Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement”

/136 Comments/in /by

The Transfer Agreement
Edwin Black
Dialog Press, 2009 edition.

When you write a polemic, one meant to justify victory in a war, it would be best to deliver checkmate—that is, irrefutable proof that the correct side had won and that lives had not been sacrificed in vain. Edwin Black’s 1984 volume The Transfer Agreement, which chronicles the secret pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, is one such polemic. It’s filled with nail-biting drama and larger-than-life characters; it gives us suspense and intrigue, and embodies the agony and ecstasy of Jewish triumphalism on almost every page. As far as histories go, it’s well-paced, extensively researched, and thought-provoking. Ultimately, however, it delivers everything but checkmate.

Indeed, if anything, The Transfer Agreement casts a sympathetic light on the Nazis and reveals how unnecessary, preventable, and essentially Jewish the Second World War really was.

All of this, of course, is unintentional. Black asserts in his Introduction to his 2009 edition that just because Nazis worked with Zionists in the 1930s to establish the commercial, financial, and industrial infrastructure which would become the backbone of Israel does not mean that the Nazis deserve praise or are no longer the despised enemies of humankind. The cognitive dissonance of such a relationship apparently caused Black much anguish and confusion. Yet he persevered to tell this painful yet utterly crucial story of Jewish redemption:

The message of The Transfer Agreement was in fact the chronicle of the anguish of choice—itself the quintessential notion of Zionism’s historical imperative. This book and its documentation posit one question: when will the Jewish people not be compelled to make such choices? Indeed, when will all people similarly confronted be freed from the desperation of such choices?

I know. I gagged too. Dressing up Jewish causes as universal while ignoring or dismissing equally urgent white European causes is a tack Black resorts to often in The Transfer Agreement. For example, in the book’s Introduction, Black lies thusly:

The Zionists were indeed in the company of all mankind—with this exception: The Jews were the only ones with a gun to their heads.

That Black ignores how the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks had conquered Russia and contributed to the murder or starvation of millions of Soviet citizens prior to Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, reveals the fundamental dishonesty of The Transfer Agreement. A gun was certainly pointing in the other direction as well.

Such a batter mixed with half-truths can only result in a half-baked product, which makes The Transfer Agreement such a frustrating read. Yet, like Black himself, I persevered. I persevered to reach the inevitable conclusion which Black so unwittingly draws: that without the vituperative neuroticism of a worldwide network of Eastern European Jews, the Second World War would never have happened, and tens of millions would not have died for nothing.

The opening chapters strike one most for the sheer bellicosity of American Jews who immediately found the chancellorship of Adolf Hitler intolerable. Also on display was their awesome power. Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress (AJC) spoke the loudest and with the greatest scorn, and soon influential Jews across America were debating whether to instigate a comprehensive boycott of Germany. These were no idle threats. Jews controlled many industries, including much of the press, even back then. With enough agitation from the right people, whole cities could rise up in protest against the Third Reich.

If there was any European country back then that could not afford to be boycotted, it was Germany. With millions unemployed and the nation wracked with inflation, Germany was still struggling to pay its war reparations stipulated in the treaty of Versailles. The 800,000 Germans who died of malnutrition at the end of the First World War due to the Allied blockade, as well as the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923, were still fresh in the minds of many. Things were economically miserable in Germany, and with millions of jobs dependent upon the foreign market, “export was the oxygen, the bread, and the salt of the German workforce. Without it, there would be economic death.”

Black explains further:

Just before the decade closed, on October 24, 1929, Wall Street crashed. America’s economy toppled, and foreign economies fell with it. For Germany, intricately tied to the all the economies of the Allied powers, the fall was brutal. Thousands of businesses failed. Millions were left jobless. Violence over food was commonplace. Germany was taught the painful lesson that economic survival was tied to international trading partners and exports.

So when American Jewish Congress vice-president Joseph Tenenbaum threatened that “[a] bellum judaicum—war against the Jews—means boycott, ruin, disaster, the end of German resources, and the end of all hope for the rehabilitation of Germany.” Hitler, the Nazis, and the suffering German people who elected them knew right away that they were beset by powerful enemies bent upon their utter destruction. Of course, such men were not peculiar to America. Black chronicles how the anti-Nazi boycott movement spread quickly around the world, gaining traction in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. Further, the movement was well-funded and organized with protestors often looking to the AJC in New York for cues.

The alacrity and vehemence with which the Jews reacted to Hitler’s ascension to power were indeed astonishing. With Hitler’s chancellorship not even six-months old, the anti-German boycott had already cost the Third Reich hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks.

One curious aspect of this was Poland. Black does not go into it as much as I would have liked, but he asserts in several places that Polish Jews were indeed behind Polish anti-German truculence throughout the 1930s. The Jews of Vilna were especially vicious, and soon infected the rest of Poland with anti-Nazi fever, which they quite shrewdly framed as national rather than ethnic. The protests quickly grew violent, and in Upper Silesia became “altogether unbearable” according to the German Foreign Ministry. Adding to the insult, the Polish Undersecretary of State told Reich Ambassador Hans Moltke that the Polish government was uninterested in interfering with the boycott.

While Black provides many details surrounding anti-Jewish attacks in Nazi Germany, he offers none on anti-German attacks in Poland, other than that they were “violent.” Things grew further out of hand as Poland, along with Czechoslovakia, began rattling sabers after Hitler, according to Black, threatened to “seize the Versailles-created territorial bridge” (i.e., the Polish Corridor). This led to Poland’s militarization of its western border and serious talks about invading Germany while it was still weak. Thus, the image of Poland being the poor and innocent victim of Nazi aggression gets exploded on the pages of The Transfer Agreement.

We can also thank Edwin Black for writing the following three enlightening sentences:

Polish Jews had successfully enflamed Poland from defensive concern to war hysteria through their violent anti-German boycott and protest movement. German officials were in fact astonished that the historically anti-Semitic Polish people would allow Jewish persecution in Germany to become the pretext for a war. But it was happening.

Why were Jews everywhere so distraught? Hitler barely had time to get his seat warm in the chancellor’s office when Jews were already declaring him an unmitigated catastrophe and were mobilizing with the utmost urgency. Well, according to Black in numerous places, Adolf Hitler had already planned the complete destruction of German Jewry, so the Jews had no choice but to strike back as hard as they could in self-defense. And boycott, along with disruptive protests, picket lines, public humiliations, and libelous editorials were their weapons of choice. “Germany,” Black declares, “would have to be crushed, not merely punished.”

Yet according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Black’s accusations of Nazi genocidal plans back in 1933 are simply not true.

Did the Nazis always plan to murder the Jews? No. When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, they did not have a plan to murder the Jews of Europe. However, the Nazis were antisemitic. They saw Jews in Germany as a problem. One of the major questions for the Nazis was: How do we get rid of the Jewish population in Germany?

One finds this fairly often in The Transfer Agreement. Black will make some hysterical claim and then footnote it with a source that does not support his hysterical claim. For example, after a brief biography of German banker and early Hitler ally Hjalmar Schacht, Black writes:

It was Schacht who now pledged to his Führer to reestablish Germany’s financial integrity and build a war economy designed for territorial and racial aggression.

Neither of his sources—William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) and Schacht’s 1956 autobiography Confessions of “The Old Wizard”—mention anything about “racial aggression” on the pages Black specifies (204–205, 265–266, 284, and 358–359 for the former and 2, 6, and 14 for the latter). Shirer does claim that Schacht was most helpful in “furthering [Germany’s] rearmament for the Second World War”—as if Hitler and the Nazis were plotting Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain way back in 1933. But unlike Black, Shirer does not even offer footnotes. So Black bases his assertion on Shirer’s, which is, it turn, baseless.

Black’s most astonishing faux pas occurs on pages 262–263 in Chapter 28. He writes:

At the height of Germany’s unemployment panic, on July 2 Hitler reassured a nationwide gathering of SA leaders that while the tactics might become more restrained, there was no thought of altering the ultimate goal of National Socialism: the speedy annihilation of Jewish existence.

Black’s lone source for this is an article entitled “Jews Throughout Germany Dismissed Wholesale, Bank Head Flees to Switzerland” from the Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 5, 1933. Here is the link, and below is a reproduction of the article itself. See if you can find anything about the “speedy annihilation” of Jews.

Perhaps this was a simple error, but it survived till the 2009 edition which was published 25 years after the first. And it is a pretty big error to boot.

Black also lacks self-awareness in spots, at times argues against himself—which only makes him look foolish. He glorifies the anti-German boycott often in the Transfer Agreement, and approvingly relays a story in which AJC vice-president W.W. Cohen shouted “No!” at a restaurant when the waiter offered him an imported Bavarian beer. Afterwards, Cohen attended a rally and announced that “any Jew buying one penny’s worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people!” A few pages later, after the Germans quite understandably respond in kind against German Jews, Black is suddenly against boycott and wishes to direct our sympathy towards its innocent victims:

But this boycott would be a systematic economic pogrom that would plague every Jewish business and household. No one would be spared. What professional could survive if he could not practice? What store could survive if it could not sell?

This obvious double standard is so appalling that not only should Black not be taken seriously whenever he demonizes Nazis or complains about anti-Semitism, neither should his publisher or editors. Here are three more examples that remove any doubt that Edwin Black is little more than a shameless shill for the Jews.

On page 78, he claims without a source that the Nazis “regarded the Zionists as their enemy personified, and from the outset carried out a terror campaign against them in Germany.” But on page 175, he changes his tune and states how Zionist German Jews actually enjoyed more freedom under the Nazis than did non-Zionist Jews. The Zionist newspaper Juedische Rundschau was allowed relative press freedom; Hebrew was encouraged in all Jewish schools; Zionists were allowed to raise a Star of David flag when ordinary Jews were not allowed to raise the Swastika; and youth groups were permitted to wear Jewish uniforms, “the only non-Nazi uniform allowed in Germany.”

Some enemy. Some terror campaign.

Chapters 18 and 28 also shed harsh light on Black’s blatant hypocrisy. In the former, he congratulates the Jews for going global with their pro-Jewish, anti-Nazi vitriol, and in the latter, he frets over how anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi movement was going . . . wait for it . . . global.

Further, on page 25, Black writes [emphasis mine]:

But when Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed the Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracy.

At this point, Black’s editors, proofreaders, research assistants, or the publisher himself should have taken their clueless author aside and gently reminded him that his entire book is about an international Jewish conspiracy. Just about on every third page you have Jews in one country or continent writing, phoning, or cabling Jews in another country or continent. The big meetings in Prague and Geneva which Black reports on late in his book consist of Jews from all over the place arguing over how best to smother the Third Reich in its cradle. How is this anything other than an international Jewish conspiracy?

How could Edwin Black not see how much of The Transfer Agreement not only justifies some of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes, but also exonerates the Nazis for understanding the truth about Jews and frankly being so patient with them?

Here is a list of all the things Black records in The Transfer Agreement which point to the Nazi leadership being at least somewhat reasonable—not necessarily innocent, mind you, but reasonable—in the face of international Jewish pressure:

  • Hitler, Hermann Goering, and other high-level Nazis demanded that Nazis not commit acts of violence. (pp. 49, 52)
  • Hitler promised not to boycott German Jews only after world Jewry stop boycotting the Third Reich. (pp. 59–60)
  • The Nazis provided special treatment for German Zionist Jews, as mentioned above. (pp. 174–175)
  • In June 1933, Hitler personally allowed the AJC and other groups to send a multimillion-dollar relief fund to German Jews. (p. 185)
  • After Hitler called off the April 1 anti-Jewish boycott, provincial Nazis continued to boycott Jews despite orders from Berlin not to do so. (p. 219)
  • Hitler bailed out a large Jewish-owned department store chain and then strictly forbade mass arrests and harassment of businessmen and industrialists. (p. 220–221)
  • In order to outlaw atrocities, suppress anti-Jewish acts, and prevent a “second revolution” by fanatical Nazis, Goering ordered mass arrests of dissident Nazi units. (p. 223)
  • Goering promised the death penalty for “atrocity mongers” among the Nazi rank and file. (pp. 224–225)
  • When followers of Der Stürmer publisher Julius Streicher illegally arrested 300 Jewish shopkeepers, the authorities released them immediately. (p. 224)
  • The Nazis actually encouraged Jewish religious, cultural, and athletic activities in the cities. Black writes: “The Nazis delighted in the Jewish subculture and demanded that it thrive. Indeed, every Jewish gathering was approved and attended by Gestapo. For Aryans, an active Jewish subculture provided reinforcement that Jews were an alien people who had no place in Germany.” (p. 373)

Black’s own analysis reveals that the Nazi leadership at least made an effort to crack down on their own radical followers. It seems that a good deal of the atrocity propaganda Black cites from 1933—minus all exaggerations and lies—happened in spite of Adolf Hitler not because of him. Yet none of this means a whit to Black. The Nazi leadership should be condemned as guilty not for what they were doing in 1933 but for what they were going to do ten years later.

This is entirely unreasonable, and it ignores the role the Jews themselves played in so maliciously provoking war with Germany throughout the 1930s. What I wrote about Benjamin Ginsburg’s How the Jews Defeated Hitler­­—another book about 1930s Jewish warmongering—applies also to The Transfer Agreement. And it has everything to do with legerdemain:

How does a magician cause objects to vanish or appear out of nowhere? Through a technique called misdirection, he can draw your attention away from something magical that is about to happen by manipulating your ability to anticipate or remember. In a sense, the magician interferes with your sense of time. Ginsburg and other authors accomplish a similar sleight of hand when discussing Nazi Germany prior to the war. According to their specious logic, because the Nazis committed war crimes during the war, the Nazis must also be considered guilty of the same crimes before the war. Therefore, promoting war against the Nazis during the 1930s is perfectly justified and honorable.

Again, this is not to say that the Nazis were entirely innocent or didn’t say or do horrible things to Jews. They certainly did. They were socialist totalitarians, and so could act with ruthless, top-down efficiency when they wanted to. By virtue of being both eugenic-minded and pro-German in nature, they took a dim view of the subversive Jewish outgroup. Hence the unsubtle hints for Jews to leave; hence the transfer agreement. But did some Nazis do heinous things? Sure. I think it is safe to assume that not all of the reports of murders, beatings, incarcerations, and other outrages were lies or embellishments. Furthermore, Nazi leaders starting with der Führer himself said a few things you just can’t easily unsay.

On page 62, Black describes how Hitler raged in the presence of the Italian ambassador when informed of Mussolini’s disapproval of Nazi anti-Semitism:

“I have the most absolute respect for the personality and the political action of Mussolini. Only in one thing I cannot admit him to be right and that is with regard to the Jewish question in Germany, for he cannot know anything about it.” Hitler continued that he alone was the world’s greatest authority on the Jewish question in Germany, because he alone had examined the issue for “long years from every angle, like no one else.” And, shouted Hitler, he could predict “with absolute certainty” that in five or six hundred years the name of Adolf Hitler would be honored in all lands “as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world.”

Such a statement is impossible to defend—and yes, I went to the source, and it checks out (John Toland’s 1976 Adolf Hitler, p. 325—although Black mistakenly lists it as page 424). Hitler did say this. Immense moral quandaries aside, if you agree with such a genocidal statement, then you are giving Jews like Stephen Wise all the reason they need to act preemptively against Germay and with extreme prejudice. After all, in a fight, one’s opponent has the right to fight back.

The best way to address this conundrum is to allow Black to lead us to deep water, and then go deeper, where he is unprepared to go. Why were so many Germans, and Nazis in particular, so indignant about the Jewish presence in Germany? Why would Hitler declare such enmity for Jews and not for any other non-Aryan ethnic group in Germany?

Well, given that all the negative stereotypes about Jews back then—usury, alcohol peddling, prostitution, pornography, business tribalism, etc.—can arguably be balanced by their accomplishments in a host of other fields—including medicine, science, and music—the best way to respond would be to point to the Soviet Union and all its unspeakable enormities as a model of Jewish supremacy. Then we can ask why the protagonists of The Transfer Agreement—as well as Black himself—never suggest that perhaps the millions of people already slaughtered or starved by the disproportionately Jewish Soviet leadership by 1933 was the reason the Nazis had such a massive a chip on their shoulder. As Michael Kellogg demonstrated in his 2005 The Russian Roots of Nazism, the Nazis were well aware of the apocalyptic nature of Bolshevism as well as its undeniable link to Jews. They did not want what happened in 1917 Russia to happen in 1933 Germany. And who can blame them?

Hitler said he wanted to exterminate the Jewish pest? Fine. In his 1990 work Stalin’s War Against the Jews, author Louis Rapoport quotes Jewish Politburo member Grigory Zinoviev saying the following in 1917:

We must carry along with us ninety million out of the one hundred million Soviet Russian population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.

And you know what? The tragic irony here is that Zinoviev was underselling the destructive power of his own government. Had only 10 million Russians been “annihilated” by the Soviets throughout their 75–year history, it would have been a good thing—compared to what actually happened! That number in fact is much higher.

