggressively confronting a massive, heavily-armed crowd. So, in the end, it was much ado about nothing, all wind and no fire. Rallygoers were remarkably civil and perfectly peaceable. They even cleaned up the streets on their own initiative after the rally was over. I think there was but one arrest in all! One stinking arrest!
It is stunning of course to observe the gulf between the repressive tactics of the US Government, on both the state and federal level, along with the massive propaganda campaign instituted by the media in advance of the rally, and the restrained reality of that rally. The panic and hoopla preceding the event were completely disproportionate to the tranquility of the rally itself. Yet the bizarre chorus of state actors and state shills, shuffling to a common tune and bellowing to a common refrain, had to make any reasonable observer entertain the possibility that it was all orchestrated, a giant psy-op as it were: the multiple FBI arrests of “neo-nazis” on what are most definitely trumped up charges, the media blitz, the fake outrage by fake leaders, religious and political, Ralph Northam’s idiotic autocratic decrees, it was all very curious, and it all seemed eerily coordinated.
Now, in the short term, I think the goal of that likely coordinated campaign to delegitimize the rally is obvious. By making the rally seem infinitely more dangerous than it actually was, and by artificially tethering the rally to the omnipresent and omnimalevolent specter of White supremacy, the powers that be legitimized Ralph Northam’s excessive fiats, which would befit any tin-pot communist dictator anywhere on Earth. Doing so also tainted the rally somewhat in the eyes of common folk, likely undermining its vitality. Yet I think the Cultural Marxist US power structure has long-term goals in mind as well. You see, the Cultural Marxist power class wants to link gun rights themselves, not just this particular gun rally, to White supremacy. That way, they can delegitimize gun rights via a grand fallacy of association. Our leftist overlords believe that if they can link those fundamental liberties to a “pure evil” that isn’t (ethno-nationalist political systems are actually quite commonplace around the world), we will gaily tolerate whatever tyranny they have in store for us. If the last hundred years or so of American history is anything to go by, they may very well be right.
After all, the left has already done something awfully similar when it comes to free speech. The left hasn’t the ability to drastically curtail free speech in the government realm (yet), but it has drastically curtailed free speech on the internet, where most speech occurs nowadays anyway. It achieved this by arguing without pause for a full decade or more, that supporting and defending free speech on the internet was tantamount to White supremacy and White nationalism. Hate speech codes are inescapable on the net today, and deplatforming rightist political dissidents is the new normal. Many prominent rightist political dissidents can not even use payment processors anymore to fund their peaceful democratic activities. Powerful leftists and leftist interest groups pressured and persuaded sympathetic Big Tech oligarchs, to censor and thereby democratically neuter the political right, and they have done precisely that on a scale that easily rivals government action. They presented to those corporate leaders the same basic choice they present to us all: do what you are told, in this case combat “hate speech” (a nonsensical Marxist concept completely incompatible with free speech), or you are abetting White supremacy. They do not need to put their ideological allies to the choice in the same way, or apply the same degree of pressure, but the basic format is the same. Of course, not even this is enough for the ADL which recently asked for government action to rein in so-called “hate speech” on social media.
That is the same bargain the Cultural Marxist power class has been offering Americans since the 1960’s. In truth, it is not so much a bargain as a scam. Either you forfeit your right to hire and fire who you please, or else you’re a racist. Either you forfeit the right to sell your own property to who you please, or else you’re a racist. Either you forfeit your right to freedom of association, or else you’re a racist. It’s the same scam, but the stakes have just been raised. Now the offer is: either you cede your Second Amendment rights and the subject of those rights to your benevolent government, or you are a racist, or at the very least, an enabler of racism and White supremacy. Here are some articles that came up with a Google search for “Second Amendment White Supremacy” (without quotes):
Tyranny is not only presented as a reasonable price to pay to defeat [White] racism, it is presented as the only rational option. After all, what can White supremacists do with their essential rights save abuse them? If we are to secure the temple of diversity must we not disarm its enemies? For make no mistake, the Cultural Marxist state would love to disarm and disable those who truly reject its core tenets (White nationalists). Indeed, it would like to disarm and disable even its nominal foes (ordinary conservatives). As a matter of fact, the many new “red flag” laws (like the one recently passed in Virginia, which was being protested against at the gun rally), as they have been termed, will themselves be used as a pretext for law enforcement all over America to confiscate the guns of “dangerous dissidents” (aka any conservative alive). It will not happen to all of us, but understand it will happen to plenty of us, and it could happen to any of us, and if you are expecting due process, don’t, because you won’t be getting any. In the eyes of the US power structure, we are all of us guilty merely by existing, and we are already being disarmed, slowly but surely.
The media blitz and the spate of FBI arrests and the whole coordinated operation are intended to corral us all into the proper pen. Since we supposedly must defeat White supremacy at all costs, and since gun rights uphold White supremacy, what other conclusion could a decent and prudent American peon reach? How could you even entertain any other option? You’re not a White supremacist sympathist are you?
In sum, the left’s depraved attempt to link White supremacy (and White nationalism) with gun rights is a very deliberate thing. And while denouncing White supremacy may make life easier for conservative cowards, it does not advance the interests of the political right or secure gun rights. Right-leaning Americans can not extricate themselves from their association with White supremacy in the minds of the good-thinking liberals who parrot their masters in the elite media and academic world, no matter how much denouncing and disavowing they do. The lying press will never allow it. That is a fruitless trail to tread.
Moreover, if the left succeeds in linking White nationalism to gun rights, even substantially, and it will do everything it can to do so, then every pointless and overzealous denunciation of White nationalism by conservatives and their ilk, inadvertently undermines gun rights. Indeed, if “White nationalism” is truly that evil, and everyone agrees on that (even righties), then how could anyone defend something made to seem so inseparable from it? It would make more sense from a strategic standpoint for righties to rehabilitate White nationalism, given the inchoate association. Ultimately, our leftist overlords are betting that Americans will eventually surrender anything and everything they possess, including their most essential freedoms, to avoid being [labeled] racist. Only time will tell if the Cultural Marxists have finally overplayed their hand.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/featured-image-placeholder-solid-kevin-macdonald-e1529399935906.jpg350263Amalric de Droevighttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngAmalric de Droevig2020-01-30 06:25:322020-01-30 06:25:32Gun Ownership Is Fast Becoming White Supremacy
But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles in impeachment. Most prominent are the two congressmen who conducted the House hearings: Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both Schiff and Nadler were named as prosecutors in the Senate trial, with Schiff designated as lead prosecutor.
