Jewish Influence

Minority Control: From the Neolithic to the Present

In my hate-article “Booty without Scrutiny,” I looked at the media silence that greeted the knighthood given by Theresa May to Ehud Sheleg, the Israeli treasurer of the British Conservative Party. It’s plain that mainstream journalists in Britain are too frightened to ask some very important questions about the consequences of a foreign national controlling the finances of Britain’s governing party.

Second to Israel, of course

Indeed, mainstream journalists are too frightened to mention Ehud Sheleg’s knighthood at all. However, that silence didn’t extend to the Jewish Chronicle, which published an article saying that the “Tel Aviv-born Tory treasurer” was “surprised but delighted” by his “knighthood from Theresa May.” The article quoted this very significant admission by Sheleg:

Discussing his upbringing he has said: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.” (Ehud Sheleg, Tel Aviv-born Tory treasurer ‘surprised’ by knighthood from Theresa May, The Jewish Chronicle, 16th September 2019 / 16th Elul 5779)

Sheleg is expressing a vile anti-Semitic “trope” that is explicitly condemned by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in its list of “contemporary examples of antisemitism.” According to the IHRA, it is anti-Semitic to accuse “Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” Sheleg has added British citizenship to his natal Israeli citizenship, which makes him a “Jewish citizen” of Britain. And now he openly admits, in Britain’s main Jewish newspaper, that he is “more loyal” to Israel than to Britain.

Rule of the few, not the many

How on earth can this be acceptable in a genuine democracy? Sheleg’s primary loyalty is to his “homeland” of Israel, so he will always ensure that any conflict between the interests of Israel and Britain (or anyone else) is settled in favour of Israel. This isn’t acceptable in a genuine democracy, from which we can conclude that Britain isn’t a genuine democracy. Instead, it’s an oligarchy, from the Greek oligo– “few” and arkhia, “rule.” An oligarchy is a political system in which a small number of people exercise control for their own ends and without reference to the wishes of the majority. Read more

The Levers of Sociobiology: Power Laws from Stalin to Starlings

They strut, they chatter, they gleam with gem-like colours: starlings are one of the joys of summer right across Europe. You could spend a lifetime studying them, but one thing is already certain. There has never been a starling Stalin.

Khans and canals

In other words, no individual starling has ever been millions of times more powerful or influential than the average starling. No starling has ever exercised power over a vast number of other starlings like Josef Stalin (1878-1953) or left a genetic legacy like that of Genghis Khan (c. 1162-1227), who is the ancestor of about 16 million men in modern Eurasia, according to DNA analysis. By exploiting certain aspects of human sociobiology, Genghis Khan achieved huge political success and thereby won sexual access to vastly more women than the average man. Stalin pulled the levers of sociobiology in a comparable way but, at a later period and in a different culture, didn’t translate his political success into offspring as Khan did.

Stalin vs Starling

But the similarities between the two men are more important than the differences. Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan were clearly exceptional members of their species, Homo sapiens, in a way that no starling ever has been of its species, Sturnus vulgaris. It’s interesting to ask what aspects of biology permit human Stalins and prevent starling Stalins. Human beings and starlings are alike in that no individual in these species is, as an individual, vastly more intelligent or physically powerful than other individuals. Stalin could not have dug the White Sea Canal or designed and built the T-34 tank by himself. Nor could any other individual human. Those were collective endeavours, but they expressed the will of the individual known as Stalin or of the small number of individuals at the top of Soviet society.

Flight is not might

Starlings too engage in a collective endeavour known as flocking, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual birds behave as a single coordinated entity. But there is no guiding mind in a flock, no controlling will, and no individual starling could exploit the power of a flock to win itself vastly increased social and reproductive success. Why not? Well, try a thought experiment and imagine that you were an omniscient biologist who could completely control the behaviour of an individual starling. How would you turn it into a starling Stalin or starling Genghis Khan? You couldn’t, because certain levers are missing in starling biology.

The most obvious missing lever is language. Starlings can’t give or follow orders. In a hierarchical species, language is the key to what you might call force-multiplication. Stalin was dominant in more than a crudely physical sense: he was also charismatic, that is, he could beguile and dominate people with his words and manner. That is how he was able to rise steadily in an organization that enabled him to give orders and have them obeyed. He was able to translate his individual will into collective action against those individuals who opposed him. In Mongol society, Genghis Khan must have been charismatic and dominant in a comparable way. A warrior nation like the Mongols could not have been led by a weakling or a mild-mannered scholar. Read more

How the Jews won the Battle of Charlottesville

“We have been working on the ground and behind the scenes leading up to, during, and after the rally.”
Anita Gray, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the high point in a period of increasing Alt Right confidence and activism, and it was the moment that marked our first major clash with the globalist hydra. In the wake of Charlottesville, the System that we now find ourselves in more or less open conflict with has followed its dissemination of false narratives of the day’s events with opportunistic boldness and a series of actions. In the first few days after ‘Unite the Right’, an event which saw the apparently co-ordinated ambush of White Identitarian attendees, various arms of the Alt Right have suffered logistical attacks on their internet-based activities, Steve Bannon has left the White House, the myth of the ‘right wing extremist’ has been resurrected with a vengeance, and dangerous precedents have been established on the vital issues of internet freedom and freedom of speech. We are, to a greater degree than any point in recent memory, backed into a corner.