One last thing, small but poignant. Black describes Congressman Samuel Dickstein as a close friend of Wise. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, it was revealed that Dickstein had been a paid agent for the murderous NKVD. This raises a lot of questions which Black doesn’t care to ask. Further, this knowledge—along with all of the books linked above—came out before the 2009 edition of The Transfer Agreement. Black has no excuse for ignoring such damning evidence against his case.

But what about the transfer agreement itself? Well, here’s where I start saying nice things about Edwin Black. All credit to him for writing an absorbing and well-researched history on this secret pact between Nazis and Zionists. When he is not mendaciously overstating the Nazi menace or eulogizing Jews for trying to destroy Germany, he’s actually quite level-headed and has a reporter’s knack for sticking to only what compels the narrative. His chapter entitled “April First” epitomizes excitement as it depicts, almost like a thriller movie, all the intricate twists and turns of one day in this riveting plot as both Germans and Jews lurch recklessly towards economic war.

On the Jewish side, the struggle boiled down to the belligerent, anti-Gentilic Eastern European Jews (as represented by Stephen Wise, the AJC, and Samuel Untermyer and his World Jewish Economic Federation) versus the more conservative and assimilated Western European Jews (as represented by B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee). Where the former were calling for economic warfare the moment Adolf Hitler became chancellor, the latter were calling for calm and measured diplomatic responses.

Many of the men leading B’nai B’rith and the Committee were German Jews themselves or had friends and family back home. They understood that many of the atrocity reports (known as Greuelpropaganda) coming out of Germany at the time were either lies or gross exaggerations, which was a real sore spot for the Nazi leadership. In some cases, Jews had become victims of violent attack because they were Jews. In other cases, they were victims because they were communist troublemakers who refused to cooperate with Nazi authorities. And when atrocity-mongering reporters like Jacob Leschinsky picked up such stories, they weren’t going to be terribly diligent in making such distinctions.

The German diaspora Jews also understood how serious the Nazis were. If men like Wise, Untermyer, and others kept provoking them, they would retaliate either by making German Jews feel the brunt of the boycott or the brunt of oppression. Many of these Jews were desperate to stop the boycott.

Sadly, the Eastern European Jews won this struggle through will, charisma, and the ability to recruit gullible Christians to their cause. Within months, Jews everywhere were tightening the vise on Germany, hoping to make it crack by winter.

On the opposite side of the coin were the Zionists. Where most Jews saw catastrophe in the Nazis, Zionists saw opportunity. Black is honest enough to admit the ideological similarity between the two, which perhaps is why the Nazis tolerated Zionist Jews most of all. He actually undermines the Jewish supremacist default positions of people like Wise and Untermyer by approvingly quoting common sense from Zionist pioneer Theodore Herzl:

Where [anti-Semitism] does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country.

What we now know as Israel effectively began on March 25, 1933 when German Zionist Federation Kurt Blumenfeld horned his way into an emergency meeting with Goering and other German-Jewish leaders. Goering intended to pressure these Jews into stopping the international Jewish boycott—seemingly operating under the fallacy that they could do this by virtue of being Jews. And according to Black, they really did try.

The Zionists, however, were different. They wanted nothing from the Germans except leave to leave. Goering liked this idea, and promised to play ball as long as the Zionists could do what the other German Jews could not: bring Stephen Wise and Samuel Untermyer to heel. The problem was that in order to entice the 550,000 Jews living in Germany to depart for the undeveloped British-controlled Middle East, each emigre would need to possess the considerable sum of ₤1,000 (now worth £91,566.55 or $114,029) to qualify as refugees according to British law. They would also need to be able to keep a significant percentage of their capital. Two very daunting tasks, but the Zionists were up for the challenge.

This is the struggle Black depicts on the pages of The Transfer Agreement. In it we discover a marvelous array of subplots and subterfuge that, again, could support a decent thriller. Beyond the bitter rivalry among the American Jewish Congress (the largest Jewish activist organization, composed of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe and more prone to radicalism than other Jewish organizations dominated by wealthy Jews from Germany), the American Jewish Committee, and the B’nai B’rith and the obvious Nazi vs. Jew divide, we have German Zionist Federation director Georg Landauer pitted against shady independent businessman Sam Cohen. The former was a true believer and the latter, well, let’s just say he might have been more interested in rescuing German-Jewish capital than German-Jews themselves. He always seemed to stay one step ahead of the Zionists when it came to making deals with the Germans as well. Then you have the loose cannon ideologue Chaim Arlosoroff and his struggles with the “Jewish Hitler” Vladimir Jabotinsky and his Revisionist movement in Palestine. And, as competing alpha-Jews, Wise and Untermyer butted egos quite often.

Everything came to a head at the so-called Political Committee meeting in Prague in August 1933. Here, the world’s most powerful Jews were about to officially declare their anti-German boycott when the Zionists finally revealed the ace up their sleeve: the details of the transfer agreement. In a nutshell, Jewish emigres would leave the majority of their wealth in frozen assets called sperrmarks, which were managed by a Zionist-friendly bank. A collection of Nazi-friendly Zionist businesses (including the one owned by Sam Cohen) would then sell German goods in Palestine and other places, while German exporters would pay themselves with sperrmarks. It was a brilliant scheme, a win-win for the ethnonationalists. It also caused a great deal of kvetching among the Jews in Prague, not least of whom was Stephen Wise—because according to the transfer agreement they could have boycott or Zionism, but not both.

Given that Wise was such a villain throughout this narrative, his getting stymied in the end was satisfying.

To conclude with another chess analogy, there is something known in chess as a helpmate. This is a puzzle which challenges both players to checkmate one side in a certain number of moves. Thus, one player is actually working to checkmate himself. The Transfer Agreement is not quite that bad, but sometimes it does approach helpmate levels of suicide when it comes to Jewish apologetics and the Third Reich. A better analogy would be that Edwin Black is simply a poor player who ultimately captures fewer pieces than his opponent (i.e., the well-read, discerning reader) and ends up in a worse position than when he started. But he still manages to capture pieces. Yes, Nazis said and did things which are difficult if not impossible to defend nearly a century after the fact. So what? The people he champions said and did worse. And Black is not exactly in a hurry to tell us about it.

Often in The Transfer Agreement Black describes the international Jewish struggle against Nazi Germany as economic or propagandistic war. Stephen Wise takes it further in the book’s final chapter when on September 23, 1933, he hinted darkly of real war against Germany. He stated that boycott “is a weapon, but it is not the weapon. . . . The president of the United States and the prime minister of England can do more than a hundred boycotts.”

So war it is.

But this raises an interesting question: if the first casualty of war is always the truth, and the Jews are always at war, then when can we ever rely on Jews to tell the truth?

 

Jewish Involvement in Libertarianism

/36 Comments/in , /by
  1. Is libertarianism a ‘Jewish intellectual movement’?

In his influential study The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald analyses a number of 20th century intellectual and social movements that were led by Jews and often centred around some charismatic Jewish leader, including Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Approaching them from an evolutionary psychology and social identity theory perspective, MacDonald argues that they exemplify ‘group-evolutionary strategies’. In brief, he contends that these movements are stratagems used in Jew-Gentile competition: they function to ‘critique’ and undermine the ethnocentrism of Gentile societies so as to make them more hospitable for Jews and Jewish advancement, and to combat resistance to this advancement (labelled ‘anti-Semitism’). MacDonald never claimed to provide an exhaustive list of such movements, but a question this article will consider is whether libertarianism could be placed among them. Though some other authors have suggested or argued this before[1], I have a different take on things to them, as will be explained in due course.

Why might one suspect this of libertarianism? Libertarianism developed from classical liberalism. Though the founding fathers of classical liberalism were gentiles (with the exception of David Ricardo, who converted to Unitarianism against his family’s wishes), the successor ideology of libertarianism has had many Jews as its major figures. In fact, libertarian economist Steven Horwitz describes the Jewish role in libertarianism as pivotal:

It is not a coincidence that among the leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th century, we have a large number of Jews, starting with Mises, Milton Friedman, Israel Kirzner, and Robert Nozick. And despite the [fact that they] rejected their Judaism, we should not forget Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. They are only the tip of the iceberg of the disproportionate number of Jews who have been instrumental in forwarding the ideas of classical liberalism in the last century. It is no exaggeration to say that the modern libertarian movement would not exist were it not for these Jews.[2]

Apparently, libertarian ideas have had a magnetic pull for many Jewish intellectuals; but is libertarianism a ‘Jewish intellectual movement’ in MacDonald’s sense? To answer this we should look to the preface of The Culture of Critique, were he gives four criteria he’s looking for:

1) The movement must be dominated by Jews.

2) There should be evidence that these Jews strongly identify as Jews and believe that they can advance Jewish interests through the movement (though they might deceive themselves about their having this motivation).

3) It should have an influence on gentile society, helping to make the society more hospitable to Jews.

4) It should provoke some response from gentiles, particularly an anti-Semitic response.

Now if Horwitz is right, we can take libertarianism to satisfy the first condition (Walter Block has provided a longer list of prominent Jewish libertarians[3]). Consider next the third criterion—that libertarianism has influenced gentile society and in a way that’s good for the Jews. Though it has had other popular political ideologies and forces to contend with, classical liberalism has certainly been deeply influential in the West, to the extent of being part of the Western identity or self-conception. Moreover, although its successor libertarianism is often regarded as a fringe movement, in the US especially it is promoted by an energetic ecosystem of institutes, political parties, law firms, publishers, journals, magazines and websites. And regarding the Jewish connection, it is often said that Jews have flourished the most in liberal, individualistic countries. Liberal ideas led to Jewish emancipation in Europe, and the US, which perhaps has most approximated to the libertarian ideal, was spoken of as a ‘promised land’ for the Jews. So the influence of (classical) liberal ideas has been ‘good for the Jews’, though perhaps not good enough, with most Jews nevertheless favouring a left-wing, progressive political orientation that campaigns for equality rather than liberty, to the dismay of many Jewish libertarians.[4]

However, it might be argued that liberalism is not good for the Jews at the expense of gentiles, but rather is just good period, that is, for everyone. Jews are not attracted to it for specifically self-interested reasons. Relatedly, it is sometimes said that Jewish overrepresentation in libertarianism is of no special significance since Jews are also overrepresented in the ranks of libertarianism’s arch-enemy, communism. As one writer put it, ‘if Communism and Libertarianism are both great for the Jews, you have to figure that probably just about anything can be construed as good for the Jews.’[5] Mises concurred: ‘these contradictory charges [blaming Jews for both laissez faire capitalism and communism] cancel each other.’[6] Being an urban, intellectual people, Jews will be overrepresented in most intellectual movements.[7]

However, this argument emphasizes the differences between libertarianism and communism while overlooking what they have in common: their shared cosmopolitan or internationalist outlook. Ludwig von Mises described the cosmopolitanism of liberalism as follows:

The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction. Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense, humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a cosmopolite.[8]

Replace ‘liberalism/liberal’ with ‘communism/communist’ in this passage and it wouldn’t look out of place in any Marxist tract. We could thus suppose that it’s their shared cosmopolitanism, with its de-emphasis on national borders and ethnic or racial identity, that makes both ideologies attractive to a dispersed, diaspora people like the Jews. And we could then suppose that they would be much less enthused about and much less represented in non-cosmopolitan political orientations like conservatism, nationalism, royalism and theocracy (outside the Israeli context).

Next let’s move on to the fourth condition. It is more difficult to see this one being satisfied, since it does not seem that libertarianism, or Jewish involvement in libertarianism, has provoked any defensive, anti-Semitic responses on the part of gentiles, and the issue of Jewish overrepresentation in libertarianism has not even attracted a great deal of notice or comment. But satisfaction of this seems to be just for bonus points, since MacDonald doesn’t treat it as a necessary condition. For instance, in his discussion of Boasian anthropology, he doesn’t show that it provoked an anti-Semitic reaction but just standard scientific criticism. So it seems that the answer to whether libertarianism is a Jewish group-evolutionary strategy comes down to whether the second condition is satisfied: are Jewish promoters of libertarianism motivated by strong Jewish self-identification and the belief that libertarianism advances specifically Jewish interests (perhaps at the expense of Gentile interests)?

Jewish libertarians can indeed be found who explicitly attribute their adherence to libertarianism to Jewish concerns. For instance, the Jewish American legal scholar Randy Barnett has explained how ‘being a contrarian Jew has affected my academic agenda, my scholarly commitments, and the future direction of my work’. His libertarianism, he tells us, stems from a belief that ‘the reason Jews have thrived in the US is because it was fundamentally a republic that puts a primacy on individual rights rather than a democracy that unduly privileges the will of the majority’, and he criticizes progressive Jews for being ‘short-sighted about what is good for the Jews.’[9] However, Barnett is not a major figure and we should turn our attention to the big Jewish libertarian luminaries. Accordingly we will focus on two main intellectual strands, the Ayn Rand strand and the Mises-Rothbard strand. Different answers, I believe, will be obtained for each.

  1. The objectivist strand of libertarianism

As was mentioned, some have previously argued that libertarianism is a ‘Jewish intellectual movement’. Trudie Pert, for instance, argues this in relation to the Mises-Rothbard strand but doesn’t discuss the Ayn Rand or ‘objectivist’ strand. The view taken here, however, is that a much better case can be made for this claim in relation to the objectivist strand.

Ayn Rand was the founder of objectivism, which combines a libertarian, individualistic political philosophy with some other ideas including an ethics of selfishness. Shortly before the publication of her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, a coterie of admirers began to form around and meet regularly with her, which they jokingly named The Collective. This group formed an institute to promote Rand’s philosophy and was entirely Jewish: as Rothbard, who briefly associated with this group, said, ‘each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of the one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden [born Blumenthal and Weidman respectively].’[10] The group believed that Rand was of messianic significance and it has been described as a cult.[11]

In these respects the objectivist movement in its beginnings appeared similar to a paradigmatic MacDonaldian Jewish intellectual movement. But despite the Jewish makeup of The Collective, there is little to suggest that Rand or her group were significantly motivated by Jewish interests. Rand was from a young age introverted and independent. She rarely spoke or wrote about her Jewish identity and showed little interest in it. As with her familial relationships, she didn’t place much importance in it because it was unchosen and therefore not expressive of one’s values: ‘one is simply born into a family. Therefore it’s of no real significance.’[12] Feeling pride (or shame) in one’s family or ethnic background was for Rand irrational and a kind of ‘racism’. It only makes sense to feel pride in one’s own achievements, and anything else is ‘a quest for the unearned.’[13] (Perhaps Rand is looking at this the wrong way. Taking pride in, say, one’s ancestors might not be an attempt to, illogically, claim their achievements as one’s own, but rather to see in their achievements one’s own potentialities; they show to us what we might be capable of.) There is some evidence, however, that later in life Rand developed more of an attachment to her kinsfolk, as she donated to Israel (her first act of giving to a cause) and vehemently defended its right to bring civilization to a ‘primitive’ region. However, she similarly defended European colonialism,[14] so this might have partly stemmed from a universal principle as much as from ethnic loyalty.

Rand was not very interested in leading a movement, and saw her objectivism as a philosophy to be taken up by individuals. The institute associated with The Collective was formed by her main disciple and was called the Nathaniel Branden Institute, and it ended after Branden’s acrimonious break from Rand. It wasn’t until 1985, three years after Rand’s death, that another significant attempt was made to get a movement going, when Collective member Leonard Peikoff, who Rand made heir to her estate, established the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Peikoff was more concerned with typical Jewish bugbears, and wrote a book called The Ominous Parallels that attempted to explain the rise of Nazism in Germany with a familiar It-could-happen-here trope.

Next in the line of succession was Yaron Brook, who was appointed by Peikoff as Executive Director in 2000 and who has led the institute since then. Brook is a dual American-Israeli citizen and served in Israeli military intelligence before emigrating to the US at age 26, where he gained an MBA and PhD in finance. Brook got into Rand’s ideas in his teenage years, but before joining the ARI he was reportedly not very well known in objectivist circles. Brook said that he left Israel because of the ‘socialist policy, ridiculous political system, constant external threats.’[15] Nevertheless Israel remained close to his heart, and under his directorship at the ARI, Israel advocacy was ramped up.

The gold-standard for establishing whether Jewish activists are sincere in their principles or are just using them as a gambit to advance Jewish interests is perhaps to find evidence of a double-standard, where those principles are pushed on gentiles but not on Jews. Now objectivists are, generally speaking, in favour of open borders and Brook and his colleagues say that this policy is entailed by objectivist principles. But what do they say about the borders of the Jewish state?