In effect, impeachment is a project of the numerically-dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.
I believe this new blatant approach is a marker of Jewish power in 2020 America: Jews now feel confident enough that they can safely participate in such displays, knowing that their role will never be noted in public debate.
Indeed, it’s quite possible that the average white American watching the hearings genuinely sees the Jewish principals as nothing more than garden-variety white folks—they often seem to have no “Jewdar” at all.
This is no accident, since the percentage of Americans who think “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” in 2008 was 22%, compared to ~50% in 1964—despite Jewish dominance remaining obvious to anyone who bothers to seriously inquire. Being afraid to notice ethnic realities, or having been brainwashed into not noticing them, are major factors in the power of what has to be described as America’s new, Jewish-dominated, elite.
Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of this elite. His immigration-related proposals and comments (e.g., “Paris is no longer Paris,” “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best”) and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive immigration and endless wars in the Middle East to protect Israel. His victory was a hostile takeover of the Presidency, opposed by the entire spectrum of elite political opinion, from the far Left to the neoconservative “Right,” and including Conservatism, Inc. cheap-labor lobbyists like Paul Ryan.
Trump’s platform was populist to the core—it was essentially an end-run around elite opinion. And American Jewish intellectuals have long shown their hostility toward populism, as I noted in Chapter 5 of my The Culture of Critique.
But the Trump phenomenon went beyond its rational content, It was an implicitly White revolt, motivated by fears about what being a white minority in a majority black and brown America would mean for the future— entirely reasonable concerns.
However, Trump’s implicit white appeal worked both ways—it inspired both support and also opposition, above all among Jews.
In interesting contrast to their fellow Americans of similar socioeconomic status, some 70–80 percent of U.S. Jews vote Democrat. But even so their visceral animosity toward Trump during the 2016 campaign was extraordinary (see my VDARE.com five-part series titled “Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump”).
So it’s no surprise that Trump’s actual election was greeted with quite unprecedented anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun the day of Trump’s inauguration. [By Matea Gold, January 17, 2017] (But in fact—incredibly—it dates back to even before his nomination).
I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration. This new elite, while influential prior to World War II, had increasing influence throughout the 1950s—typically seen as a rather placid decade of peace and prosperity, but in reality, a decade of intense Kulturkampf roiling just below the surface but bursting out periodically, most spectacularly with the controversies surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
The nascent elite defeated Sen. McCarthy, despite subsequent evidence that he was substantially right. Of course, it is simply a fact that the individuals caught up in the McCarthy accusations were disproportionately Jewish. McCarthy’s crusade may be regarded as the last gasp of traditional America. So the possible resurrection of traditional America under a populist President Trump was seen by our new elite as a catastrophe.
I was on the Left during the 1960s. I’ve often said that if someone had asked me what America would look like in 50 years, I would have said it would be fairer, but I would not have envisioned the demographic transformation. Nor would I have anticipated the mushrooming of anti-white hate that has emerged in the elite media and academic world (see my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition for a summary, pp. 446–448).
I have documented that this new elite is fundamentally Jewish, in the sense Jews have constituted its indispensable core. It has promoted attitudes on immigration, multiculturalism, foreign policy affecting Israel, and non-white and gender-based identity politics that have now reached unchallengeable consensus among elites in the U.S. and throughout the West. But they were prevalent in the mainstream Jewish community since well prior to the 1960s, contrasting strongly with the rest pre-1960s America.
For example, the organized Jewish community has promoted the interests of Israel since 1948, overcoming opposition of the former WASP foreign-policy Establishment that had dominated the U.S. State Department.
Even more importantly, the Jewish community has been actively involved in opposing immigration restriction since the late nineteenth century and in promoting the ideology that America is a “Proposition nation’ open to all the world’s peoples.
As Professor Otis Graham commented on the Anti-Defamation League’s getting John F. Kennedy to put his name on a pro-immigration book in 1958 ghosted by one of its operatives:
The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-Semitism, had made a golden alliance. A Vast Social Experiment: The Immigration Act of 1965, NPG, October 30, 2005
Thus, despite the high-flown rhetoric, increasing immigration was really all about ethnic defense—by reducing the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans (see also Chapter 7 of my Culture of Critique), as reflected in the attitudes of Jewish leaders going back to the 1920s.
Jewish organizations are now deeply involved in punishing people who dissent on immigration and other favored issues, as indicated by the example of TruNews [Inside the War to Take Away Our Free Speech, by Eric Striker, Unz.com, January 21, 2020] This looks like a switch, but free speech is not at all a Jewish value, quite absent from traditional Jewish communities. And in the contemporary world, Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and staff, such as the SPLC, have uniformly supported “Hate Crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish groups in Europe have long advocated criminal penalties for “hate speech” and criticism of Israel, and they have succeeded in getting them enacted in the UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere.
In the U.S., these organizations have taken a lead role in getting dissidents de-platformed from social media and financial institutions, forming partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. They have also been prominently involved in doxing dissidents, often resulting in loss of livelihood. Just recently, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt testified in Congress that the social media companies were not doing enough to combat “hate speech,” and asked that Congress step in to rectify the problem—a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Jewish lobbyists even persuaded President Trump (who contrary to their fears seems to have a policy of appeasement, for example by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) to sign an executive order that effectively penalizes speech critical of Israel at universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education commented that
While the order is couched in language intended to paper over the readily evident threat to expressive rights, its ambiguous directive and fundamental reliance on the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism and its examples will cause institutions to investigate and censor protected speech on their campuses. … [C]olleges and universities will rush to punish student and faculty speakers in an attempt to avoid federal investigation and enforcement.