However, despite these strained circumstances, and the hectic and confused media coverage of events in Virginia, it is crucial to understand that none of these actions and reactions against the Alt Right have been spontaneous or ad hoc. Rather, what we have witnessed is the culmination of intensive efforts by our opponents to forge a hegemonic anti-White interface encompassing Jewish ethnic activists, the police, all levels of government, Antifa, and the incentivized agents of globalism and Cultural Marxism. In the following essay I want to step back from the finer points of events in Charlottesville in order to illustrate and contextualize some of the broader patterns of Jewish activity that are in evidence. Read more

Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part 2 of 2

Go to Part 1.

After the outbreak of war, Jews were instrumental in restructuring the American economy in order to finance the cost of fighting it — ushering in what has been called ‘the military-industrial complex” and the massive expansion of government power. One of the key features of the Jewish historical profile has been the involvement of Jews in systems of taxation. In keeping with this trend, during the early 1940s Jews were conspicuous in transforming the American economy to one based on mass taxation. The Treasury Department was of course headed by Henry Morgenthau, but what is less remarked upon is the fact that Morgenthau staffed his department very heavily with fellow Jews including Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein and Milton Friedman. Ginsberg states that these Jews “fundamentally changed America’s tax system.”[1] It is not without irony that while Roosevelt was effectively pardoning high-ranking media Jews such as Joseph Schenk for large-scale income tax evasion, the Jews in his administration were championing the introduction of payroll withholding or “collection at the source” taxation for the common working man.

Although the Constitution’s Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the levying of an income tax, exemptions and thresholds meant that prior to the New Deal only 3 percent of Americans were subject to it. By 1940, Morgenthau’s Jewish team had added more than 5 million Americans to the income tax machine. The same team’s 1942 Revenue Act brought the number of Americans paying income tax to 40 million — a move Ginsberg describes as a “turning point in the history of American income taxation.” Since closely administering such a huge transition would be difficult, Jews employed much the same style of propaganda as their counterparts in the Soviet Union did to ensure popular compliance in the war effort — blanket efforts of persuasion and coercion.

In the area of persuasion, Jewish treasury officials “presented tax payment as a patriotic duty and launched an extensive propaganda campaign to convince Americans that paying taxes was a form of sacrifice required to win the war.”[2] Ginsberg adds that “Jewish films studios and radio networks, as well as Jewish composers and media personalities, played an active role.” At Mogenthau’s request his co-ethnic Irving Berlin wrote a song, “played incessantly on the radio,” titled “I Paid My Income Tax Today,” aimed at lower-income Americans who had never previously been asked to pay income taxes. Suspicious that this wouldn’t be enough, Morgenthau, along with Milton Friedman and Elisha Friedman, pushed for a permanent coercive system of payroll withholding. Ginsberg comments that:

The result of the gradual increase in tax rates mandated every year between 1940 and the end of the war, accompanied by payroll withholding, was conversion of the income tax from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans — from a class tax to a mass tax…According to Elisha Friedman, one key, in addition to collection at the source, was gradualism. Raising taxes gradually, Friedman told the Congress, “got the people’s minds accustomed to things” and lessened the chance of tax resistance and political opposition.[3]

Gradualism has of course also been applied with devastating effect in European societies in relation to immigration and the slow erosion of rights and freedoms. Read more

Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities

Eastern European Shtetl Jews; photos from “Rare Photographs and Images of Shtetl Life

In his VDARE article of April 22, “Eastern European Jews And The Case Of the Marginalized Elite,” Paul Gottfried claims that I fail to make important distinctions among Jewish groups:

Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. …We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society. Let me repeat: I don’t find anything about this behavior that has characterized all Jews at all times (unlike MacDonald).

This article summarizes some of my comments on different groups of Jews, some of which may have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle. In fact, beginning with my first two books on Judaism, I have repeatedly discussed differences among Jewish groups (e.g., IQ differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic groups in chapter 7 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone). This includes the important distinction between Eastern European Jews and Western European Jews, beginning with Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (1994) on Jewish strategies to minimize anti-Semitism.