In his regular podcast show, after expressing concern about rising nationalism in Europe after the Brexit referendum, Brook said the following:

Now look … any time I mention immigration, any time I mention nationalism, people bring up Israel. … I don’t have time to cover the Israel example. But Israel is an exception.  You heard it here.  Israel is an exception.  Not a good exception.  Not an exception that is ideal.  But it is an exception.  And, uh, why is Israel an exception? … [that’s something] we will get to on a future show, but not now.”[16]

Objectivists advocate not only for the free movement of people but also of goods and money. Brook’s remarks above might now make us wonder whether these other beliefs would hold firm in relation to the Israel case. Brook denounces EU agricultural tariffs but would he also denounce Israeli agricultural tariffs, which protect struggling Israeli farmers who work difficult, dusty land, from global competition?[17] Would he accept Israel being dependent for its food supply on non-Jews, that is, potential anti-Semites? And would he make an exception for the shekel when it comes to currency controls, which might protect it from manipulations by foreign speculators in certain circumstances?

Brook eventually returns to the same topic in another show, but only when the issue is raised again by a caller.

There’s a bunch of people out there that are calling me a hypocrite … because Israel doesn’t allow open immigration. … It’s built a wall, and Mexicans are invading America so — I mean, that’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. Israel is defending itself against a constant military threat from people who wanna wipe it out. They wanna use weapons to kill every Jew in Israel. They say this; they announce it publicly; they do it whenever they have an opportunity. It’s fought multiple wars against armies that have invaded it from these borders, against at least six different Arab-Muslim countries. … [But] Mexicans are coming over the border to get a job … to try to make their lives better lives … how can we be against that? It drives me nuts.[18]

As I’m sure Brook knows, these days there are such things as aeroplanes which can transport people to Israel from countries who are not hostile to it, people who might just want to improve their lives by settling in Israel and contributing to its economy. (Such people might include, for instance, recent non-Jewish African migrants to Israel, who were expelled and resettled in Canada.) How can he be against that? Notice also how Brook raises an altruistic consideration in defence of Mexican immigration, which should carry no weight with an objectivist since they subscribe to an ethics of selfishness. Why should an American objectivist care about a Mexican’s quality of life?

Interestingly, the ARI has a branch in Israel. Though the immigration issue features as a major topic on the U.S. ARI website, this writer, armed with a translator program to translate the Hebrew, could not find any mention of it on the Israeli website, which focuses on more anodyne economic topics about capitalism versus statism.

The Ayn Rand Institute’s Israel advocacy goes well beyond the immigration issue. Under Brook’s and Peikoff’s leadership, the ARI has advanced an agenda barely distinguishable from that of neoconservatism. It has defended the War on Terror, torture, and Israel’s right to ‘exist’ (i.e., expand), and it has called for U.S. military action against Iran. (In fact, Brook has criticized neoconservatism, but his main complaint is that it’s too soft: his line is that the US should dispense with the altruistic nation-building and democracy promotion stuff and just unapologetically pursue its ‘self-interest’ and smash ‘threats to America.’[19]) This agenda, and the hypocrisy implicit in it coming from objectivists, has been meticulously documented by the website ARI Watch. Similar agendas can also be found in other objectivist institutions like The Atlas Society and The Objective Standard, which were founded by people associated with or expelled from the ARI.

Objectivism, then, is led by Jews with a strong sense of Jewish identity and mission. We can therefore conclude with some confidence that the objectivist movement is a Jewish intellectual movement á la MacDonald, though it might not have started out as one. For Brook and his colleagues, objectivism is for thee but not for me. Principles of individualism, liberty and selfishness are selectively applied to accord with Jewish interests. When Israel is considered, suddenly the evaluative frame of reference changes: Israel might violate libertarian and objectivist principles by being statist, socialist, collectivist, having conscription, initiating aggression and so on, but it must be defended because it’s still so much better than what the Arab ‘savages’ (as Rand once called them[20]) have created there. I know of no evidence whatsoever that Brook is still working for Israeli intelligence in some capacity, but it is interesting that his behavior is entirely consistent with this hypothesis.

  1. The Mises-Rothbard strand

Next let’s consider the much more popular Mises-Rothbard strand of libertarianism. Murray Rothbard, the student and follower of Mises, is greatly respected in the libertarian movement, and Walter Block has said he is the closest thing you could find to a guru figure in libertarianism besides Ayn Rand.[21] However, the characters of both were opposite in many respects. In contrast to the austere, intense, authoritarian and haughty Rand, Rothbard was by all accounts affable, gregarious, humorous and down-to-earth. Ideologically he also differed from Rand by advocating the more radical anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism, which sees no need for government whatsoever, in contrast to objectivism which holds a minimalist theory of the state.

Rothbard rebelled against the communist Jewish milieu he grew up with in New York. But did he retain a strong sense of Jewish identity, or animosity towards gentile culture? In support of this, Pert alleges that Rothbard and Mises were hostile towards Christianity.[22] However, Mises’ attitude to Christianity softened with age,[23] and Pert’s claim is not at all true for Rothbard. Many who knew him personally have said that while being an agnostic he greatly admired the Catholic Church.[24] He had expertise in Church history and theology, loved Baroque Church architecture, and believed that liberalism developed from Christian ideas.[25] Rothbard was also affiliated with the Old Right led by Senator Robert Taft in opposing the ‘welfare-warfare state.’[26] He criticized pillars of Jewish power like the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, and had trouble getting his PhD because of this opposition. Later in his career he tried to form an alliance with paleoconservatives. He even began to sympathize with ethno-nationalist concerns and took seriously Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, though he believed that anarcho-libertarianism could accommodate those concerns.[27]

This leads to the issue of immigration: what was Rothbard’s position on it? Initially Rothbard held the standard libertarian position. As one of his followers expresses it, ‘Libertarians, for the most part, will support immigration. There’s nothing special about the territory of a particular state. If someone is willing to hire or sponsor an immigrant that should be the end of the matter.’[28] In particular, by rejecting the concept of public property as an absurdity, libertarians often consider public property to be up for grabs (though there are exceptions here: Hans-Hermann Hoppe considers it the property of the taxpayers).

However, Rothbard came to change his attitude to immigration from reflecting on the ideal anarcho-capitalist state.[29] In such a society, all land would be privately owned and therefore there would be no automatic right to enter that territory. Someone wanting to hire an immigrant would need to get the agreement of those whose land the immigrant would need to traverse to reach his business and use thereafter. Anti-immigration views will perhaps gain more traction in libertarian circles; though it’s often said that most libertarians are for open borders, three of the most respected libertarians, Rothbard, Rockwell and Hoppe, have come out against the idea.

This libertarian solution to the immigration problem would hardly be appealing to an ethno-nationalist however. The difficulty is that such restrictions would apply to everyone, not just ‘foreigners’. Without public land, nobody would have an automatic right to roam. It would be a paltry kind of freedom that can only be automatically exercised on one’s private plot. One might think that the landowners could agree to grant such rights to ‘compatriots’ and not ‘foreigners’, but this very distinction presupposes the existence of a state and state borders, which anarcho-libertarianism rejects. (Rothbard’s vision of society also shows a lack of appreciation for the value of wild land, valuable for its beauty and ecological importance.)

What the Ayn Rand Institute is to Rand, the Mises Institute, established by Rothbard’s colleague and friend Lew Rockwell, is to Mises and Rothbard. But one does not find the selective application of libertarian principles there to advance Jewish interests. Israel receives no special favors at the Mises Institute,[30] nor at Rockwell’s website LewRockwell.com or at the ideologically similar Ron Paul Institute. Anti-war and anti-interventionist positions prevail at these forums, in contrast with the ARI.

We can thus conclude that while the Ayn Rand strand of libertarianism is a Jewish Intellectual Movement in MacDonald’s sense, the Mises-Rothbard strand is not. However, there are other strands one might consider and this article makes no claim to completeness. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School haven’t been discussed. This school ascended to become part of the Establishment, and Marco de Wit has already persuasively argued that it is a MacDonaldian Jewish Intellectual Movement.[31] Other strands one could investigate include the Washington-based Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party, though I will leave that to other investigators.

Though many libertarians of the Mises-Rothbard stripe are sincere and principled people, in the rest of this article I will argue that, despite their valuable contributions to economic thought and to the defence of peace and freedom, their doctrine comes to grief with its inability to reckon with the Jewish Question.

  1. Libertarianism and tribalism

The increased Jewish involvement in the development of liberalism coincided with a radicalisation of that tradition, for libertarianism is arguably more extreme and individualistic than classical liberalism. This is partly because while classical liberalism is associated with the Harm Principle (HP)—roughly, that force can only be legitimately used against a person to prevent him from harming others, libertarianism is associated with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): that force can only be legitimately used against a person to prevent him from using force or threatening to use force against others or their property.[32] And the latter seems more licentious than the former. For instance, laws against blackmail could plausibly be justified by the HP but not by the NAP.[33] (However, matters are complicated here by the fact that libertarians typically stretch the meaning of ‘aggression’, to include things like fraud or walking through someone else’s property.) The more moderate nature of classical liberalism can also be seen in the willingness of classical liberals to make exceptions to their principles. J. S. Mill, for instance, said that an individual may be compelled by government to do certain positive acts to support the community, such as ‘to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage.’[34] These policies cannot be derived from his Harm Principle. Libertarians, on the other hand, pride themselves on their ‘logical consistency’: their unflinchingly accepting the implications of their limited number of principles, no matter how ‘counterintuitive’ they may seem. But what they applaud as logical consistency others see as dogmatism.[35] Libertarian rhetoric sometimes also has a revolutionary flavour, advocating black-market dealing and tax evasion, and taking or occupying public property, though typically rejecting the use of force.

It is not surprising that members of an ethnic minority like the Jews would be attracted to libertarianism, since its radically individualist philosophy undermines the ethnocentrism of the ethnic majority and thus lowers the drawbridge, so to speak, into that society for outsiders. But is this not a double-edged sword? Wouldn’t an individualistic libertarian order prohibit or at least undermine Jewish ethnocentrism just as much as gentile ethnocentrism?

This question was addressed, at least obliquely, in a recent book by Alan Krinsky[36] that argues for the compatibility of traditional Judaism and libertarianism. Judaism is the polar opposite of a system of thought like libertarianism in many ways, for instance it is extremely non-individualistic or ‘collectivist’. It is difficult to think of a statement more at odds with the libertarian spirit then one from a leading Rabbi quoted by Krinsky, which affirms that the Jewish community is ‘not just an assembly of people who work together for their mutual benefit, but a metaphysical entity, an individuality; I might say, a living whole,’ or a ‘juridic metaphysical person.’[37] Nevertheless, Krinsky argues that this strange kind of entity would be accepted in a libertarian society, because it is ultimately a ‘voluntary association’ and in libertarianism everyone has the right to form such associations as they see fit. Libertarianism has nothing against community, he says, so long as it’s not held together by force.[38]

There is a naivety, however, in conceptualizing Judaism, or the Jewish community more generally, as a mere voluntary association, as if to put it on the level of a local board-game or toastmasters club. Society is not just a site of mutually beneficial interactions but is also an arena of competition for power and resources, and Jews compete in this arena as a group (the existence of a vast, integrated and international network of Jewish advocacy and campaigning groups puts this beyond question.) Their commitment to ‘work[ing] together for their mutual benefit’ manifests itself, for instance, in covertly practiced ethnic nepotism and tactics of collusion and exclusion used in the spheres of business, politics and culture, which non-Jews see as discrimination and unfair competition, just as collusion between players in a poker game is regarded as unfair and is prohibited. But such collectivist tactics are allowable in a libertarian order since they don’t involve using force or the threat of force. They are in accordance with the letter, though not with the individualistic spirit, of libertarianism. This can then lead to a collectivist ‘arms race’, where non-Jews band together as a self-defensive response,[39] which would ultimately destabilize a libertarian system. Interestingly, Krinsky expresses some doubts about libertarianism’s sanguine attitude towards voluntary associations, since they could include ‘discriminatory associations’ like ‘sexist and racist groups.’[40] But he seems to lack the introspective powers necessary to realize that his own Judaism might also be such a discriminatory association.

The sanguine attitude of libertarians towards ‘metaphysical entities’ like the Jewish community points to a fatal weakness with their doctrine. Misguided political ideologies usually end up dashed against the rock of human nature, and libertarianism is no different from Marxism in this respect. But whereas Marxism ignored our ‘selfish’ nature, our tendency to be motivated primarily by personal profit, libertarianism ignores our ‘tribal’ nature, our tendency to identify with and collude in groups. Tribalism runs counter to the individualism that is a key part of libertarianism, and an excess of it would destabilize a libertarian society. Libertarians will, no doubt, acknowledge the existence of tribalism, but then why are they so unworried by it?

One reason is that they seem to treat tribalism not as a deep feature of human nature but as more like superstition: an archaic, irrational tendency that man will grow out of in civilized society. We are left to infer this, at any rate, from their nonchalant attitude towards the immigration of very illiberal tribes into liberal countries, which betrays a naïve confidence that they will give up their old ways of thinking and become good liberal individualists in short order. The point is doubtful, however, as there seems to be no inverse relationship between intelligence/educatedness and tribalism. Jews and North East Asians, for instance, are known for their high IQ and high ethnocentrism.

There is also a strong Rousseauian trend in libertarianism that might explain its attitude towards tribalism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that men were naturally good and lived contentedly until society corrupted them. Life in the State of Nature, Rousseau imagined, was not solitary, nasty, brutish and short as Thomas Hobbes believed. It was solitary, yes, but it was also a state of contented independence living off nature’s bounty, comparable perhaps to how orangutans live, the semi-solitary apes. Libertarians, especially anarcho-libertarians, also hold romantic notions about the State of Nature, imagining it as characterised by harmonious interactions.[41] Man then became corrupted, not so much by society as Rousseau believed but by government. Indeed, there is intellectual pressure on those who believe government to be the root of all evil to have a rosy-eyed view of the State of Nature, since the alleged horrors of the State of Nature have been the main justification for government in much of Western political philosophy. Tribalism, then, could be seen by libertarians as part of this corruption, something artificial that is stirred up and reinforced by the state to further its own agenda, and not as something native to man when left alone.

Implicit in the Rousseauian and libertarian view is the idea that sociality and hence tribalism is not natural or instinctive to man. Men lived naturally solitary lives, and then decided and made a rational calculation (indeed, a miscalculation in Rousseau’s view) to live together under a leader and in a hierarchy. Thus man’s sociality is derived from reason rather than instinct.

Serious reflection on human nature will, however, lead to the conclusion that sociality and tribalism are instinctual and ineradicable. Tribalism may be partly based on the rational calculation that it is better to band together with others to survive and compete, but it is also positively reinforced by elemental feelings like love and affection, pride, attachment to one’s own kind, the desire for recognition, approval and connection, as well being negatively reinforced by feelings of loneliness and insecurity. Further, for most people, living for their own private pleasure like a Randian egoist, however heroically, is not sufficient to give their lives meaning. Most people need to identify with something greater than themselves, and the libertarian individualist is in danger of becoming a shallow libertine. There is little reason to think that humans ever had a solitary way of life that they made a rational decision to leave. If we evolved from apes as the evolutionists say then we likely evolved from social apes, so that man has always lived in social and hierarchical groups and has a nature geared to that mode of existence. The chimpanzee is, after all, our closest relative, not the orangutan.

Libertarianism condemns ethnocentrism and downplays its importance in social life, but ethnocentrism is like weaponry: it would perhaps be nice to live in a world without it, but so long as one group refuses to give it up it would be foolish for others to do so. The libertarian individualist is one who by renouncing tribalism has, as Fredrick Nietzsche might say, ‘strayed most dangerously from [his] instincts.’[42]

1] Lote, S. 2011. Libertarianism: Ideals and reality. The Occidental Quarterly 11(1), pp. 45-50. Pert, T. 2011. Austro-libertarianism, Catholicism, and Judaism. The Occidental Quarterly 11(1), pp. 69-86.

[2] Horwitz, S. Libertarianism rejects anti-Semitism. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-rejects-anti-semitism/

[3] Block, W. 2017. Are All Jews Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Left-Liberals, Bernie and Hillary Supporters, Democrats? No! Lewrockwell.com. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/jews-socialists-progressives-communists-left-liberals-bernie-hillary-supporters-democrats-no/

[4] E.g., Friedman, M. 1972. Capitalism and the Jews. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordings/milton-friedman-capitalism-and-jews. Block, W. 2018. Is it permissible to criticize Jews? Lewrockwell.com. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/permissible-criticize-jews/

[5] Lindsay, R. 2015. Jews created libertarianism. https://beyondhighbrow.com/2015/09/30/jews-created-libertarianism/

[6] von Mises, L. 1974[1944]. Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Liberty Fund, p. 209.

[7] Cofnas, N. 2018. Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s theory. Human Nature, 29, p. 138.

[8] Von Mises, L. 1985. Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. Trans: R. Raico. Foundation for Economic Education, pp. 105-6.

[9] Barnett, R. 2015. The making of a libertarian, contrarian, non-observant, but self-identified Jew. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 1330.