Of course, university administrators are highly experienced in suppressing free speech even from mainstream conservatives, having acquiesced repeatedly to hecklers’ vetoes and physical harassment by campus leftists.
In fact, Trump’s EO includes language that might be construed as targeting an article such as this one, because it might be said to contain “stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively … Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as set forth in the IHRA definition.
As always, truth would not be a defense.
This new elite saw itself on the verge of complete victory in 2016. If Hillary had won, it would have been business as usual on all fronts, from foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, to an immigration surge (as attempted during the Obama presidency), Amnesty for illegals, removing penalties for illegal entry and promoting multiculturalism, to knock out the white majority.
There would have been increased pressure for European-style legislation penalizing speech related to immigration and diversity, which would have been upheld by a Supreme Court refashioned with more justices like Elena Kagan, who has already signaled willingness to rein in the First Amendment on speech related to diversity issues.
As Angelo Codevilla has written (without acknowledging the Jewish dimension):
Were any Democrat to win [in 2020], we can be certain that the demands on us [Deplorables] would escalate, and the government’s choke hold on education, speech, religion, medicine, law, and all manner of administration would tighten further.
To be sure, Trump’s election has not resulted in his promised policies being enacted. Middle Eastern wars continue, reflecting the priorities of major Jewish donors Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer who have collectively contributed north of $250M to Trump re-election. On immigration, there have been some improvements at the southern border and on enforcement, but promises to end Birthright Citizenship via executive order (of course it will be litigated, but so what?) and lower legal immigration (which should have been attempted when the GOP had control of both houses of Congress) have not been fulfilled. The U.S. is still on schedule to have a white minority in the near future.
So, given Trump’s lack of success in effecting fundamental change, why Schiff et al. expending so much energy in an impeachment scenario that has, by all accounts, no chance of actually removing Trump?
Because they can’t help themselves. I suggest that that the “visceral animosity” that I noted above is motivated by the parallels between Trump’s white working-class base and working-class support for National Socialism in 1930s Germany. This phenomenon was traumatic for Jewish intellectuals, who at the time were deeply immersed in classical class-struggle Marxism. It was of critical importance in motivating the shift pioneered by Frankfurt School toward conceptualizing Jewish interests in terms of race—that the real problem Jews faced was white ethnocentrism, the latter solvable only by propaganda efforts aimed at vilifying white racial identity (which soon became mainstream in the educational efforts of the Jewish activist community) and by importing non-whites in order to diminish white political power.
And, as always, this Jewish effort to nip Trump-style populism in the bud has been carried out with the great psychological intensity that is a general trait of Jewish activism. My observation is that among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue. (I discuss this at greater length in Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits For Jewish Activism,The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2003, pp 24-26.)
There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’
In the case of impeachment, this psychological intensity is motivated by the fear that Trump could be reelected and be in a much better position to effect fundamental change. Indeed, Adam Schiff made exactly that point during his remarks during the Senate trial. [ Schiff Tells Senators They Must Not Allow Trump to Run for Re-Election , CNSNEWS, January 24, 2020]
So is this a Jewish coup? Of course, such a claim needs qualification. The Democratic Party may have “tipped” demographically, but it still contains plenty of white gentiles. And there are Jews who are vigorously defending Trump, such as Jay Sekulow, who is on Trump’s personal legal team, and Stephen Miller, who remains a shining star in the administration’s efforts on immigration. Plus there are Jewish Trump donors noted above, although their driving interest in creating bipartisan support for Israel is typically combined with moving the GOP to the left on social issues, including immigration.
But yes, it is a Jewish coup. Indeed, the entire post-1965 regime should be regarded as a Jewish coup motivated by fear and loathing of the people and culture of pre-1965 white America.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/impeachschumer.png321750Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2020-01-27 20:48:302020-01-29 17:11:40The Trump Impeachment: A Clash Between America’s Competing Elites?
None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.
“Read off the result in prejudons”
The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Wharton (né Michael Nathan) (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:
THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)
It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”
Adopt the definition, already!
Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:
Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.
The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)
The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)
Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:
One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium
One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena
Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).
Murder of a poet
But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”
Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesmen, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.
A Jewish supremacist party
And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.
The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.
Inbreeding and ethnocentrism
And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.
This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”
The Fine Line
The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:
Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)
There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”
And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.
The core of mendacity
Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:
A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”
The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.
Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites
Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.
Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter
And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/One-Nation-in-New-York-Agudath-Israel-celebrates-a-Talmudic-milestone-at-the-MetLife-stadium.jpg385695Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2020-01-26 08:56:502020-01-29 02:10:13Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity
“What has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything else…The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing.”—New York Times Theater Critic Walter Kerr, writing in 1968
In a media-saturated society, with said media almost completely under Jewish control, the Jewish “way of seeing” retains not just its primacy but its virtual monopoly. In such an environment, what you see will be determined for you, and as one who is to be molded, the aim is for your very will to no longer be your own.
The music industry is, as with all forms of media, dominated by Jews, and its control has become increasingly centralized, another trend we’ve seen irrespective of the industry in question. In December 1998, with the PolyGram-Universal merger, the music industry’s Big Six became its Big Five, in control of 77.4% of a market estimated to be between $30 and $40 billion; 2004 saw another merger, this time of Sony and BMG (Sony would later buy out BMG), to create a Big Four. Coupled with the shrinking of independent labels, the Big Four were in control of a whopping 88% of the market by 2011. In December 2011, EMI was absorbed by the Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, though in Europe regulators forced Universal Music to sell off its EMI assets which became the Parlophone Label Group, and was then promptly acquired by the third member of the Big Three, Warner Music Group. In 2012, the Big Three represented 88.6% of the market. Sony Entertainment, the sixth-largest entertainment company in the world, owns Sony Music Entertainment, and Vivendi, number seven, owns Universal Music Group.