It has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society, especially in situations where one segment of the Jewish community has adopted policies or attitudes that provoke anti-Semitism. This has happened repeatedly in the modern world. A particularly common pattern during the period from 1880 to 1940 was for Jewish organizations representing older, more established communities in Western Europe and the United States to oppose the activities and attitudes of more recent immigrants from Eastern Europe (see note 20). The Eastern European immigrants tended to be religiously orthodox, politically radical, and sympathetic to Zionism, and they tended to conceptualize themselves in racial and national terms—all qualities that provoked anti-Semitism. In the United States and England, Jewish organizations (such as the American Jewish Committee [AJCommittee]) attempted to minimize Jewish radicalism and gentile perceptions of the radicalism and Zionism of these immigrants (e.g., Cohen 1972; Alderman 1992, 237ff). Highly publicized opposition to these activities dilutes gentile perceptions of Jewish behavior, even in situations where, as occurred in both England and America, the recent immigrants far outnumbered the established Jewish community.

This difference between the Eastern European immigrant community and the German-Jewish establishment in the US is a central theme of “Jews, Blacks, and Race” (in Samuel Francis (Ed.), Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time [The Occidental Press, 2006]):

Anti-Jewish attitudes that had been common before [World War II) declined precipitously, and Jewish organizations assumed a much higher profile in influencing ethnic relations in the U.S., not only in the area of civil rights but also in immigration policy. Significantly this high Jewish profile was spearheaded by the American Jewish Congress and the ADL, both dominated by Jews who had immigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1920 and their descendants. As indicated below, an understanding of the special character of this Jewish population is critical to understanding Jewish influence in the United States from 1945 to the present. The German-Jewish elite that had dominated Jewish community affairs via the American Jewish Committee earlier in the century, gave way to a new leadership made up of Eastern European immigrants and their descendants. Even the AJCommittee, the bastion of the German-Jewish elite, came to be headed by John Slawson [in 1943], who had immigrated at the age of 7 from the Ukraine.

The AJCongress, a creation of the Jewish immigrant community, was headed by Will Maslow, a socialist and a Zionist. Zionism and political radicalism typified the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. As an indication of the radicalism of the immigrant Jewish community, the 50,000- member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order was an affiliate of the AJCongress and was listed as a subversive organization by the U.S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the Communist Party USA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker, an organ of the [Communist Party USA], and the Morning Freiheit, a Yiddish communist newspaper. Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership. Concern that Jewish communists were involved in the civil rights movement centered around the activities of Stanley Levison, a key advisor to Martin Luther King, who had very close ties to the Communist Party (as well as the AJCongress) and may have been acting under communist discipline in his activities with King.

Read more

The Alt Right and the Jews

Certainly the most basic issue of the Alt Right is that it is entirely legitimate for Whites to identify as Whites and to pursue their interests as Whites, such as resisting attempts to make White Americans a minority.

Ethnic and racial identities are common among all other groups, and, despite constant propaganda emanating from centers of media and academic power, Whites should be no exception. Voluntarily ceding political and cultural power is the ultimate foolishness, particularly in an atmosphere of non-White grievance and the hostility towards Whites, their history and their culture, that is so apparent today.

Another important issue is to accept that there are genetic influences on race differences in intelligence and impulse control. When these are kept out of the discussion and only environmental influences are allowed, it’s inevitable that Whites will be unfairly blamed for the failure of Blacks, Latinos, and similar groups.

However, another issue that is central to the world view of many on the Alt Right (but by no means unanimous) is the issue of Jewish power and influence. Ultimately, this stems from an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession, both historically and in the contemporary West. Accounting for around 2% of the U.S. population, Jews have never had much power as a result of sheer numbers. What counts is Jewish power in the media, in the academic world, and in government. Read more

Chancellor Adenauer on Jewish Power


“The power of the Jews even today, especially in America, should not be underestimated.” – Konrad Adenauer, 1965.

A recurring theme in my writing is documenting the comments of mainstream European statesmen on Jewish power and influence. Given my background, this has primarily focused on French leaders. In general, as these figures approach retirement or indeed death, their tongues loosen somewhat.

In the aftermath of the Six Day War, General Charles de Gaulle publicly called the Jews “an elite people, self-confident, and dominating” and, almost in passing, noted that the Israelis enjoyed “vast support in money, influence, and propaganda [. . .] from the Jewish circles of America and Europe.” Though largely forgotten today, Jewish groups then widely attacked De Gaulle, claiming his comments would lead to “discrimination,” and even Raymond Aron, the otherwise unflappable critic of Jewish ethnocentrism, lost his composure.

Other top French politicians have complained of suffering from pressure and defamation at the hands of ethnocentric Jewish media-political networks. This is, in a word, the unmentionable “lobby-which-doesn’t-exist. Prime Minister Raymond Barre, nearing the end of his life, spoke out on the radio: “The Jewish lobby, not only concerning myself, is able to organize operations which are disgraceful. And I want to say it publicly!” President François Mitterrand spoke in private, on his last day in office, of “the powerful and harmful influence of the Jewish lobby in France.” Read more