[10] Rothbard, M. The sociology of the Ayn Rand cult. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/.

[11] See Ibid. Also see Block, W. 2000. Libertarianism vs objectivism: A response to Peter Schwartz. Reason Papers 26.

[12] Rand quoted in Branden, B. 1987. The Passion of Ayn Rand. Anchor Books, p. 72. Also see p. 6.

[13] Rand, A. and Branden, N. 1961. The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet.

[14] Burns, J. 2009. The Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. Oxford University Press, p. 266.

[15] Arfa, O. 2007. ‘You don’t fight a tactic’. Jerusalem Post.

[16] The Yaron Brook Show, episode 62. Brexit: What’s on the horizon?

[17] See Katsman, H. Why Israeli farmers are struggling – and government policies aren’t helping. Stroum Center for Jewish Studies. https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/israeli-agriculture-farming-government-policies-tariffs/

[18] The Yaron Brook Show, episode 65. Live from FreedomFest ask me anything.

[19] See Brook, Y. and Epstein, A. 2007. Neoconservative foreign policy: An autopsy. The Objective Standard. The difference between Brook’s approach and the neoconservative one might be smaller than this suggests. Brook either fails to or pretends not to appreciate that the neoconservatives are Straussians who believe in the ‘noble lie’. Was the high-sounding talk of spreading freedom and democracy merely for public consumption? One should not dismiss such possibilities when dealing with neoconservatives.

[20] See video clip, ‘Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

[21] Libertarianism versus objectivism, p. 45.

[22] Pert, p. 71.

[23] See Hülsmann, J.G. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Mises Institute, pp. 982-986 & pp. 437-443.

[24] See Rockwell, L (ed). 1995. Murray N. Rothbard: In Memoriam. Mises Institute.

[25] Rothbard in Memoriam, p. 80.

[26] Rothbard in Memoriam. p. 65.

[27] Rothbard, M. N. 1994. Nations by consent: Decomposing the nation-state. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 11, pp. 1-10.

[28] Casey, G. 2012. Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State. Continuum. p. 8.

[29] Rothbard. Nations by consent. pp. 1-10.

[30] See Halbrook, S. P. 1981. The alienation of a homeland: How Palestine became Israel. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 5, pp. 357-374. Rothbard, M. N. 2016[1978]. ‘Little’ Israel. https://mises.org/library/never-dull-moment/html/c/467.

[31] Marco de Wit. 2021. Did Milton Friedman’s Libertarianism Seek to Advance Jewish Interests? Occidental Observer.

[32] Some libertarians claim that their entire system is based on the NAP, while others believe it is just one of a number of principles informing libertarian thinking (see Zwolinski, M. 2016. The libertarian nonaggression Principle. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2), pp. 62-90.

[33] See Casey, p. 47. This does not mean libertarianism condones blackmail (libertarianism is not a complete theory of morality).

[34] Mill, J. S. 2003. On Liberty. Yale University Press. p. 82.

[35] E.g., K. MacDonald. 2011. Introduction to the special issue: libertarianism and white racial nationalism. The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 11(1), p. 12.

[36] Krinsky, A. D. 2020. Running in Good Faith? Observant Judaism and Libertarian Politics. Academic Studies Press.

[37] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, quoted in Krinsky, 2020. p. 155.

[38] It should be noted that libertarians often engage in crude black and white thinking about force. To promote community life and consciousness, for instance, governments have more options at their disposal then using force, such as various sorts of carrot or stick incentives and disincentives, but libertarians often classify such tools as the use of force (e.g., ‘No third road is possible here; one must choose compulsion or liberty’ (Casey, p. 54)).

[39] This process is described by MacDonald in Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (2004).

[40] Krinsky, p. 171.

[41] See Casey, p. 32.

[42] Nietzsche, F. The Antichrist. §14.

The Culture War in Ukraine

/37 Comments/in /by

The rationale for America’s participation in the proxy war in Ukraine rarely articulates itself with the language of national interests or security concerns. Instead it’s sold as a war over “our values” and the maintenance of a “rules-based liberal international order”. In the words of Joe Biden, “We are engaged anew in a great battle for freedom. A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression.” Rather than a regional territorial dispute, it’s a cosmic struggle for freedom and democracy. But in this grand battle, democracy might not mean what you think.

Ukraine is a deeply corrupt country that has banned rival political parties, shut down television news stations, and passed a law to drastically limit press freedom. The very meaning of democracy has been silently reconceptualised. If once it meant non-fraudulent voting and a free press, now it means something altogether different. Italians voting, democratically, for Giorgia Meloni, was viewed by President Biden as a threat to democracy:

Democracy is at stake… You just saw what’s happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. And the reason I bother to say that is we can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here either.

Biden expressed a similar view about Poland and Hungary while giving an assessment of then-President Trump’s foreign policy: “You see what’s happened in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary, and the rise of totalitarian regimes in the world, and as well, this president embraces all the thugs in the world.” This way of speaking of Poland and Hungary is far from unusual in the English-speaking media.

Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin summed up what’s being fought for in Ukraine. Accusing Moscow of being “a world center of antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans hatred, as well as the homeland of replacement theory for export” he concluded “In supporting Ukraine, we are opposing these fascist views.” Framed in this way it is unsurprising that the proxy war finds its most rabid adherents among Democrats. Homosexuality is entirely legal in Russia and yet Western liberals will use gay rights, trans rights and feminism to foment a surreal new jingoism that bolsters support for spending billions to fund a proxy war against a nuclear-armed power.  “Nation building” means teaching Afghans about the artistic merit of latrines, “democracy” means trans rights, and “a rules based international order” means America doing whatever it wants.

For Richard Moore, the head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, gay and transgender rights are the dividing line between Russia and the UK. “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine”, he tweeted at the start of the war, “we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights”.

In the 1960s political radicals opposed America’s military-industrial complex. Today they donate to it. Judith Butler, the primary originator of radical gender ideology, donated to Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign. Harris is now the primary saleswoman for arming Ukraine and escalating the conflict.

A professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews expressed some typical delusions of Western liberals:

Just as the ability to absorb information is better than lunkhead hypermasculinity in a modern army, diversity and societal integration also bring major advantages. As Ukraine has become more diverse and tolerant, its army has benefited. In contrast with Putin’s homophobic military, the Ukrainian armed forces include LGBTQ soldiers who have incorporated “unicorn” insignia into their uniforms. The valor of these soldiers, and the rallying of the Ukrainian people around a vision of a tolerant and diverse society, have led to an overall increase in Ukrainian support for gay rights.

American commentators have painted the conflict in Ukraine as a literal culture war and Putin is happy to reciprocate. In the midst of the conflict he expressed support for Harry Potter author JK Rowling, comparing her “cancellation” over trans issues to the sanctions meted out against Russia by Western nations. In an Address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow, Putin promised to “protect our children from degradation and degeneration” emanating from the West:

Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children… They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages… Reportedly, the Anglican Church is planning to explore the idea of a gender-neutral god. What is there to say? …Millions of people in the West realise that they are being led to a spiritual disaster. Frankly, the elite appear to have gone crazy.

In his sermon on Forgiveness Sunday, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia spelt out the nature of the ideological cleavage between NATO and Russia:

In the Donbass there is rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power. Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government, a kind of pass to that “happy” world, the world of excess consumption, the world of visible “freedom”. Do you know what this test is? The test is very simple and at the same time terrible. … In order to enter the club of those countries, it is necessary to hold a gay pride parade. Not to make a political statement “we are with you”, not to sign any agreements, but to hold a gay parade. And we know how people resist these demands and how this resistance is suppressed by force.

This is, continues Kirill, “a test of loyalty to that very powerful world.” He isn’t wrong. Writing in The Atlantic, Dominic Tierney, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, wants to fight Russia so that a pride parade can be held in Mariupol:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is the antithesis of everything the left stands for. Not only did he launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign democratic nation, but he has also disparaged LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, and immigration, and claimed that “the liberal idea” has “outlived its purpose.” … LGBTQ protesters in Berlin also demanded that Germany step up arms shipments to Ukraine, so that a Pride parade can, one day, be held in the Russian-occupied city of Mariupol.

The LGBT community has become a strange proxy of US power. Kyiv Pride is sponsored by the United States embassy in Ukraine and by the United States Agency for International Development, alongside the Canadian and German governments. In 2021 the Kyiv Pride account tweeted “KyivPride invades eastern Ukraine. The KyivPride: going East project aimed at mobilizing the LGBT+ community in Donbas started in May. In other words, let’s make Donbas queer”.

One typical apparatchik of the American empire in the current year is the “non-binary” lesbian Masha Gessen, who has said of marriage:

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the United States of spreading “a cultural revolution” around the world that consisted of political correctness “taken to the extreme”. Opposition to the American war machine is the only sensible response.

Anti-Racism Comes for the Church: The Case of Thomas Achord

/67 Comments/in , /by

A year or two ago, I received a large, unsolicited and apparently self-published book in the mail: Who Is My Neighbor? An Anthology in Natural Relations, edited by Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow. Neither name was familiar to me. Since my available reading time is somewhat constrained, I did no more than leaf through it at first. But I kept it on my shelf because the idea of “an anthology in natural relations” sounded worthwhile. The editors clearly felt that relations in contemporary America had become unnatural (in some sense), and in response they had assembled hundreds of short, simple texts on proper human relations from antiquity to the present day. Their anthology emphasized the Classical and Christian traditions, but included some material from Egypt, China, India, the Jewish tradition and more. There were chapters on God (or the gods), marriage, family and household (including slavery), local and political community, economics, education, literature, and other matters—much of the very stuff of human life.

I was sympathetic to the project. Contemporary man has no idea how unusual his moral notions appear within a broad historical context. This characteristically modern form of ignorance has been called the “provincialism of time,” and one of the purposes of education is overcoming it to some degree. Browsing such an anthology might even have therapeutic value for some of our contemporaries.

But I had mostly forgotten about this book when, browsing a dissident website a couple weeks ago, I came across an appeal to help the family of a man who had lost his livelihood due to thought crime. I made a small donation and searched the internet for further information on the case. This quickly led me to a number of posts about a certain Thomas Achord, an alleged “white supremacist” who had also been dismissed from his employment in November, 2022. That name rang a bell, and a quick check of my bookshelf confirmed that this second cancellee was indeed the co-editor of Who Is My Neighbor?

Until November of last year, Mr. Achord served as the headmaster of a small private school in Louisiana that is part of the Classical Christian Education movement. This is a traditionalist movement which stresses exposing the young to the Bible and other classic texts, in part through the study of Latin (and sometimes Greek). It provides pupils with an understanding that the world did not begin the day they were born, that their own generation is merely one link in a chain spanning centuries. This helps transmit to them a sense of identity and roots, as well as protecting them from faddish thinking. I have been sympathetic to the movement since it first came to my attention in the 1990s.

Late last year, an Englishman and Christian theologian named Alastair Roberts discovered that Achord had maintained a pseudonymous blog between January 2020 and August 2021. As is the way with pseudonymous writings, much of this material was more forthright in language than what Achord had published under his own name, although not inconsistent with it. Roberts criticized some of the pseudonymous posts, but his language was measured and he explicitly disavowed any desire to threaten Achord’s employment.

Roberts’ post was soon spotted by columnist Rod Dreher, however, whose children had attended Achord’s school. In addition to the material uncovered by Roberts, Dreher took exception to a chapter of Who Is My Neighbor? containing texts in support of the common-sense ideas that diversity promotes conflict and erodes social capital, while good fences make good neighbors. Dreher quickly decided such ideas made Achord a “vile racist” (as well as anti-Semite and misogynist) and “doxxed” him to the school, which panicked and promptly fired the father of four. Dreher acknowledges that Achord is quiet, modest, friendly, and talented; his ideas are Dreher’s only justification for getting the man dismissed.

Some circumstances may make this dispute appear surprising. Dreher is perhaps best known as the author of The Benedict Option (2017), a book advocating the formation by like-minded Christians of small face-to-face communities capable of withstanding the onslaught of mass culture and cultivating the virtues among the rising generation. This is similar to the goals pursued by the Classical Christian Education movement, so it is not surprising Dreher enrolled his own children in such a school.

But it also seems to overlap rather largely with the aims of Achord and Dow in editing their Anthology in Natural Relations. In the “Introduction” they write:

The subversion of natural and organic connections (family, nation, etc.) has spiritual implications. The goal is the subversion of Christian nations and the culture produced by Christendom. The way forward means recognizing that the world into which we are born includes families, institutions and nations that are structured hierarchically. Likewise our duties within those structures (i.e., justice) are hierarchical in nature. To live with piety is to accept our place in that structure of reality, favoring the near over the far.

Achord’s “racism” is presumably related to his advocacy of “favoring the near over the far.”

Achord and Dow drop a broad hint as to where the contemporary “subversion of natural and organic connections” such as nation and family is coming from by printing three quotes from the founders of communism on the back of their book:

Even the usual differences within species, like racial differences . . . can and must be done away with historically.—Karl Marx

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves.—Friedrich Engels

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them—V. I. Lenin

Marx speaks of races, Engels and Lenin of nations and nationalities, but the basic idea is the same: communism represents a form of universalism, a type of thinking which elevates the universal over the particular, extending even to outright hostility toward more particular forms of human association.

Speaking generally, each of us forms the center of a concentric series of spheres of attachment beginning with our immediate family and running through our extended family to our community (if we are still fortunate enough to live in one), and thence to nation, race, and the human species as a whole. Like communism, Christianity has a universal aspect, as illustrated by Christ’s Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations.” The parable of the Good Samaritan also makes clear that our rightful sphere of moral concern may include even perfect strangers. But unlike communism, neither Christ nor the Church ever expressed hostility to particular attachments as such, nor advocated abolishing the institutions on which they rest. It is compatible with Christianity to love your own wife more than your neighbor’s wife. The same principal applies to one’s children, and even extended family (for extended family was an important social fact in the ancient Near East where the Bible originated).

But what about race? This, of course, is the locus of disagreement between Dreher and Achord. So we must ask: do the Bible or Christianity view it as illegitimate to feel a greater attachment to one’s own race than to the other races of mankind?

In fact, the Bible does not have a great deal to say about race in the sense commonly intended today, viz., the three-to-seven major continental races of mankind, a sphere of belonging intermediate between the nation and the human species. There is not even any word for “race” in this sense in Biblical Hebrew or Greek. That is not surprising. The known world of Biblical times did not cover the entire terrestrial globe, so appreciation of the racial differentiation of mankind was limited.

What the Bible does refer to—in countless passages—is “nations.” And no Biblical author ever condemns patriotism or devotion to nation: “make disciples of all nations” obviously does not mean “abolish nations.” The same goes, historically, for the Christian church. Within living memory, e.g., Bishop Fulton Sheen used to remind his vast American television audience that one could not be a good Christian without also being a patriot. This was viewed almost as a truism at the time.

Any Christian serious about developing a Biblical view of race or race relations must proceed by careful study of what the Bible says about nations, adjusting it (if and where appropriate) to the broader category of race. What would be the likely result of such a study? Well, if we accept Steve Sailer’s definition of a race as “a very extended family that is inbred to some extent,” it is hard to see how anyone could simultaneously affirm family attachments as natural and good while condemning all racial attachment. Such is the view of “Kinism,” a nationalist- and racialist-compatible tendency within the contemporary church which seems to me consistent with scripture, church tradition and common sense.

Until recently, of course, there was no need of a special word like “Kinist” to refer to those Christians who believe in the legitimacy of particular attachments, because such belief was universal. But “antiracism” has long since invaded the church in force. Christians, like everyone else, grow up surrounded by shrill and sanctimonious denunciations of “racism.” This term, which is never defined, only dates back to the 1930s. It is variously ascribed either to Lenin’s sidekick Leon Trotsky or to Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish sexologist and early promoter of transsexualism who was also a strong communist sympathizer. The very least we can say about such men is that their thinking was not inspired by Christianity. Yet millions of white Christians like Rod Dreher assume that the communist-inspired notion of antiracism is not merely compatible with, but an actual requirement of, their faith! In effect, they believe an essential doctrine of Christianity, the “sinfulness of racism,” went unmentioned in the Bible or by any church leader for nineteen hundred years before being revealed to Christendom by some Jewish radical less than a hundred years ago.

Such extreme historical illiteracy is the perfect example of that “provincialism of time” and faddish thinking which, as I noted above, a proper education should help protect us against. And the Achord case seems to indicate that it has now gained a controlling interest in the Classical Christian Education movement. Thomas Achord realizes better than anyone what a tragedy this represents for both the church and our people. On his pseudonymous blog he lamented that those involved in Classical Christian Education

are scared, they’re aware that things are against them as Christians, as Westerners, perhaps they sense that things are against them as whites, but they don’t admit it. My concerns are that . . . they’ll be hoodwinked and guilted into tolerating Diversity, nonwhites [and] Marxism. I want to provide formal help, tools, resources for white-advocates to take back the West for white peoples by recovering a classical education.