A snapshot of the leadership of the Big Three proves illustrative; this overview from December 2019 reveals an obscene overrepresentation of Jews including Michael Lynton, Chairman of the Board for the Warner Music Group and its Vice Chairman, Len Blavatnik; of the nine other members of the Board, Noreena Hertz, Ynon Kreiz, Thomas H. Lee, and Alex Blavatnik (Len’s brother) are Jewish. Mathias Dopfner is a Gentile, but is also a self-described “non-Jewish Zionist.” The rest, such as Stephen F. Cooper—also the CEO, replacing the Jewish Edgar Bronfman, Jr.—are either contested or I could not definitively find out. Co-Chair and CEO of Warner Records, Aaron Bay-Schuck, has Jewish ancestry, and other prominent Jews in management include Eric Levin, Warner Music Group CFO and Executive Vice President, and Co-Chair and COO of subsidiary Atlantic Records Group Julie Greenwald and its Co-Chair and CEO Craig Kallman. Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge is Jewish, as are: Chairman and CEO of the Universal Music Publishing Group’s global publishing division, Jody Gerson; Chairman and CEO of Universal Music UK and Ireland, David Joseph; and Executive Vice President of Marketing Andrew Kronfeld. Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer is Jewish, as is its COO Kevin Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Counsel Julie Swidler, and President of Global Digital Business and US Sales Dennis Kooker. In other words, all three major record labels are headed by Jews and their corporate governance is dominated by Jews as well. The rest, like RCA Records CEO Peter Edge, are “well-liked Gentiles.”
Just four conglomerates control 90% of the entire US television and films markets: Comcast (including NBCUniversal), Disney, ViacomCBS (controlled by National Amusements), and AT&T (including WarnerMedia). AT&T and Comcast are also two of the three largest telecommunications providers in the United States. These conglomerates are, in fact, almost entirely Jewish-controlled. Jews are overrepresented at places like CNN (a WarnerMedia subsidiary) by a factor of twenty-five and are over-represented among senior executive positions at the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and movie production companies by a factor of 44.5! With positions current as of December 2019, we see that Bob Bakish, President and CEO of ViacomCBS, is Jewish as are:
John T. Stankey, CEO of WarnerMedia and President and COO of AT&T
Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts
Jeff Zucker, Chairman of WarnerMedia and President of CNN Worldwide
Bob Iger, Chairman and CEO of Disney
Jeff Shell, Chairman of NBCUniversal Film and Entertainment
Ron Meyer,Vice Chairman of NBCUniversal
David L. Cohen, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast
Kent Alterman, President of Comedy Central (under ViacomCBS), Paramount Network (also under ViacomCBS), and TV Land (under MTV Networks, a division of ViacomCBS, which also owns MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and Nick Jr.)
Shari Redstone, President of National Amusements and Chairwoman of the Board for ViacomCBS
Sumner Redstone, majority owner and Chairman of the Board of National Amusements; through National Amusements, Redstone and his family are majority voting shareholders of ViacomCBS and its subsidiaries such as MTV Networks, Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central, and BET
Randall L. Stephenson, Chairman and CEO of AT&T and former National Chair of the Boy Scouts of America during its “inclusivity” demise (when girls were allowed to join the Boy Scouts) is not Jewish, but was awarded an “honorary yarmulke.”
Other recent principal figures include:
Jeffrey Katzenberg, major Barack Obama donor and former Disney and Paramount executive, co-founder of DreamWorks Pictures and WndrCo, and founder of Quibi (which has been invested in by Disney, 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures Entertainment, ViacomCBS, WarnerMedia, Lionsgate, MGM Studios, ITV, Entertainment One, Alibaba, Madrone Capital Partners, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and more)
Michael Eisner, former Chairman and CEO of Disney
Ralph J. Roberts, co-founder, former CEO, and Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Comcast
Richard Plepler, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Chairman and CEO of HBO (now under WarnerMedia)
Les Moonves, Chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation from 2003 until his resignation in September 2018 following numerous allegations of sexual harassment and abuse and current member of the Board of Directors at ZeniMax Media
Former Paramount Chairman and CEO Brad Grey (Paramount is now a ViacomCBS subsidiary)
Jordan Levin, member of The WB’s founding executive team and a former CEO; former Microsoft Xbox Entertainment Studios Executive Vice President-General Manager to Produce Original Programming; founder and former CEO of Generate, a production studio and talent management company; former Chief Content Officer at the NFL; former CEO of Awesomeness, an American media and entertainment company eventually purchased by Viacom; and current General Manager of Rooster Teeth, an entertainment company and subsidiary of Otter Media which is a subsidiary of WarnerMedia
Former Warner Brothers (now under WarnerMedia) Chairman and CEO Barry Meyer, who was also on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve
Julian Brodsky, co-founder and former CFO and Vice Chairman of Comcast, as well as co-founder and former Chair of Comcast Interactive Capital, Comcast’s venture capital unit
A quick perusal of other major players in film and television, supporting and affiliated industries, print and online news media, and digital and social media not considered part of the “traditional” media market (though no less important to the media apparatus, and arguably more so) once again reveals a massive overrepresentation of Jews in ownership or otherwise prominent positions (current as of December 2019), including:
Tom Rothman, Chairman of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group
Josh Greenstein, Co-President of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group
Former Vice President of US Business Development for Bertelsmann Media Suzanne Nossel
Peter Chernin, former News Corp. Chairman and current Chairman and CEO of The Chernin Group (assets include Chernin Entertainment; a majority stake in CA Media, an Asia-based media investment company; and Pandora, Fullscreen, Tumblr, Barstool Sports, and Flipboard)
Record company magnate and DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen
Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer
Lionsgate Chairman Mark Rachesky
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook COO and ADL-donor Sheryl Sandberg
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki (her sister founded 23andMe)
Former Co-Chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment and current head of Pascal Films (which produced the atrocity known as the Ghostbusters re-make) Amy Pascal
Relativity Media CEO Ryan Kavanagh
“Committed Zionist” Sam Zell, founder and chairman of Equity Group Investments and formerowner and CEO of the Tribune Company, which counted among its assets 23 televisions stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times
“Super-agents” Scooter Braun and Ari Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s brother and inspiration for the character Ari Gold in HBO’s series Entourage)
Joel Klein, former CEO of Amplify, Executive Vice President at News Corp., and former Chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann, Inc.
Lloyd Braun, Chairman of the ABC Entertainment Group from 2002 to 2004, former head of Yahoo! Media Group, who partnered with Gail Berman to form the entertainment company BermanBraun, eventually becoming the sole owner and renaming the company Whalerock Industries
Mort Zuckerman, owner of the US News & World Report, former owner of the New York Daily News, The Atlantic, and Fast Company, and former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups in America
Haim Saban, founder of Saban Entertainment, the Saban Music Group, and Saban Capital Group, a stakeholder in Univision (Saban: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”)
Mega-producer and member of the Board at ZeniMax Media Jerry Bruckheimer
Harry Sloan, former Chairman and CEO of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Board member at ZeniMax Media
ZeniMax Chairman and CEO Robert Altman (ZeniMax’s legal counsel is none other than DLA Piper, which features prominently in The Way Life Should Be?)
Fox Entertainment CEO Charlie Collier
Michael Lynton, from earlier, also former CEO of Sony Corporation of America, now Chairman of Snap Inc. (Snapchat) and as mentioned Chairman of the Board of Warner Music Group (Lynton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; his brother-in-law is “progressive” journalist and correspondent Jonathan Alter and his mother-in-law, Joanne Hammerman/Alter, was a “progressive” politician who worked closely with Bella Abzug, all Jewish)
Nicole Seligman, former President of Sony Corporation of America and Sony Corporation general counsel and former representation of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings and Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (her husband Joel I. Klein was an official in the Clinton administration and is the former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, preceded by the Jewish Harold Levy and appointed by the Jewish Michael Bloomberg; in an illustrative example of Jewish nepotism, Wikipedia states that Klein, “never obtained the common formal credentials that one would have to take a leadership role in a public school system, and…had a short duration of teaching experience”; in 2005, Klein fired Rashid Khalidi from the teacher training program for his views on Israel)
Leonard “Len” Blavatnik, from above, also owner of AI Films and founder and Chairman of Access Industries—Access Industries owns the Warner Music Group
The New York Times Company is controlled by the Jewish Ochs-Sulzberger family through a special class of “super-voting” shares
Donald Edward Newhouse, owner of Advance Publications whose properties include Condé Nast, dozens of newspapers across the US, cable company Bright House Networks, and a controlling stake in Discovery Inc.
President and CEO of Discovery Inc. David Zaslav (Zaslav serves on the Boards of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Lions Gate Entertainment, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, The Cable Center, Center for Communication, Grupo Televisa, Partnership for New York City, and the USC Shoah Foundation, and is the Chair of the Auschwitz: The Past Is Present Committee)
Google co-founder and Alphabet Inc. President Sergey Brin
Google co-founder and Alphabet Inc. CEO Larry Page
The Weinstein brothers Harvey and Bob of the now-defunct Weinstein Company movie studio
Former Vice Chairman of Vivendi Universal and former Warner Music Group Chairman and CEO Edgar Bronfman, Jr.; and the list goes on. Bronfman:
Is the son of Edgar Miles Bronfman and the grandson of Samuel Bronfman, patriarch of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Canada. The Bronfman family gained its fortunes through the Seagram Company, an alcohol distilling company. Edgar Jr. is the second of five children of Ann (Loeb) and Edgar Miles Bronfman. His mother was the daughter of John Langeloth Loeb Sr. (a Wall Street investment banker whose company was a predecessor of Shearson Lehman/American Express) and Frances Lehman (a scion of the Lehman Brothers banking firm)…Edgar M. Bronfman, Jr., is the son of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., the billionaire businessman and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress who died aged 84 in 2013. He is the half-brother of Clare Bronfman, who as a 39-year-old was charged in 2018 in a NXIVM sex-trafficking case…In 1979, Bronfman married his first wife, Sherry Brewer, an African-American actress, in New Orleans. Bronfman’s father did not approve of the marriage. ‘I very much wanted for him to end the relationship, because I told him, all marriages are difficult enough without the added stress of totally different backgrounds,’ Bronfman Sr. wrote in his memoirs. ‘Sherry offered to convert [to Judaism], which though well intentioned, was not the point.’…On January 21, 2011, Bronfman was found guilty in French court of insider trading [while with] Vivendi…and received a 15-month suspended sentence and a €5m fine.[1]
Vivendi acquired the Bronfman family’s Seagram Company in 2000.
This could all be sound and fury signifying nothing, however, as these people “just happen to be Jewish,” pace former Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman, and thus we shouldn’t make anything of the comments by Robbie Brenner, head of Mattel Films and President of The Firm’s film division—“Everyone had a similar kind of look, the know-your-tribe look—the Jews from New York”—or that in writing the screenplay for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, co-writer and former Focus Features CEO James Schamus said that, rather than try to create authentic Chinese characters, he tried to write them “to be as Jewish as possible.” We shouldn’t make anything of the fact that, as Mike Konrad writes:
The popular TV show Bridget Loves Bernie was canceled because some Jewish pressure groups were furious that American TV approved of Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Meredith Baxter said, “We had bomb threats on the show. Some guys from the Jewish Defense League came to my house to say they wanted to talk with me about changing the show.” Threatening phone calls made to the home of producer Ralph Riskin resulted in the arrest of Robert S. Manning, described as a member of the Jewish Defense League. Manning was later indicted on murder charges, and fought extradition to the U.S. from Israel, where he had moved. Needless to say, the quite popular show was canceled. Ironically, soon after that, the CBS network didn’t mind featuring an interracial couple on the The Jeffersons.[2]
Similarly coincidental and inconsequential, from “Jewish Media Power: Myth and Reality” by Elana Levine and Michael Z. Newman:
In a society in which Jewish identity exists in tension with gentile whiteness, Jewish power over media has been a source of as much anxiety as celebration…The new movie studios and networks were run largely by Jewish immigrant moguls or their offspring: the Warner brothers, Adolph Zukor (Paramount), David Sarnoff (RCA/ NBC), and William S. Paley (CBS), among others. Both news and entertainment remain fields hospitable to Jewish artists and businesspeople, from CEOs like Bob Iger (Disney) and producers and company presidents like Jeff Zucker (CNN, NBC) to writers and directors like Nora Ephron and Steven Spielberg. Jewish journalists have led the most influential news organizations in the United States, including the Times and Washington Post. Jews are heavily represented in creative and media workplaces and occupy many positions of prestige and authority.[3]
Even PBS, “the nation’s largest non-commercial media organization with nearly 350 member stations throughout the country,” is under Jewish management in the form of President and CEO Paula Kerger.