But this is already disallowed in today’s church. If you feel any secret loyalty to race or nation, white man, Christian morality demands you be sniffed out, hunted down, professionally destroyed, and see the bread stolen from your children’s mouths.

After all, Christ commanded us to love one another.

*   *   *

You can assist Thomas Achord’s family here [link to: https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1]. But hurry: “antifascist” Christians are already pressuring the site to disallow donations to a “white supremacist.”

Quand Samuel Untermyer & Cie faisaient chanter Woodrow Wilson: Chantage, Loi Monétaire, Guerre Mondiale

/2 Comments/in /by

23 janvier 2023 de Karl Haemers


Wilson et sa maîtresse, la sulfureuse Madame Peck

Woodrow Wilson (Président Américain de 1913–1921)

C’est bien simple, l’élection de Woodrow Wilson à la présidence des États-Unis est l’exact pendant en importance et en nature de la révolution bolchévik en 1917:  c’est la prise de pouvoir des Juifs à la tête des deux puissances émergentes amenées à dominer le monde jusqu’à nos jours.

Wilson a été choisi par eux pour s’opposer au Président Howard Taft qui refusait l’abrogation d’un traité commercial des USA avec la Russie Tsariste honnie, un traité qui, il est vrai, avait pris la précaution dans ses dispositions d’exclure de son champ d’application les hommes d’affaires Juifs d’origine russe récemment établis en Amérique, considérés, d’ailleurs à juste titre, comme une menace pour le pouvoir tsariste; la position de Taft était simple, il n’allait pas pénaliser 98% des Américains pour faire plaisir à 2% qui se sentaient lésés dans leurs droits: la minorité juive.

Erreur fatale de sa part, les «frères circoncis» comme il les appelait, constituaient une minorité, certes, mais seulement en nombre, pas financièrement, pas médiatiquement, pas politiquement. La victoire de Wilson aux élections signifiait non seulement un coup porté à la diplomatie et à la puissance du Tsar par la fameuse petite communauté – en effet internationale – mais aussi une victoire de cette communauté aux États-Unis même.

La victoire était aussitôt magistralement exploitée: le 23 décembre 1913, Wilson signait le décret de création de la Federal Reserve, le Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Acts. Attention, le fait que les USA se dotent d’une grande institution monétaire centrale n’est pas en soi une mauvaise chose pour eux, bien au contraire, ce qui est contestable, c’est qu’elle soit créée en tant qu’institution privée sous contrôle du secteur bancaire privé largement aux mains de qui on sait, c’est un peu comme de privatiser la dissuasion nucléaire en la confiant à un cabinet de conseil.

Ce n’est pas tout, le début du deuxième mandat sera l’occasion d’engager tout autant, si ce n’est plus, tout l’avenir des États-Unis et du monde avec la décision d’entrer en guerre aux côtés de l’Entente, contre l’Allemagne, entrée en guerre obtenue en échange de la déclaration de Balfour sur la création d’un foyer national juif en Palestine.

La fin du mandat sera dans la même veine, c’est la signature du Traité de Versailles sur lequel il a énormément pesé avec son aréopage de conseillers Juifs et qui conduira presque mécaniquement à la Seconde Guerre mondiale et, en fin de compte, à la réalisation complète de la promesse de Balfour avec la création de l’État d’Israël.

Et à l’origine de tout ça, un bon petit chantage bien placé.

Samuel Untermyer fait chanter le Président

En 1910, Wilson vient de démissionner de son poste prestigieux de président de l’université Princeton pour se consacrer pleinement à sa campagne pour être élu gouverneur du New Jersey. Les Juifs fortunés ont pris fait et cause pour lui et le financent, ils l’accompagneront aussi dans sa course victorieuse à la présidence des États-Unis.

Sans doute savent-ils qu’un scandale menaçait d’éclater dans la presse: Wilson, derrière les murs couverts de lierre de l’université, avait eu une liaison avec la femme de son voisin de palier, le professeur Peck. Wilson, bien entendu, était marié de son côté. Or, le beau-fils de l’ex-madame Peck (entre-temps divorcée et remariée – mais pas avec Wilson!) avait imprudemment contracté une dette de 40 000 dollars qu’il était incapable d’honorer, l’ex- madame Peck non plus, mais elle avait quelque chose qui pouvait valoir 40 000 dollars: les lettres que lui avait adressées Wilson [tout au long de cette affaire, il ne faut jamais s’attendre à ce que la morale retrouve à un moment ses droits, bien au contraire, on s’en écarte à chaque étape de plus en plus …].

L’ex-madame Peck et ex maîtresse de Wilson, donc,  est allée voir Samuel Untermyer avec ces lettres et Samuel est allé voir Wilson, devenu président, pour lui proposer un marché tout simple: il effaçait la dette, mais en échange, Wilson devait nommer un Juif à la Cour suprême dès qu’un siège serait vacant.

Pour se faire une idée de la situation dans laquelle le pauvre Wilson se débattait, il faut bien comprendre qu’en un siècle, le dollar comme la morale publique se sont fortement dévalués: 40 000 dollars de l’époque représentent au bas mot 1,25 million maintenant, quant à une liaison extraconjugale, complètement démonétisée aujourd’hui, elle aurait suffi à ruiner sa carrière en un instant si jamais la presse s’en était emparée.

Comment est-ce que nous connaissons l’épisode? Par Benjamin Freedman, une sorte de Juif repentis. Freedman était jeune à l’époque, mais déjà, il avait la responsabilité de faire la liaison entre le Comité des Finances du Sénat dirigé par Henry Morgenthau Sr. [autrement dit, le père du sinistre Henry Morgenthau Jr., qui préconisera un plan d’extermination de l’Allemagne] et Rollo Wells, le Secrétaire au Trésor. En 1974, Freedman donne une conférence devant les cadets de la Marine dont voici le passage concernant Wilson:

Nous avions donc d’un côté ce président à Washington, Howard Taft, qu’il s’agissait de mettre par terre. De l’autre, Mr. Jacob Schiff, de la Kuhn, Loeb & Co., la branche new-yorkaise de l’internationale Rothschild à la tête de la ploutocratie mondiale. Mr. Schiff (qui en plus était à l’époque à la tête de l’American Jewish Committee), accompagné de deux jeunes loups, est parti voir Mr. Taft [pour le mettre en demeure d’abroger le traité commercial russo-américain]… En rentrant à New York, Schiff et sa camarilla se mettaient en ordre de bataille. J’étais à l’époque un protégé de Mr. Bernard Baruch… On plantait le décors pour faire perdre les Républicains et leur président, Taft, candidat à sa propre réélection. Mais ce n’était pas si facile … On avait placé Mr. Baruch à la manœuvre, c’était le plus habile! … On s’est mis en quête d’un candidat démocrate, ce fut Wilson. De son côté, Mr. Jacob Schiff apportait les fonds pour créer un parti bidon destiné à disperser le vote républicain … Il fallait quelqu’un à sa tête, on ressortait Théodore Roosevelt de la naphtaline (Il était devenu rédac-chef d’un petit magazine). On lui a dit «vous êtes l’homme de la situation, le seul capable de sauver les États-Unis» et ça a marché comme sur des roulettes. Le «Bull Moose Party» était mis sur pied avec le financement collecté par Mr. Jacob H. Schiff auprès de toute la diaspora, notamment de Londres. C’en était fait des Républicains, leur électorat se répartissait entre Roosevelt et Taft et Wilson raflait la mise sans même avoir la majorité. …

C’est une constante de la politique, chaque fois qu’un candidat est choisi pour être mis sur le devant de la scène, c’est parce qu’on dispose de munitions à son encontre. On savait que Wilson couchait avec sa voisine de palier à Princeton, que cette femme était l’épouse du professeur Peck et que pour tout Princeton, Wilson était l’âme damnée de Peck. Ayant obtenu le divorce [alors que c’est elle qui avait une liaison!] la vertueuse ex-madame Peck trouvait à se remarier à Washington, il faut croire qu’elle avait des arguments. Mais, justice divine ou loi de la nature, ce nouveau mari avait un fils encore plus vertueux que sa belle-mère: il avait emprunté 40 000 dollars à la banque sans leur en parler, il était incapable de rembourser la somme, et ça commençait à sentir sérieusement le roussi pour lui. Il en fallait plus que ça pour prendre au dépourvu notre aventurière à l’entregent décidément si conséquent. Elle avait entendu parler de Samuel Untermyer (du célèbre cabinet d’affaires, Googenheim, Untermeyer and Marshall), un gros contributeur du Parti démocrate (le parti de Wilson) et un de ses membres influents. Elle n’y est pas allé les mains vides, son charme n’aurait peut-être pas suffi, mais chargées d’un petit paquet de lettres … Ensemble, ils ont concocté un chantage en bonne et due forme sur Wilson. Elle a persuadé Samuel Untermyer d’aller le voir en sa qualité d’avocat. C’était facile, Untermyer avait déjà ses entrées auprès de Wilson et, pour la faire courte, Wilson n’avait pas l’argent, Untermeyer l’avait et le fils a pu rembourser sa dette. [passage de l’exposé difficile à saisir, autant on peut comprendre qu’un avocat serve d’intermédiaire dans une transaction «à l’amiable», autant on ne voit pas en quoi un avocat serait particulièrement bien placé pour mener une transaction illicite comme l’est un chantage, mais nous sommes sans doute trop naïfs]

Mais Mr. Untermeyer n’était pas qu’un simple intermédiaire et sa générosité avait ses limites, il faisait cette proposition qu’on ne peut pas refuser au Président Wilson: «Je vous avance l’argent si vous me faites une faveur. La prochaine fois qu’un siège se libère à la Cour suprême, c’est moi qui vous souffle le nom du successeur». Il précisait où il voulait en venir: «Il n’y a jamais eu de Juif à la Cour Suprême, et je pense qu’il serait temps qu’il y en est un». «Marché conclu» lui répondit Wilson et les $40,000 furent payés. Bientôt, en 1916, un siège se libérait et Mr. Untermeyer recommandait Mr. Brandeis. Mr. Brandeis était le sioniste numéro 1 aux États-Unis, leur chef de file, et il devenait un proche parmi les proches de Wilson.

Quelques précisions pour compléter et corroborer cette histoire: Wilson a entretenu huit années durant une correspondance intime avec Mary Hulbert Peck. Cette correspondance a débuté en 1907, alors qu’il était président de Princeton, s’est poursuivie durant son bref mandat de gouverneur du New Jersey, et s’est achevée en 1915 au milieu de son premier mandat présidentiel. On retrouve les lettres sur le site de l’American Heritage. Durant les sept premières années de cette période, Wilson est resté marié à Ellen Axton Wilson, laquelle est décédée en août 1914.

Louis Brandeis: une grande première à la Cour Suprême

Le 28 janvier 1916, Wilson nommait Louis Brandeis à la Cour Suprême. Mais ça n’a pas été facile. La nomination était si controversée que le processus de confirmation s’est étalé sur quatre mois – du jamais vu – et a été l’occasion de la toute première audition publique de la commission juridique de l’histoire du Sénat. Les plus farouches opposants à l’arrivée de Brandeis à la Cour se trouvaient parmi les conservateurs du Parti républicains et ils étaient bien entendu taxés d’antisémitisme. Bien des années plus tard, William Douglas, dans le New York Times , disait de Brandeis, qu’«il était dangereux parce qu’il était incorruptible et parce qu’il était un défenseur intraitable de la justice sociale».

Lorsque la commission sénatoriale demandait au procureur général, Thomas Watt Gregory, les lettres de parrainage de Brandeis, ce dernier annonçait qu’il n’y en avait pas. C’est Wilson en personne qui se dévouait en donnant le sien en ces termes: «Je le sais particulièrement apte à occuper la place, de par ses qualifications, son talent et sa personnalité». S’emballant dans sa plaidoirie, Wilson ajoutait lyrique:

… Il est exceptionnellement compétent. On ne saurait exagérer son impartialité, son désintéressement, son esprit méthodique, sa puissance d’analyse, sa profonde humanité, sa connaissance approfondie des fondements historiques de nos institutions et de leur esprit, ni ignorer à quel point il est imprégné de tout l’idéal américain de justice et d’égalité des chances, ignorer sa connaissance des conditions économiques modernes et la façon dont elles pèsent sur les masses, ignorer son génie à faire s’unir harmonieusement dans l’action, à faire se comprendre et respecter entre elles, les personnes les plus antagonistes qui soient. Cet ami des hommes et de la justice sera le joyau et le couronnement de l’institution dont nous sommes si justement fiers. Je suis heureux d’avoir pu lui rendre ce témoignage de mon admiration et de ma confiance …

C’est curieux, on en oublierait presque que c’était surtout l’occasion de s’acquitter d’une petite ardoise envers son créancier, Samuel Untermyer, lequel détenait des lettres au sujet d’une coucherie avec la voisine de palier …

Mais soyons juste, Brandeis était déjà un fervent soutien de Wilson lors de sa première campagne, lui rédigeant les lignes les plus importantes de son programme économique au sujet de la «régulation de la compétition». Wilson reconnaîtra la contribution de Brandeis à la victoire et en fera son principal conseiller économique de1912 à 1916, c’est-à-dire de l’accession à la Maison-Blanche de Wilson à la nomination de Brandeis à la Cour Suprême. Durant ce bref laps de temps, cet «ami des hommes et de la justice» aura le temps de se faire la cheville ouvrière de la création de la Federal Reserve, une plaie pour le peuple américain et un siphon de richesse et de pouvoir pour les banquiers Juifs. En tout, Brandeis aura passé 23 ans à la Cour Suprême, toujours aussi moteur dans tous les mauvais coups «progressistes», on lui doit aussi une impulsion décisive dans la création de la Tchécoslovaquie, un véritable poignard dans le dos de l’Allemagne, à l’origine de la première crise internationale grave précédant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Que Brandeis soit imprégné à cœur de l’idéal américain, il faudrait donc en déduire que cet idéal est sioniste, car Brandeis, dès les débuts du mouvement aux USA, en est un fervent militant. Le 20 août 1914, il est élu président du Comité exécutif provisoire aux affaires sionistes qui siège à New York. Dans son livre, The Jewish Problem: How to Solve It, il soutient l’idée d’un foyer national juif, le livre contient le texte d’un discours qu’il a prononcé devant une assemblée de rabbins en 1915 où il expose l’essence de ses conceptions sionistes:

Le sioniste cherche à établir ce foyer en Palestine parce qu’il est convaincu que c’est l’aspiration profonde des Juifs depuis toujours et que cette aspiration est un fait d’une importance primordiale; elle est la manifestation même de la volonté de survivre d’un peuple conscient de son existence depuis trois mille ans, trois mille ans de foi, de civilisation, de culture, parsemées de figures illustres qui sont autant de gages des progrès futurs de la civilisation: ce n’est pas simplement un droit, mais un devoir pour la nation juive que de perdurer et de se développer. Le sioniste pense que seule la Palestine peut lui offrir un sanctuaire contre les forces de désintégration, que c’est là seulement que l’âme juive peut atteindre à sa plénitude, il pense qu’en offrant un refuge aux Juifs qui choisiront de s’y installer, cela ne profitera pas seulement à eux, mais à l’ensemble des Juifs de par le monde en réglant une fois pour toute le lancinant problème juif.

Il est incontestable qu’Israël n’a pas cessé de faire l’actualité mondiale depuis sa création en 1947, mais que cela soit dans le sens de l’une ou l’autre des augures de Brandeis, cela reste quand même à démontrer, surtout lorsqu’il ajoute:

Dans les colonies juives de Palestine il n’y a pas de place pour les criminels, tous, jeunes ou vieux, se montrent à la hauteur de la gloire leur race, de son idéal et des devoirs qui en découlent. La Palestine est en train de devenir un foyer de scientifiques, d’inventeurs, de fondateurs et d’artisans …

Ce n’est pas pour faire inutilement de la peine à Brandeis, mais ce n’est pas l’avis de tout le monde, voir Israel: A Refuge for Swindlers, ou Israël, Terre d’Asile de la Grande Arnaque.

Rabbin Stephen Wise, agent d’influence

Même un bref aperçu de l’anneau enserrant Wilson ne peut faire l’impasse sur Stephen Wise. L’entrée le concernant dans Holocaust Encyclopedia le montre assez bien:

Contrairement à la plupart des rabbins et fidèles réformés de l’époque, Wise s’est résolument engagé en faveur de la création de l’État d’Israël. Cela faisait suite, disait-il, à sa première rencontre avec Theodor Herzl lors du second congrès sioniste en 1898, congrès durant lequel Wise était élu au Comité Sioniste d’Action Générale. En 1914, il devient l’adjoint de Louis Brandeis lorsque celui-ci prend la tête de l’American Zionist movement. L’action conjuguée des deux hommes aura une influence déterminante sur  la décision du président Woodrow Wilson de soutenir la déclaration de Balfour en 1917, déclaration par laquelle la Grande-Bretagne s’engageait à faciliter l’établissement d’un foyer national juif en Palestine. Wise fondait l’American Jewish Congress en 1920, devenait président de la Zionist Organization of America en 1936 et continuant de jouer un rôle clé au sein de la communauté juive en Amérique jusqu’à la fin de sa vie.