In the UK, the Rothschilds through EL Rothschild own a 21% stake in The Economist Group, the media group responsible for The Economist. Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild sits on its Board (as well as that of Estee Lauder; she is the Chair of EL Rothschild investments—EL Rothschild is distinct from Bronfman EL Rothschild LP of yes those Bronfmans and yes those Rothschilds, which was recently acquired by NFP whose President and COO is Mike Goldman); Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, is a former Board member of The Economist Group. Former Chairman of Guardian Media Group (publisher of The Guardian) Paul Myners has ties to RIT Capital Partners PLC, formerly Chaired by Jacob Rothschild. It has a net value of approximately £3 billion, and Jacob Rothschild is today Honorary President with his family remaining the largest shareholders at around 21%. Jacob Rothschild’s eldest daughter, Hannah Mary Rothschild, has done a lot of work with the BBC and is also a Non-Executive Director of RIT Capital. “Feminist press” Virago published a biography she wrote about her great-aunt in 2012; Virago’s 1987 management buy-out of the press from CVBC, which included current Chair Lennie Goodings, was co-financed by Rothschild Ventures.
To disprove the falsehood that Jews exert inordinate control over the international media, Argentine model and TV presenter Ursula Vargues was fired from her job in 2017 for her “anti-Semitic tweets.” What did she say? That Jews control the media.
Wealth is also disproportionately concentrated in the hands of global Jewry. Depending on the year in question, the percentage of the Forbes 400 for the four hundred wealthiest Americans is usually around one-third or more despite comprising just 1.5% of the US’s population. In 1987, Nathaniel Weyl found 23% of American billionaires were Jewish, whereas for the last decade, the number has settled in at around a third. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency states that for 2009, at least 139 of the Forbes 400 were Jews, with 20 of the top 50 controlling $211.8 billion in personal wealth. Six of the top ten wealthiest Americans on the 2019 Forbes 400 list are Jewish, 18 of the top 40 are Jewish, and at least 33 of the top 100 are Jewish. 11.6% of the world’s billionaires are Jewish, despite Jews accounting for just 0.2% of the world’s population. Five of the top seven wealthiest Aussies are Jewish, despite accounting for less than 0.5% of the nation’s population. 20% of Britain’s “Super Rich” are Jewish—and most of them are immigrants. Jews are 25% of Canada’s billionaires (at roughly 1% of the population), 13% of Brazil’s (at 0.5% of the population), and 43% of the Ukraine’s (at roughly 1% of the population). Jews are 15-17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population. A 2008 survey from the Jerusalem Post found that 46% of Jews earn at least $100,000 a year, compared to the 18% US average. IQ differential alone is not enough to explain this disparity; the overrepresentation is too dramatic.
Jews, by the way, are 26.4% of South Africa’s wealthiest individuals whilst representing an absurdly-small .09% of the population. They have profited enormously from the diamond trade. Things are clearly going well for the Jews in South Africa, but for whites it is a different story. Per Henk van de Graaf: “The farmers live in fear, because being a farmer in South Africa is the most dangerous occupation in the world. The average murder ratio per 100,000 for the population in the world is nine, I believe…But for the farming community it is 138, which is the highest for any occupation in the world.” I have seen lower murder rates for white farmers at 97 per 100,000, but that is still astronomical. In 2019, it was 36.4 per 100,000 people for all of South Africa, which is horrible but much rosier than the 67.9 per 100,000 people in 1995 per Bloomberg. According to the Institute for Security Studies, the murder rate in South Africa in 1994 was 66.9 murders per 100,000 people.
Whites are less than 9% of the South African population presently, but consider that in 2001, the police’s Crime Information Analysis Centre revealed that of the 1,398 people attacked on farms, 61.6% were white. 74.2% of those murdered on farms and smallholdings in South Africa from 2017-18 were white. There are government-sanctioned policies in the works to seize land from white farmers and re-distribute it to markedly less productive blacks. This is to say that there are real and realized differences between groups of people and pretending they don’t exist is, in the present climate of mass immigration and the willful ceding of power in places like Rhodesia and South Africa, suicidal. It should also be noted here that the virulently anti-white Economic Freedom Fighters Party, helmed by Julius Malema, has allegedly received funding from Jewish-Swazi billionaire Nathan Kirsh.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler has made a fortune exploiting the country’s natural resources through his political connections and the use of offshore tax havens:
Gertler has stakes in companies that control 9.6 percent of world cobalt production, based on U.S. Geological Survey data and company figures. That’s just the beginning of Gertler’s influence in Congo, the largest country of sub-Saharan Africa, with the world’s richest deposits of cobalt and major reserves of copper, diamonds, gold, tin and coltan, an ore containing the metal tantalum, which is used in consumer electronics. His Gibraltar- registered Fleurette Properties Ltd. owns stakes in various Congolese mines through at least 60 holding companies in offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands. Gertler, whose grandfather co-founded Israel’s diamond exchange in 1947, arrived in Congo in 1997 seeking rough diamonds. The 23-year-old trader struck a deep friendship with Joseph Kabila, who then headed the Congolese army and today is the nation’s president. Since those early days, Gertler has invested in iron ore, gold, cobalt and copper as well as agriculture, oil and banking. In the process, he’s built up a net worth of at least $2.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He’s also acquired a roster of critics. Many of the government’s deals with Gertler deprive Congo’s 68 million people of badly needed funds, according to the London-based anticorruption group Global Witness and lawmakers from Congo and the U.K., the country’s second-biggest aid donor after the U.S. “Dan Gertler is essentially looting Congo at the expense of its people,” says Jean Pierre Muteba, the head of a group of nongovernmental organizations that monitor the mining sector in Katanga province, where most of Congo’s copper is located.[4]
There are also the anecdotal cases of powerful Jews like Roman Abramovich in Russia and Ilan Shor in Moldova fleeing to Israel after committing major financial crimes, which surely can only confirm the “anti-Semitic” stereotypes. It’s not just private citizens or politicians, either, but perhaps most insidious of all, the global finance sector and its “money men.” As just one example, recall Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Jewish former head of the International Monetary Fund. Strauss-Kahn helped facilitate the massive Greek “bailout” and others for Ireland and Iceland, and had just reached an agreement along with the EU with Portugal and was in the process of negotiating a second for Greece, when he was arrested on charges of raping a hotel maid and was forced to resign. The conditions for these loans are notorious for ceding sovereign decision-making on fiscal policy and in extreme cases effectively reducing the nation to economic serfdom. I suppose this is technically legal, but it is no less criminal.
Jewish film and TV production magnate and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies Board member Paul Bronfman may have pulled funding from York University in Canada for its “anti-Israel” mural, but I’d be curious to know if he supports the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’s discussions with Israel to ship their 40,000-plus African deportees not back to Africa but to “safe Western countries,” including Canada. I can venture a guess. 70% of Jews in Israel favor the deportation of illegal “infiltrators” (as Netanyahu calls them), whereas 70% of Jews in North America support amnesty for illegal aliens. I can’t imagine that 70% would oppose more multi-cultural enrichment in the form of additional tens of thousands of Africans from Israel.
From the birth control pill to abortion to the prevalence of gentile circumcision, there is no question that even the most intimate and essential elements of our society have been thoroughly Judaized. When that also includes antagonism toward the host population—indeed, even attitudes and policies geared toward atomizing and then destroying that host population—the locus of control becomes not just significant but essential to identify.
While the Jewish Frederic Raphael may feel that the “anti-Semitic canard…that ‘the Jews’ control the world’s economy and, in particular, the press…brooks no empirical refutation” (from 2015’s Anti-Semitism, a book in the Provocations Series by Biteback Publishing Ltd. edited by the self-described “leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim” Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, she of the vicious attack on the British white working class), and that “the oldest hatred” simply materializes by magic anywhere Jews appear in any appreciable numbers, irrespective of the time period or civilization or racial or ethnic group in question, it can be very easily evidenced that Jews do in fact control both. Perhaps that’s why there’s been scant coverage of Jewish malfeasance in the media.
[1] Wikipedia entry for Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bronfman_Jr.
[2] Konrad, Mike, “American Jews and Inconsistency on Immigration,” February 15, 2018. American Thinker. Available at: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/american_jews_and_inconsistency_on_immigration.html.
[3] Levine, Elana and Michael Z. Newman, “Jewish Media Power: Myth and Reality,” Spring, 2018. AJS Perspectives: The Magazine of the Association for Jewish Studies. Available at: http://perspectives.ajsnet.org/the-oldnew-media-issue/jewish-media-power-myth-and-reality/.
[4] Loewenstein, Antony, “How an Orthodox Israeli Jewish billionaire loves to exploit Africa,” December 31, 2012. Available at: https://antonyloewenstein.com/how-an-orthodox-israeli-jewish-billionaire-loves-to-exploit-africa/.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/too-featured-image-placeholder-350x350.jpg350350John Q. Publiushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngJohn Q. Publius2020-01-24 08:00:082020-09-13 14:02:33Ways of Seeing: Who Determines Your Reality?
1917 appears to contain a specific praise of the Scofield Bible as embodied symbolically in the solider William “Will” Schofield. The director and co-screenwriter, Sam Mendes, is of Jewish ancestry, so this would fit an important pattern detailed in my work. The surname Schofield is, of course, merely a variant spelling of Scofield. Indeed, his last name is almost certainly a reference to Cyrus Scofield’s eponymous Scofield Reference Bible, a Bible that extorts non-Jews especially to protect the interests of Israel and Zionism as is well known in these parts of the web.
This becomes especially obvious because the name of the film itself may be a reference to the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible, which first appeared in 1909 yet reappeared, revised by the author, in 1917. In fact, it is commonly called the “1917 Scofield Reference Bible.” Indeed, the apocalyptic carnage of World War I, occurring in the intervening years, was popularly seen as vindicating the dispensationalist scheme in the Scofield Bible.[1]
1917 is also the year of the signing of the Balfour declaration, a declaration that officially established British support for the state of Israel. It’s likely many Jews watching this film around the world would find this date significant. It’s likely many of them, as well, would be aware or become aware that Sam Mendes was a fellow Jew, possibly transmitting an encoded message.
Briefly, the film focuses on two British soldiers, Tom Blake and William “Will” Schofield, a pair of English soldiers tasked with delivering a message on foot to another British battalion so as to save them from certain death. The German’s have cut the communication lines so such an effort becomes necessary.
One of the soldiers in the battalion they are tasked to save is Tom Blake’s brother, Joe Blake. En route, Tom Blake is stabbed to death by an inexplicably malevolent German pilot after rescuing the latter from the burning hulk of a fighter plane. This is perhaps the most salient clue that a racial/political agenda is afoot.
Will promises a dying Tom he’ll make the rest of the trip to save Tom’s brother Joe and to deliver sad tidings of Tom’s death. This becomes Will’s driving impetus. Here we understand Tom as a symbol of Christ himself and Will Scofield as his messenger. Hence the metaphor is fairly straight forward.