 

Ce soutien de Wilson à la déclaration de Balfour n’avait pas seulement pour but de forcer la Grande-Bretagne à tenir sa parole, mais elle était aussi implicitement un appel aux sionistes américains à retourner en faveur de l’entrée en guerre une opinion publique américaine encore largement isolationniste: les sionistes contre les isolationnistes, en quelque sorte. Un rôle central dans ce lavage de cerveau à grande échelle sera tenu par Edward Bernays, le neveu de Freud, tenez-vous bien, à double titre:

– son père, Ely Bernays (1860-1923), est le frère de Martha Bernays, l’épouse de Freud,

– sa mère, Anna Freud (1858-1955) est l’une des sœurs de Freud

(et c’est ce genre d’individus qui viennent nous dire qu’on veut tuer notre père pour coucher avec notre mère).

Paul Warburg met sur pied la Federal Reserve, la «Money Trust»

La loi portant création de la Federal Reserve est promulguée le 23 décembre 1913. Comme nous l’avons évoqué, Brandeis, en tant que premier conseiller économique de Wilson, n’y était pas pour rien, mais il n’était pas le seule de la «bande» à avoir porté sur les fonts baptismaux ce véritable «Money Trust» de droit privé, le premier nom qu’il faut avoir à l’esprit, c’est celui de Paul Warburg, né à Hambourg dans une famille de banquiers juifs allemands: c’est lui l’architecte de la FED.

La FED est une machine à création monétaire et à dette, mais attention, en soi, c’est une bonne chose, c’est la clé de voûte d’une économie monétaire et sans monnaie, il n’y a pas d’économie du tout, la dette n’est pas un trou noir dans lequel on va tomber, ce n’est pas une hypothèque sur les générations futures, chaque génération ne consomme que ce qui est disponible à un moment, s’il y 100 bananes disponibles, il n’y a aucune façon «monétaire» d’en consommer 101.

Ce qui pose problème, c’est à qui on confie les clés du camion et qui tient le volant, qui contrôle la création monétaire et à qui elle profite en premier. Le véritable scandale de la FED, c’est que cette banque centrale est en réalité une institution privée, un consortium de banques principalement aux mains de qui on sait. L’institution est vaguement encadrée par le Treasury Department, mais ce Department est souvent aux mains des mêmes et ce «contrôle» ne fait en réalité qu’amplifier le bénéfice qu’ils peuvent tirer de la FED en leur donnant par avance les orientations de la politique monétaire.

Pour savoir «qui mais qui» autour de Wilson ont mené le bal de la création de la FED, nous nous appuyons sur le travail de référence d’Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve  En premier lieu, il convient de relever les indices selon lesquels c’est justement la position de Wilson en faveur de la création de la FED qui lui a permis de gagner l’élection présidentielle:

Le sénateur LaFollette faisait observer dans ses mémoires que son discours contre le Money Trust lui avait coûté la course à la présidence, tout comme à l’inverse, le soutien de Woodrow Wilson au plan Aldrich (premier projet de banque centrale en Amérique) lui a valu d’être pris en considération pour le bureau ovale. (p 16)

Comme l’opinion publique américaine était en grande partie opposée à ce «Money Trust», la Chambre mettait en place le comité Pujo pour enquêter sur la puissance des banquiers de Wall Street.

L’homme qui à lui seul s’est occupé de mener les auditions n’était autre que Samuel Untermyer, l’un des principaux donateurs de la campagne présidentielle de Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential …

Les banques internationales telles que celles d’Eugene Meyer, Lazard Frères, J. & W. Seligman, Ladenburg Thalmann, des frères Speyer, M. M. Warburg, et celle des frères Rothschild n’ont pas éveillé la curiosité de Samuel Untermye, et ce, bien qu’il soit parfaitement connu des milieux financiers new-yorkais que toutes ces dynasties bancaires avaient soit des établissements, soit des filiales sur la place de Wall Street. Lorsque Jacob Schiff s’est présenté devant le Pujo Committee, les questions adroites de Mr. Untermyer lui ont permis d’esquiver tranquillement toute révélation sur les opérations bancaires de la Kuhn Loeb dont il était le principal associé et que le sénateur Robert L. Owen avait identifié comme la branche américaine des Rothschild. (p 17)

Les auditions du Congrès ont montré qu’au sein de la Kuhn Loeb, Felix Warburg soutenait Taft, Paul Warburg et Jacob Schiff Wilson. Résultat des courses, un Congrès et un président démocrate étaient élus en 1912 avec mission principale de faire passer la loi de création de la banque centrale. … Col. Garrison, agent à la Brown Brothers bankers, par la suite Brown Brothers Harriman, rapporte dans son livre que «le Federal Reserve Act était l’œuvre de Paul Warburg et qu’il avait été adopté après l’échec du plan Aldrich qui avait suscité une véritable levée de bouclier à l’échelle nationale. Le cerveau des deux plans étant de toute façon le Baron Alfred Rothschild depuis Londres». (p 18)

(Plan Aldrich de 1912 du nom du Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich de Rhode Island. Il aurait également institué un cartel bancaire, mais n’a pas réussi à passer, c’est le fameux Glass Act de 1913 qui parviendra enfin à créer la Fed.)

Non seulement tous ces banquiers étaient Juifs,  mais tous — les Warburgs, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb et Rothschild — comme chez les Freud, entretenaient des liens familiaux croisés et faisaient tous partie de la même famille élargie. Il ne fait aucun doute qu’ils ont tous travaillé conjointement à l’élection de leur candidat, Woodrow Wilson.

La vitesse à laquelle le Federal Reserve Act a été passé par le Congrès durant ce qu’on a appelé le «Christmas massacre» a même pris au dépourvu Woodrow Wilson: comme d’autres, il s’était entendu dire que le vote ne pourrait pas intervenir avant Noël, au dernier moment il tentait de ralentir le mouvement et refusait de signer parce qu’il n’était pas d’accord avec les dispositions prévues pour l’élection des directeurs de classe B. … Bernard Baruch, autre gros contributeur de la campagne de Wilson, en était abasourdi, il se précipitait à la Maison-Blanche pour dire à Wilson qu’il s’agissait d’un problème secondaire qui serait facilement résolu par «voie réglementaire», l’important c’était de passer coûte que coûte le Federal Reserve Act. Wilson cédait et signait in extremis, le 23 décembre 1913.  L’histoire montrera que ce jour-là, la constitution avait cessé d’être le pacte régissant le peuple américain et que ses libertés avaient été remises entre les mains d’un petit groupe de la finance internationale. (pp 28-9)

Et une banque centrale, ça sert à faire la guerre, Napoléon avait créé la sienne le18 janvier 1800 (la Banque de France), c’est d’ailleurs ce Bernard Baruch (Juif), si pressé de faire signer Wilson, qui va diriger l’industrie de guerre américaine comme nous allons le voir maintenant.

La déclaration de Balfour précipite l’Amérique de Wilson dans la guerre

Reprenons le discours de Freedman là où nous l’avions laissé:

… Les Juifs étaient bien contents quand l’Allemagne gagnait la guerre, ils ne voulaient pas que la Russie sorte gagnante aux côtés de la France et de l’Angleterre parce qu’ils pensaient que cela aggraverait la situation de leurs coreligionnaires dans le pays. Ils étaient donc tous pro-Allemand au départ, alors que s’est-il passé? C’est quand les Allemands ont commencé à sortir leurs sous-marins … Panique à Londres, le général Haig alertait les  Anglais de la situation: «Nous n’avons plus que deux semaines de réserves alimentaires devant nous pour un pays de 55 000 000 d’habitants»… Et alors l’Allemagne s’amenait avec son traité de paix … Le traité était sur le bureau du British War Cabinet, il n’y avait plus qu’à le signer…. De nouveau, que s’est-il passé? Les Khazars de New York et de Washington, emmenés par Brandeis, ont fait cette offre en passant par la Fleischman & Sockloff de Londres. Ils sont allés au War Cabinet et ils leur ont dit: «Pas besoin de signer une paix de capitulation, il y a un moyen de gagner la guerre, mais il vous faudra, une fois que vous aurez vaincu l’Allemagne et dépecé l’Empire Ottoman, nous donner la Palestine. Et ils ont conclu le marché par écrit, c’était la déclaration de Balfour. … La contrepartie de la Palestine, c’était la promesse d’user de leur influence pour jeter les États-unis dans la guerre. C’est ainsi qu’ils vont remercier les États-unis, de la même manière qu’ils vont remercier l’Allemagne, après tout ce qu’elle avait fait pour eux depuis 1822, en les faisant se battre entre eux, ce qui signifiait évidemment la défaite de l’Allemagne alors qu’elle était en train de gagner et pouvait espérer une paix avantageuse.

Wilson avait pourtant fait sa campagne sur le slogan «nous n’irons pas à la guerre». Mais à peine un peu plus d’un mois après le début de son second mandat, le 12 avril 1917, Wilson lançait un appel vibrant devant le Congrès pour qu’il fasse une déclaration de guerre officielle. Quelques jours plus tard, les deux Chambres votaient la guerre à une écrasante majorité. Ils n’ont été que quelques-uns à dire non, parmi eux, George Norris (R-Neb.), qui dira «nous allons à la guerre sur l’ordre du Dieu d’Or». Et au-dessus du Dieu d’or, il y avait les financiers juifs de Wall Street, et ils en voulaient plus par la guerre.

[la principale réserve qu’on peut adresser à la théorie de la déclaration de Balfour en échange de l’entrée en guerre des USA, c’est qu’elle ne correspond pas tout à fait avec la succession des dates, voir plus bas en annexe, la déclaration date du 2 novembre 1917, or, Pershing arrive à Paris le 13 juin 1917, le 4 juillet, la première brigade américaine débarquée à Saint-Nazaire est passée en revue à Paris par Poincaré. Cela dit, les négociations ont pu avoir lieu et aboutir avant leur officialisation, il est clair que les Anglais avaient à l’époque d’autres chats à fouetter que de s’occuper de la Palestine, l’Entente étant effectivement en difficulté du fait du transfert massif des troupes allemandes et autrichiennes du front Est vers le front Ouest suite à la révolution russe, dans ce contexte, la déclaration tombe un peu comme un cheveu sur la soupe, sauf s’il y a eu le marchandage dont parle Freedman, du reste, ce que nos Américains ne savent pas et qui n’est pas tellement passé dans l’histoire universelle, c’est que la France avait fait le même type de déclaration que Balfour, mais 5 mois plus tôt:

Le 4 juin 1917, Jules Cambon, alors secrétaire général du Quai d’Orsay, signe une lettre adressée à Nahum Sokolow,un dirigeant du mouvement sioniste qui soutenait publiquement l’établissement d’un foyer national juif en Palestine. Cette lettre précède de cinq mois la déclaration devant le Parlement de Lord Arthur Balfour, ministre britannique des Affaires Étrangères, à laquelle la France s’associe le10 février 1918, par l’intermédiaire de son propre ministre des Affaires étrangères, Stephen Pichon et qui est consacrée officiellement par le traité de Sèvres du10 août 1920. Comme quoi, le brouillard de guerre, ce n’est rien à côté du brouillard diplomatique …]

Bernard Baruch, le «Shtadtlan» du Nouveau Monde

Bernard Baruch avait amassé une fortune en jouant à la bourse de New York. En 1916, Wilson le plaçait à la tête de la Commission consultative du Conseil de la défense nationale, puis, au moment de l’entrée en guerre, il passait président du conseil des industries de guerre. Anthony Sutton nous raconte la suite:

En mars 1918, le président Wilson agissant sans l’aval du Congrès, avait doté Baruch de pouvoir comme jamais aucun autre dans l’histoire des États-unis. Le War Industries Board, avec Baruch à sa tête, était chargé de la construction de toutes les usines, de l’approvisionnement de toutes les matières premières, des produits, de leurs transports, et dans le Conseil, c’est Baruch en tant que président qui avait le dernier mot. En résumé, il était devenu le dictateur économique des États-unis …

Il y a une logique dans la trajectoire du bonhomme: il enjoint Wilson à créer la Fed, la Fed peut financer la guerre, il se fait nommer à la tête de l’effort de guerre américain, et il passe à la caisse avec ses petits copains.

Henry Ford notait dans son livre The International Jew (TiJ)

l’ampleur de l’influence juive sur Woodrow Wilson: «Ils l’enserraient dans un solide anneau de fer». Analysant les accès privilégiés à Wilson des journalistes juifs, en particulier de David Lauwrence, le TiJ déclare: «il est arrivé un moment où il ne s’adressait plus au pays qu’à travers eux». Le TiJ donne des exemples de Juifs impliqués dans des affaires de corruption,  attribuant ces affaires au pouvoir discrétionnaire de Bernard Baruch.

Conclusion

De nos sources historiques, nous pouvons conclure que Woodrow Wilson, 28e Président des État-unis de 1913 à 1921, était sous l’emprise de Juifs puissants qui le tenaient par le chantage, les dettes, l’intimidation, la corruption, la flatterie et la subversion idéologique. Wilson avait de gros soucis d’argent, tout particulièrement, comme le montrent ses lettres à Mary Peck, durant son premier mandat. Les Juifs ont su tirer parti de ses faiblesses pour en faire un pion dans leurs jeux de pouvoir et d’argent.

Wilson lui-même avait fini par se rendre compte qu’il était la marionnette et non pas le marionnettiste, voici ce qu’on trouve dans le recueil de ses discours, The New Freedom publié en 1913:

Aux États-Unis, même les plus grands hommes d’affaires sont effrayés par quelque chose, par quelqu’un. Ils savent qu’il existe une puissance occulte qui gît quelque part dans l’ombre, discrète, mais puissamment organisée, elle voit tout, elle sait tout, sa toile s’étend partout, c’est à peine s’ils osent s’en plaindre en chuchotant à demi-mots.

Adaptation française, Francis Goumain

Source

Jewish Control of US Presidents #1: Woodrow Wilson – The Occidental Observer

Annexe

la principale réserve qu’on peut adresser à la théorie de la déclaration de Balfour en échange de l’entrée en guerre des USA, c’est qu’elle ne correspond pas tout à fait avec la succession des dates, la déclaration date du 2 novembre 1917, or, Pershing arrive à Paris le 13 juin 1917, le 4 juillet, la première brigade américaine débarquée à Saint-Nazaire est passée en revue à Paris par Poincaré. Cela dit, les négociations ont pu avoir lieu et aboutir avant leur officialisation, il est clair que les Anglais avaient à l’époque d’autres chats à fouetter que de s’occuper de la Palestine, l’Entente étant effectivement en difficulté du fait du transfert massif des troupes allemandes et autrichiennes du front Est vers le front Ouest suite à la révolution russe, dans ce contexte, la déclaration tombe un peu comme un cheveu sur la soupe, sauf s’il y a eu le marchandage dont parle Freedman.

Voici la chronologie qu’on trouve dans les mémoires de Poincaré:

4 février 1917:

Jules Cambon téléphone à l’Élysée que M. Sevastopoulo a reçu de l’ambassadeur de Russie à Washington avis que le président Wilson a réuni une commission composée de quelques amis et qu’il y a examiné trois points:

1 – négociations entre les États-Unis et l’Allemagne

2 – attente d’un nouveau torpillage avant toute décision

3 – rupture immédiate des relations diplomatiques.

Wilson aurait choisi  ce dernier parti. Des télégrammes de presse disent qu’il aurait envoyé un nouveau message au Sénat et déclaré qu’il allait remettre ses papiers à l’ambassadeur d’Allemagne en faisant appel aux neutres. Si ces nouvelles sont exactes, le concours des  États-Unis va être pour nous  un appoint moral inappréciable.

[FG, dommage, Poincaré ne nous donne pas le nom des «amis» en question, mais d’après l’article ci-dessus, on peut songer à quelques pistes … ]

31 mars 1917, rencontre avec le prince Sixte qui a remis un message de l’Empereur Charles (d’Autriche) à Poincaré et à Cambon (secrétaire général du Quai d’Orsay), il leur laisse aussi une note personnelle faisant allusion au changement de régime à Petrograd:

«Jusqu’au changement de régime qui vient de se produire à Petrograd, l’opinion russe paraissait, en effet, unanime à réclamer la possession de Constantinople comme une condition essentielle  du développement de l’Empire moscovite. Mais les sentiments du gouvernement russe actuel marquent dès maintenant  des divergences à cet égard. Si le ministre des Affaires étrangères M. Milioukov, garde le point de vue précédent, qui était celui d’une annexion de Constantinople à la Russie, son collègue, M. Kerensky, reflète l’opinion nouvelle que la Russie doit renoncer à tout agrandissement: dans ce cas, la Turquie pourrait garder sa capitale dont il suffirait de combiner le régime avec un statut international européen».