In fact, the film is highly encoded and many symbols would lead us to the conclusion that this is the metaphor being developed in the film. However, we’ll treat only the clearest and most obvious of them, requiring the least knowledge of myth, scripture and symbolism, and make the point in the most succinct manner.
Will is rescued by the Christ-figure Tom Blake in a critical scene in the film and it seems highly likely this is a reference to Cyrus Scofield’s conversion to Christianity or his “salvation.” After a rat sets off an armed trip wire in a German bunker, Will is buried by rocks. Tom unearths him. Yet Will is made temporarily blind by the rock dust and must be led out of the now collapsing cave by his savior Tom.
Famously, Paul’s conversion story sees the apostle going blind for three days after a visit from Christ until finally “something like scales fell from his eyes” (Acts 9:18). Possibly the emergence of the pair from the collapsing bunker is suggestive of Christ’s resurrection from the tomb. Similarly, Tom’s rescuing of the German from the burning wreck is likely also a nod to Christ’s effort to rescue men from the flames of hell.
Importantly, at the beginning of the film, the Christ figure Tom Blake “chooses” Will Schofield to accompany him on his mission. After Tom leads Will into the Bunker (an important detail!) and then rescues him from it, Will complains, “Why in God’s name did you have to choose me?!”
As is common in Jewish parable, names are of central importance. Tom’s name is very likely a reference especially to the Thomas appearing in the New Testament understood esoterically as the “twin of Christ.” In fact, the name Thomas means “twin.” The reference is to Thomas especially as a twin of Christ.
The Marvel comic book characters Black Tom Cassidy and the Vulture, Adrian Toomes, are two examples of this name usage in Jewish Esoteric Moralization, both appearing from Jewish creators Chris Claremont and Stan Lee respectively and appearing to represent Jewish figures. The clear Christ figure in the Matrix series, Neo or Thomas Anderson, may be another example. There the last name Anderson appears to be a reference to “Son of Man.”
The reader may find it surprising that a Jewish writer would develop a Christ-figure in his work. After all, Jews are not Christians. However, this is quite common. In fact, esoterically indicating Christianity as something that is detrimental to Aryans and non-Jews, yet beneficial to Jews, ranks four on my list of the five most common themes appearing in Jewish Esoteric Moralization.
After World War I, the Scofield Reference Bible flew off the rack, exceeding two million copies by the end of World War II.[2] Hence the pointless carnage of the World Wars literally sold the Scofield Bible and its apocalyptic pro-Israel message. In other words, evidently the film 1917 itself serves as an esoteric celebration of the Scofield Bible, the carnage of the World Wars and the Christian Zionism it would birth. The reader should consider this carefully. Here we find a film made by an ostensibly enlightened, liberal Hollywood Jew, esoterically endorsing apocalyptic Christian Zionism. This is what we call the Caducean.
When Will finally reaches Joe Blake, Joe is stricken by the news of the death of Tom (Christ). Joe will doubtlessly remain fiercely loyal to the notion that Tom was “a good man” as Will, a symbol representing the Scofield Reference Bible, reports. Will tells Joe as well that Tom “was always telling funny stories” and “saved his life.” Christ was also a teller of parables and this appears to be the reference. Regardless, it is clear Joe will become loyal to the memory of the Jewish God that Tom represents, Christ. Hence Will has accomplished his task.
Importantly, at Tom’s request, Will insists on relaying the news of Tom’s death to the mother of the Blake sons. Hence Will Schofield controls the message. The significance of Tom or Christ, and his life, will be controlled by Schofield or, of course, the Scofield Reference Bible. The end of the film sees Will wandering toward a lone tree set strikingly against the horizon. The tree is an important symbol with meanings explicated in my broader study. Here it might be understood, most simply, as the Tree of Life found with New Jerusalem in Revelation 22.
Again, the film is highly encoded and only the most obvious references appearing in the film are indicated here. Other symbols that require a deeper knowledge of symbolism and myth that are likely meaningful are the stones that fall on Will in the German Bunker, an injury that Will sustains to his hand on barbed wire fence and milk that Will delivers a starving mother and baby encountered en route to his destination. But for now, let’s keep it simple and understand that 1917 is a reference to the triumph of Zionism, assisted by Cyrus Scofield and the Scofield Bible.
I argue such esoteric or subliminal triumphalist messaging is developed to moralize Jewish audiences and demoralize non-Jewish audiences, whether or not this or that individual is conscious of the specific message being transmitted. And it is a more sophisticated phenomenon than has been laid out in this review. Yet simplicity is useful here to treat this obvious case of JEM or Jewish Esoteric Moralization. Hopefully with such clear cases we can begin to establish in the reader’s mind that JEM is an important, common and salient phenomenon in Jewish Art. My thesis is that it necessitates, among other things, a rejoinder from the Aryan side, in Religion, Art and Culture, that is moralizing to Aryans.
[1] “At the popular level, especially, many people came to regard the dispensationalist scheme as completely vindicated.” Mangum & Sweetnam, 179
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/too-featured-image-placeholder-350x350.jpg350350Mark Brahminhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngMark Brahmin2020-01-22 07:01:062020-01-22 07:01:06“1917”: A Fateful Reference to the Scofield Reference Bible
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Last Monday there was a large pro-gun rally in Virginia’s capital. It turns out many freedom-loving Virginians aren’t exactly enamored with state gun laws, and have finally figured out that tyranny is at least as liable to arrive through the rule of law as it is to arrive in spite of it. When it comes to tyranny and totalitarianism, arbitrary rule is as often the exception as the rule. In many, if not most, totalitarian societies, the rule of law is largely intact. It is the laws themselves that are the problem.
I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration. This new elite, while influential prior to World War II, had increasing influence throughout the 1950s—typically seen as a rather placid decade of peace and prosperity, but in reality, a decade of intense Kulturkampf roiling just below the surface but bursting out periodically, most spectacularly with the controversies surrounding Sen. 
Even more importantly, the Jewish community has been 
As Peter Novick 