5 avril 1917, échange de télégrammes entre Poincaré et Wilson:

La chambre des députés a adopté une résolution analogue à celle du Sénat. Pour protéger les Américains contre les attentats dont ils restent menacés, Wilson a fait armer des torpilleurs qui ont été dirigé vers les eaux américaines. L’un deux vient d’être coulé dans la Manche par un sous-marin allemand.

Ribot prononce à la Chambre sur la détermination américaine  un discours très applaudi.

Je télégraphie, de mon côté, au président Wilson. M. William Martin communique le télégramme que j’ai rédigé à Ribot, qui y donne sa pleine adhésion:

«Au moment, dis-je, où sous la généreuse inspiration de votre Excellence, la grande République américaine, fidèle à son idéal et à ses traditions, s’apprête à défendre par les armes la cause de la justice et de la liberté, le peuple français tressaille d’une émotion fraternelle. Laissez-moi vous renouveler, monsieur le Président, à cette heure grave et solennelle, l’assurance des sentiments dont je vous ai récemment adressé le témoignage et qui trouve dans les circonstances présentes un accroissement de force et d’ardeur. Je suis sûr d’exprimer la pensée de la France tout entière en vous disant, à vous et à la nation américaine, la joie et la fierté que nous éprouvons à sentir nos cœurs battre, une fois encore, à l’unisson avec les vôtres. Cette guerre n’aurait pas eu sa signification totale, si les États-Unis n’avaient pas été amenés par l’ennemi lui-même à y prendre part.

Dorénavant, il apparaît plus que jamais à tout esprit impartial  que l’impérialisme allemand, qui a voulu, préparé et déclaré la guerre, avait conçu le rêve insensé d’établir son hégémonie sur le monde. Il n’a réussi qu’à révolter la conscience de l’humanité. Vous vous êtes fait devant l’univers, en un langage inoubliable, l’éloquent interprète du droit outragé et de la civilisation menacée. Honneur à vous, Monsieur le Président, et à votre noble pays.

Je vous prie de croire à mon amitié dévouée.                                                                                                            Raymond Poincaré»

Réponse de Wilson:

«His Excellence Raymond Poincaré, President of the Republic, Paris.

In this trying hour when the destinies of civilized mankind are in the balance, it has been a source of gratification and joy to me to receive your congratulations upon the step which my country has been constrained to take, in opposition to the relentless policy and course of imperialistic Germany. It is very delightful to us that France who stood shoulder to shoulder with us of the western world in our struggle for independence, should now give us such a welcome into the lists of battle as upholders of the freedom ant the rights of humanity. We stand  as partners of the noble democraties whose aims and acts make for the perpetuation of the rights and freedom of man  and for the saveguarding of the true principales of human liberties in the name of the american people. I salute you and your illustrious countrymen.

Woodrow Wilson»

Le journal officiel  du 11 avril 1917 a donné dans les termes suivants la traduction française de ce télégramme:

«Son Excellence Monsieur Raymond Poincaré, Président de la République, Paris.

En cette heure critique où les destinées de l’humanité civilisée sont en suspens, cela a été pour moi un sujet de satisfaction et de joie de recevoir vos félicitations à propos de la conduite que mon pays a été contraint d’adopter, en opposition  à la politique impitoyable et aux procédés de l’Allemagne impérialiste. Il nous est très agréable que la France, qui s’est tenue coude à coude avec nous autres, hommes du monde occidental, dans notre lutte pour l’indépendance, nous souhaite ainsi la bienvenue aujourd’hui dans les rangs de ceux qui combattent pour la défense de la liberté et des droits de l’humanité. Nous voici debout comme champions des nobles démocraties dont les desseins et les actes contribueront à perpétuer les droits de l’indépendance de l’homme et à sauvegarder les vrais principes des libertés humaines.

Au nom du peuple américain, je vous salue, vous et vos illustres compatriotes.

Woodrow Wilson»

[FG: remarque, à la date du 4 juin, il n’y a rien sur la lettre de Cambon à Nahum Sokolow – l’équivalent de la déclaration de Balfour pour la France –  mais Poincaré n’est jamais très franc dès qu’il s’agit des Israélites]

13 Juin 1917 Pershing arrive à Paris:

Le général américain Pershing est arrivé à Paris à la fin de l’après-midi. Le colonel Renoult, de ma maison militaire, est allé au-devant de lui à la gare. Il me dit que l’accueil a été très chaleureux.

4 juillet 1917, revue d’un premier bataillon américain le jour de la fête nationale américaine:

Dans la matinée, cour des Invalides, revue d’un bataillon américain, qui vient d’arriver à Paris. Painlevé vient me chercher à l’Élysée et nous partons tous deux en victoria. Le général Duparge, le colonel de Rieux et le commandant Helbronner nous suivent en landau. Sur le pont Alexandre III et sur l’esplanade, foule très dense et unanimement enthousiaste.

Nous arrivons devant l’Hôtel des Invalides et nous mettons pied à terre. Nous sommes reçus par le général Pershing et le général Dubail. Nous entrons dans la cour, autour de laquelle sont rangés les soldats américains et une compagnie française.

Sous les arcades et au premier étage, dans les galeries, beaucoup de spectateurs et spectatrices qui applaudissent. Nous passons devant les troupes qui ont très bon air dans leurs uniformes kaki.

Israel, the American left, and the Emerging Multipolar World.

/77 Comments/in /by

The new Israeli government is by far the most radically right in its history—and that’s saying a lot. As a result, there have been a number of protests against Israel and Zionism both in Israel and on American college campuses recently. These are likely to increase in number and intensity because of the new government which is the result of a long process of demographic change resulting from the high fertility of Orthodox and strongly ethnonationalist Jews. As we are well aware, demography is indeed destiny.

Recently there was a large protest against Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Washington. Since the new government was installed, there has been increased settler and IDF violence, and “Smotrich called for the Palestinian village of Huwwara to be ‘wiped out.’ His remarks have received widespread condemnation. The U.S. State Department called them “disgusting,” but approved Smotrich’s visa.”

This is a typical U.S response to Israel—big on words but no action. Smotrich also told an audience in Paris that “there’s no such thing as “Palestinian people”—again the U.S. complained but again, nothing will change. Smotrich outlined his belief that Israel has exclusive Jewish, God-ordained rights to the land, and the lectern was adorned with a map of Israel that included the occupied Palestinian territory and the country of Jordan as part of Israeli territory.” And after Jordan, all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates as promised in Genesis. After the speech, Jordan says it is reviewing its relationship to Israel

This is having repercussions in the U.S., at least among liberals. What Israel is doing is the direct opposite of the Wokeness promoted by the left in the U.S.:

For the first time in Gallup’s polling, going back to 2000, Democrats said they sympathized with Palestinians more than with Israelis in the long-standing conflict between the two: 49% of Democrats said they sympathized more with Palestinians, 38% with Israelis and 13% said they favored neither side.

Overall, a majority of Americans, 54%-31%, sympathize more with the Israelis, the poll found, but the gap between the two in U.S. opinion has narrowed significantly. Much of the shift in U.S. opinion has come from millennials, whose sympathy for the Israelis has dropped sharply over the last decade.

The old guard in the Israel Lobby and the big money are still on the side of whatever Israel does. But over time, the skepticism many younger Americans have about the use of U.S. power overseas will likely change American policy as Israel becomes an increasing embarrassment to the woke West.

A particular focus of the protests is the attempt to have the Knesset, which is decidedly on the right, be able to override Supreme Court decisions which have “repeatedly defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel, including Arab Israelis, LGBTQ people, non-Orthodox Jews and women.” So progressive American Jews in the U.S. are furious:

The Progressive Israel Network, a coalition that includes J Street, Americans For Peace Now, T’ruah, and the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, organized a demonstration outside [Smotrich’s] hotel that also targeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul. “This is a moral emergency,” said National Council of Jewish Women CEO Sheila Katz during a speech at the event. “We must name this deep pain that so many of us feel for what’s happening in Israel right now, a place that we love.”

Various Reform rabbis are calling it an existential crisis for American Jews (the word ‘existential’ will appear quite a bit in this article), and Israel’s president has warned “He who thinks that a real civil war, one that costs lives, is a line we won’t reach, is out of touch. In this moment, of all moments, in the 75th year of the state of Israel, the abyss is within reach.” Moreover, the protests are

taking place without a constitution. This means, for instance, that the government can decide to hold elections once every ten years instead of the standard four-year limit still in effect, and no one can override it; or it could pass laws granting the government total control over the media, or it could put LGBTQ people in jail. But the true crisis will emerge when the Israeli High Court of Justice repeals the judicial reforms and regards them as illegal — that is when the state will enter a constitutional crisis without a solution. Who will the Israeli security apparatus obey: the government or the judiciary?

Ironically, Biden called Netanyahu urging some kind of compromise, even though many in his own party want to pack SCOTUS to achieve permanent dominance of the left in the U.S.

While all this is going on, the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China is another huge concern for Israel and its supporters because it portends an ever-wider coalition arrayed against the West—China and Russia (which are already allied), Iran (allied with Russia), Syria (the Saudis had been supporting the rebels, while Iran and Russia have been supporting Assad), other Arab countries (Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are reviewing the relations with Israel, undoing Jared Kushner’s work in the Trump administration), and quite possibly India—Prime Minister Modi recently spoke of India’s “unbreakable friendship” with Putin and pushed to avoid any joint communique because of disagreement about the war in the recent G7 meetings.

What this confrontation is really about is the globalist, woke West still tolerant of Israel versus nations that reject the Western model of exporting wokeness in defense of their own traditions and culture. Putin’s recent speech emphasizes this:

Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. Bless their hearts, let them do as they please. Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Adult people can do as they please. We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either. …

The Western imposition of wokeness is already happening in Ukraine. Christopher Caldwell of the usually neocon friendly Claremont Institute and author of The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020), notes that

Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests [of 2014]. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of [pro-Western] political correctness.

Opponents were driven out of public life. All of these countries have traditional cultures that are out of step with the West’s wokeness. Caldwell calls attention to Western NGOs pushing wokeness, such as George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Hungary requires that NGOs that get donations from abroad be publicly labeled as foreign funded, and Russia has banned several foreign NGOs linked to politics, including the Open Society Institute and Amnesty International. Because of the saliency of Soros as a funder of woke causes (including liberal-radical prosecutors, such as Alvin Bragg who indicted Trump) and the fact that he is well known to be Jewish, the activist Jewish community has attempted to ban any mention of Soros as funding the left.  When Trump highlighted Soros’s support for Bragg, the JTA wrote that he had “once again invoke[d] the name of a Jewish billionaire who is at the center of antisemitic conspiracy theories.”

Putin emphasizes U.S. warmongering since 9/11 and its support for imposing neoliberal totalitarian values on the rest of the world.

According to US experts, almost 900,000 people were killed during wars unleashed by the United States after 2001, and over 38 million became refugees. Please note, we did not invent these statistics; it is the Americans who are providing them. They are now simply trying to erase all this from the memory of humankind, and they are pretending that all this never happened. However, no one in the world has forgotten this or will ever forget it.

None of them cares about human casualties and tragedies because many trillions of dollars are at stake, of course. They can also continue to rob everyone under the guise of democracy and freedoms, to impose neoliberal and essentially totalitarian values, to brand entire countries and nations, to publicly insult their leaders, to suppress dissent in their own countries and to divert attention from corruption scandals by creating an enemy image. We continue to see all this on television, which highlights greater domestic economic, social and inter-ethnic problems, contradictions and disagreements. …

Russia is an open country and at the same time, a distinct civilisation. There is no claim to exclusivity or superiority in this statement, but this civilisation of ours — that’s what matters. Our ancestors passed it to us and we must preserve it for our descendants and pass it on to them….

This message of preserving traditional cultures is obviously at odds with the woke values that the West is attempting to impose on the rest of the world. It’s a message that undoubtedly resonates with many societies with unwoke cultures that would like to preserve and may well be one of the main reasons we are seeing the new alignment mentioned above.

Putin continues:

Step by step, they proceeded to revise the existing international order, to dismantle security and arms control systems, and plotted and carried out a series of wars around the world. To reiterate, all of that was done for the sole purpose of dismantling the post-WWII architecture of international relations. This is not a figure of speech. This is how it all unfolded in reality. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they sought to perpetuate their global dominance regardless of the interests of modern Russia or other countries for that matter.

The Western elite make no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, “Russia’s strategic defeat.” What does this mean to us? This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country.

An existential threat. I take him at his word, and that means that the feel they cannot lose this war, which could lead to a nuclear Armageddon because the West apparently also sees it as existential given their full-on, ever-escalating support of Ukraine. What our elites really hate is Putin’s claim that “There is no claim to exclusivity or superiority in this statement, but this civilisation of ours — that’s what matters. Our ancestors passed it to us and we must preserve it for our descendants and pass it on to them.” This is an anti-globalist manifesto. Combined with Russia’s attitudes on LGBTQ+, it’s easy to see why Western elites are furious.

Recently Putin complained that NATO is proposing to expand to countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, further exacerbating Russian paranoia.

Putin’s claim that the West has sought to perpetuate its dominance resulting from the fall of the Soviet Union is quite correct. In the 1990s Jewish neoconservatives saw a unipolar world as in the interests of Israel, surrounded by hostile countries in the Middle East. From a paper I wrote in 2004, “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement”:

With the end of the Cold War, neoconservatives at first advocated a reduced role for the U.S., but this stance switched gradually to the view that U.S. interests required the vigorous promotion of democracy in the rest of the world. This aggressively pro-democracy theme, which appears first in the writings of Charles Krauthammer and then those of Elliot Abrams, eventually became an incessant drumbeat in the campaign for the war in Iraq. Krauthammer also broached the now familiar themes of unilateral intervention and he emphasized the danger that smaller states could develop weapons of mass destruction which could be used to threaten world security. A cynic would argue that this newfound interest in democracy was tailor-made as a program for advancing the interests of Israel. After all, [despite the reality of Israel as an apartheid state], Israel is advertised as the only democracy in the Middle East, and democracy has a certain emotional appeal for the United States, which has at times engaged in an idealistic foreign policy aimed at furthering the cause of human rights in other countries. …

Krauthammer was on the cutting edge of neocon thinking on how to respond to the unipolar world created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Krauthammer has consistently urged that the U.S. pursue a policy to remake the entire Arab world—a view that represents the “party line” among neoconservatives (e.g., Michael Ledeen, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Richard Perle). In a speech at the AEI in February 2004, Krauthammer argued for a unilateral confrontation with the entire Arab-Muslim world (and nowhere else) in the interests of “democratic globalism.” He advocated a U.S. foreign policy that is not “tied down” by “multilateralism”: “the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to, dependent on, constricted by the will—and interests—of other nations. To tie down Gulliver with a thousand strings. To domesticate the most undomesticated, most outsized, national interest on the planet—ours.”

Krauthammer’s claim that this is in “our” interests is clearly an attempt—common among neoconservatives—to present themselves as American patriots, but his declaring war on the Islamic world is clearly far more in the interests of Israel than it is in the interests of the United States. Continuing from my 2004 paper:

Democratic globalism is aimed at winning the struggle with the Arab-Islamic world [quoting Krauthammer]:

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries…. Today, post-9/11, we find ourselves in an … existential struggle but with a different enemy: not Soviet communism, but Arab-Islamic totalitarianism, both secular and religious.

“Existential.” Meanwhile, neoconservatives with their post-racial framing of the West welcome Third World immigration throughout the West from Muslim countries. Again, it’s hard to see how this is in “our” interests.,

This post-racial neocon interest in “promoting democracy continues today, except that once again, as in Soviet days when a formative influence on the neocon movement was that Jews were gradually being pushed out of the Soviet elite. But now the target is Russia. It’s interesting that Max Boot, formerly a self-described neocon, has recanted, tweeting: “I was wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of exporting democracy by force, underestimating both the difficulties and the costs of such a massive undertaking.” But he’s all in on the Ukraine war which has also been advertised as a war for democracy. In fact, he’s become a liberal interventionist typical of MSNBC and CNN and fits right in with The Washington Post, where he puts out op-eds quite compatible with their far-left views. The neocons (or whatever they call themselves now that the term has come into disrepute because of previous disasters like the Iraq war) attempt to dominate both sides of U.S. foreign policy, as the Israel Lobby has always done. They are now well ensconced in the Biden Administration, the notorious Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (main operative in the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government), Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—all Jewish and all involved in masterminding the war in Ukraine.

The neocon interest in destroying the Arab-Muslim world intersects with their interest in destroying Russia via victory in the Ukraine war. As noted, Russia has supported both Iran and Syria, both of which, especially Iran, are seen as enemies of Israel. It’s thus no surprise that today’s neocons (including veteran neocon Bill Kristol) went ballistic when Ron DeSantis (along with the much-hated Donald Trump—who can forget neocon “Never Trump” hysteria in the 2016 election campaign when comparisons to Hitler abounded) stated that the dispute between Russia and Ukraine is a simple territorial dispute and not relevant to U.S. national interests. In the mainstream media, Tucker Carlson has also championed such views.

Chiming in with Kristol were other prominent Jewish neocons (Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg) and their gentile allies (Rick Wilson, David French, Adam Kinzinger, etc.). This list includes “ex-neocon” Max Boot who retweeted one of Bill Kristol’s meltdown tweets against DeSantis.

The Saudi-Iran deal is important because for decades Israel has been attempting to make peace with the Arab world while continuing to oppress the Palestinians. The agreement also signals that the Arab world is pulling away from the U.S. and the West, likely reasoning, like Russia and probably China, that aligning with the West intent exporting wokeness is definitely not in their interest. The U.S. is once again complaining about Israeli behavior, as they have done since the 1967 war, but this will have no effect on the fanatics now running Israel and the powerful Israel Lobby will continue to dominate US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history, as recounted in Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his 200 Years Together, and even under Bolshevism. Then there was Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs like Michael Khordorkovsky who dominated the Russian economy and media after the fall of the Soviet Union,  Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism as “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West. Recently White House spokesman John Kirby said that supporting LGBTQ+ is a “core part of our foreign policy,” presumably including funding drag queen shows in Ecuador.

It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West.

Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky is paradigmatic. This transformation is clearly top-down exactly like those that have occurred in all Western countries beginning with the elite media and academic culture. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.

In summary, there is quite a bit of evidence that U.S. hegemony has become intolerable for much of the world and this hostility is rapidly creating a multipolar world centered around the China, Russia, Iran and the Arab countries, and perhaps the emerging economic powers of India and Brazil at a time of U.S. decline. The BRICS coalition

has become the hottest ticket in geopolitics. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the BRICS) have been toying with the idea of forming a political/monetary counterweight to U.S. dominance since 2001. But beyond some aggressive gold buying by Russia and China, there was more talk than action.

Then the floodgates opened. Whether due to the pandemic’s supply chain disruptions, heavy-handed sanctions imposed by US-led NATO during the Russia-Ukraine war, or just the fact that de-dollarization was an idea whose time had finally come, the BRICS alliance has suddenly become the hottest ticket in town. [Brazil and China have agreed to trade in their own currencies, and Russia is using the yuan to trade with Africa, Latin America, and Asia.] In just the past year, Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt have either applied to join or expressed an interest in doing so. And new bilateral trade deals that bypass the dollar are being discussed all over the place.

Combine the land mass, population, and natural resources of the BRICS countries with those of the potential new members and the result is more or less half the world. …

  • If the BRICS have the commodities and the US and its allies are left with finance, pricing power for crucial things like oil and gold will shift to Russia, China, and the Middle East.

  • Falling demand for dollar-denominated bonds as reserve assets will send trillions of dollars now outside the US back home, raising domestic prices (which is to say lowering the dollar’s purchasing power and exchange rate).

  • The loss of its weaponized reserve currency will lessen the US’ ability to impose its will on the rest of the world (witness China as Middle-East peacemaker and India buying Russian oil with rupees).

None of these countries has any particular love for Israel.

What does this mean for White interests?

First, anything that weakens or discredits the U.S. establishment is good for us given that the system is completely broken and can’t be reformed at the ballot box. Granted the neoconservative disaster in Iraq did not result in them losing power, but this time, if U.S. hegemony is seriously weakened, it could be very different. The U.S. has benefited greatly from having the world’s reserve currency, for example by lowering borrowing costs and being able to impose economic sanctions on countries it doesn’t like. Quite clearly, this nascent alliance is motivated to end dollar supremacy, especially given the sanctions imposed on Russia and Iran, both of which have already been trading Russian oil in rubles. Such a transition would bring economic repercussions to the US addicted as it is to massive deficit spending that has allowed it to fund our foreign wars while funding the huge entitlement programs that keep millions of Americans reasonably content. But this transformation would affect all Americans negatively. Ideally, a sane America that was not spending trillions to export wokeness and impose it here could right the ship. But I can’t see that happening.

And since Israel is linked to the West, it would also hurt Israel, as it will remain an outsider in this rising alliance. The Israel Lobby remains in the driver’s seat because of its financial clout, but surely at some point, wiser heads will see that neoconservative foreign policy centered around wokeness and the interests of Israel is an ongoing disaster. Nevertheless, the U.S. political system runs on money, and there is no evidence that Jewish financial clout—~75% of Democrat money and ~ 50% of Republican money—is diminishing.

Luscious Lesbians with Female Phalluses: More on Transgenderism, Trans-Westernism and Jewish Subversion

/37 Comments/in /by

“Preach equality, practice hierarchy.” That’s the hidden core commandment of leftism. It’s mendacious and malevolent, but so what? Like a clown offering to shake with one hand while concealing a cream-pie behind his back in the other, the left have defeated the right with it again and again, decade after decade. “We believe in equality!” say the left. “So do we!” say the right, extending their hands with bipartisan goodwill. And splat! The cream-pie of leftist hierarchy goes straight in the face of the right and the left roar with laughter, knowing that the right have fallen for the same stupid trick today as they did yesterday and will tomorrow.

WHAMs with Wings

Take the lie of racial and sexual equality. Leftists preach it and get the right to take it seriously, but they don’t practice it, because leftist governments privilege Blacks over Whites, women over men, and gays over straights. Leftists claim to believe, for example, that Whites and Blacks are equal in all ways: “There’s only one race — the human race.” But if Blacks are capable of the same high achievements as Whites, it automatically follows that Blacks are capable of the same low misdeeds attributed to Whites by the left. But leftists don’t accept that Blacks are imperfect like that. Instead, they believe that, because all races are the same under the skin, the innate evil and envy of Whites must be crushing the innate saintliness and cerebrality of Blacks. Otherwise Blacks would be perfecting cold fusion and proving the Riemann hypothesis. This leftist reasoning doesn’t make sense, of course, but so what? Logic is racist and all that matters to the leftist elite is power, which means, inter alia, the power to privilege the virtuous and punish the villainous. Preaching the lie of equality has been an excellent way for the left to win power and practice hierarchy.

Luscious Lesbians with female phalluses: some bearded and balding male perverts invade female territory on a lesbian dating-site

White heterosexual able-bodied men (WHAMs) are right at the bottom of that leftist hierarchy. Or most of them are, anyway. So perhaps it’s typical White male ingenuity that has enabled some WHAMs to hack the hierarchy and soar from the bottom of it to the top. These WHAMs with wings claim to be members of a persecuted and misunderstood minority whose welfare and concerns must be the first priority of leftism. They might look like men, but they’re not: they’re transgender women or transwomen, male on the outside, female on the inside. And transwomen, in orthodox leftism, must be accepted and treated as full and authentic women, even if they’ve retained their apparently male genitalia. That’s why the 21st century enjoys the hugely comic sight of ugly straight men with beards and male-pattern baldness on lesbian dating-sites. These White male perverts would normally be right at the bottom of the leftist hierarchy, but the magic of transgenderism has allowed them to soar to the top. They use female names, demand to be referenced with female pronouns, and are ready to denounce as “transphobic” any genuine lesbian who objects to their fully functioning female phalluses and refuses to have sex with them.

Bow before the female penis

But would these translesbians be happy to have sex with one another and use their female phalluses in tandem? Of course not. They’re straight men with the fetish of autogynephilia, that is, they’re aroused by the thought of themselves as women. That’s why they and their supporters promote such risible concepts as the “female penis.” I’ve argued elsewhere that this is a blasphemous parody of the Christian concept of transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at Eucharist whilst remaining indistinguishable from bread and wine by all sensory and scientific tests. Similarly, the penis on a transwoman is female according to leftists, although it remains indistinguishable from a male penis by all sensory and scientific tests. And so, when a tranny threatens to rape a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) with her “girl-dick,” this isn’t misogyny or an intimidating invocation of male violence. Not at all. It’s a light-hearted satirical rebuke of a bigoted woman who refuses to embrace transwomen as her oppressed and suffering sisters.

Pedo-promoting Professor Gayle Rubin, a Jewish giant in the cult of transgenderism

Trans-Western transwomen: the ugly Jewish perverts Jessica Yaniv and Eliana Rubin

That’s the magic of transgenderism. But is its parody of transubstantiation accidental or deliberate? It may be the latter, because in fact we don’t owe the lunacies and lies of transgenderism to the ingenuity of WHAMs, but to the malevolent subversion of Christophobic Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler. These Jewish charlatans argue that the binary sexual categories of male and female are a social construct, erected (as it were) to buttress and benefit the cruel and uncaring institutions of patriarchy and male supremacism. If you’re a kind and caring leftist, however, you must believe in compassionate gender-affirming care like cutting the breasts off teenage girls and sautéing the bodies of children in powerful puberty-blocking drugs that may render them sterile or psychologically handicapped for life.

“Borders are bad for you, goyim!” — the ethnocentric Jews Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill

After all, what kind of monster could object to such procedures and such drugs? As the smiling Jewish plastic surgeon Katherine Gast has said: “It’s a happy day for everybody” when she performs a double mastectomy on a teenage shiksa. Well, I think the monsters are those who support the mastectomies, not those who oppose them. I also think it’s no coincidence that Jews have been behind transgenderism just as they’ve been behind what I call trans-Westernism. Transgenderism is the lying claim that female identity is fully open to men; trans-Westernism is the lying claim that Western identity is fully open to non-Whites. When Laura Rosen Cohen, Mark Steyn’s “resident Jewish mother,” mocked “the schmaltzy poem on the statue [of Liberty]” for facilitating Muslim migration — “give us your poor, your expert headchoppers, etc.” — she failed to mention who wrote the poem and whose ethnic agenda it is intended to serve. Her failure was perfectly understandable, because the schmaltzy poem on the Statue of Liberty was written by the ethnocentric Jewish poetess Emma Lazarus (1849–87). Lazarus joined the ethnocentric Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill (1864–1926) in the highly successful Jewish campaign to falsely portray America as a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors.

Noble non-Whites vanquish villainy: Black actors invade White territory and seize White roles

Like transgenderism, trans-Westernism seems to promote equality but actually enacts hierarchy. In leftist eyes, groups that are lower in the leftist hierarchy have no right to maintain borders against groups that are higher. Ordinary women are lower in the hierarchy than transwomen, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of those ordinary women to protest when a transwoman with a penis triumphs over them in sport or enters “female-only spaces” like toilets and dressing-rooms. Similarly, Whites are lower in the hierarchy than non-Whites, therefore it is bigoted and hateful of Whites to protest when non-Whites enter Western nations and enjoy the unearned benefits of full citizenship. But the same hierarchy dictates that Whites cannot enter non-White territory. White actors are now forbidden to play non-White roles, while non-White actors can take on any White role they please. And so, just as the 21st century witnesses the ludicrous sight of bearded and balding transgender “lesbians,” so it witnesses the ludicrous sight of non-Whites playing White characters from literature and history. From Achilles to David Copperfield, from Guinevere to Anne Boleyn — the prestige and greatness of White characters is being seized by non-Whites.

“An entirely unbidden wave of pride”

This is part of the Judeo-leftist war on the West. Whites have to submit to cultural as well as physical colonization, because they’re villains who are lower in the leftist hierarchy than virtuous non-Whites. So-called conservatives, who conserve nothing and concede everything, often welcome this kind of “color-blind casting.” Even when they object to it as inauthentic and anti-historical, they fail to understand that it is part of a wider phenomenon. It is indeed ludicrous when a Black actress plays the White role of Anne Boleyn, but no more ludicrous than when a Black like Barack Obama plays the White role of American president or an Indian like Rishi Sunak plays the White role of British prime minister. I’ve sometimes praised the half-Jewish writer Peter Hitchens for repenting his youthful Trotskyism and refusing to follow his gasbag brother Christopher into neo-conservatism. But Peter Hitchens isn’t a true conservative and doesn’t truly understand the malignancy of the left. If he did understand it, he would never have written this self-indulgent (and self-pleasuring) celebration of the latest shabbos-goy to rise to the top of British politics:

I have no time for Rishi Sunak’s politics and I think he wrecked the economy while he was Chancellor. But even so I felt an entirely unbidden wave of pride when I saw him performing at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday. It is quite marvellous, and a disproof of all the lies the Left tell us about this country, that a British man of Indian heritage should be Prime Minister of this country. (Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday, 13th November 2022)

Rishi Sunak performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel

In pornography, White cuckolds experience perverted pleasure when they see Black men possessing their White wives; in politics, White cuckservatives experience perverted pleasure when they see non-Whites ruling Western institutions. Hitchens is clearly a cuckservative. It is not “marvellous” that Rishi Sunak has become prime minister: it is disastrous. If Sunak claimed to be female, Hitchens would quite rightly reject the claim as leftist nonsense. But because Sunak claims to be British rather than female, Hitchens stupidly and self-indulgently accepts it, failing to see that the two claims are equally baseless, equally leftist, and equally corrosive of sanity and morality. Rishi Sunak is no more British than balding men on lesbian-dating sites are female. Instead, Sunak is trans-British, with no roots in or loyalty to the four White nations that constitute Britain. He’s proved his rootlessness and disloyalty to Britain by possessing American citizenship at the same time. That is, Sunak is also trans-American and may well one day take up permanent residence in California with his trans-Western wife and trans-Western children.

The dam of lies is leaking and weakening

Peter Hitchens used a smarmy leftist phrase when he said Sunak is “of Indian heritage.” But Hitchens was right all the same. Sunak has a “heritage” of racially distinct genes selected in the distinct environment of India, not of Britain. If leftism and race-blind cuckservatism were correct, it wouldn’t have mattered in the slightest if all White babies after 1900 had been miraculously replaced by brown Indian babies or Black Somali babies. But leftism and race-blind cuckservatism are wrong and it would have mattered hugely. Although the non-White babies would have been raised by White parents, nurture would not have trumped nature. If the Western world had become racially Indian or Somali at such speed, it would have collapsed very quickly. Today the Western world is collapsing less quickly, but only because the racial replacement of Whites isn’t happening all at once and everywhere.

Britain’s first trans-Western prime minister: the ugly and ethnocentric Jew Benjamin Disraeli

But now racial replacement is quickening and so is collapse. Trans-Western Barack Obama as American president was one potent portent of doom; trans-Western Rishi Sunak as British prime minister is another. But Sunak hasn’t been the first trans-British prime minister. That honor went to someone in the nineteenth century: a Jew called Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), who served as prime minister twice from 1868. He had British citizenship and dominated British politics, but he wasn’t British. Instead, as Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, he was an ethnocentric Jew steeped in Jewish supremacism and in self-serving Jewish claims about millennia of unjustified gentile malice towards innocent Jews. Disraeli’s rise to the top of British politics had been predicted by a far-sighted anti-Semite decades before:

Sir Robert Harry Inglis was an English Conservative politician, noted for his staunch High church views. He was strongly opposed to measures that, in his view, weakened the Anglican Church. When Robert Grant, MP for Inverness, petitioned for Jewish relief in 1830, Inglis, who believed that British Jews had funded the philosemitic Napoleon during his war with Britain, was violently opposed. He alleged that the Jews were an alien people, with no allegiance to England, and that to admit Jews to parliament would “separate Christianity itself from the State. … Not content with admission to the profession of the law, to corporate offices, &c., the Jews appeared, by their Petition, to demand admission to the highest executive situations in the State. It was not enough to say their number was small; it was well known that a small number of men, acting in concert, might exercise considerable influence, beneficial or otherwise, over the State.” He also alleged that if they were admitted to parliament “within seven years … Parliamentary Reform would be carried”. Inglis was joined in his public opposition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Henry Goulburn, and the Solicitor General and future Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden. Although the Jews were not emancipated fully until 1858, Parliamentary Reform occurred in 1832, only two years later. (Adapted from Infogalactic and quoting Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXII, February 22nd, 1830)

Sir Robert Inglis was perfectly correct: a small number of Jews, acting in concert across national borders, have indeed exercised considerable influence over the West. And that influence had been “otherwise”: not beneficial but harmful. By admitting Jews to full citizenship, the White West welcomed in its worst and most vicious enemies. And just as Jews have been behind transgenderism, the false and pernicious claim that men can become full and authentic women, so Jews have been behind trans-Westernism, the false and pernicious claim that non-Whites can become full and authentic Westerners. The difference between the two trans-ideologies is that transgenderism is far less harmful: there are too few male perverts to swamp female territory and wipe out female identity.

But there are enough non-Whites to swamp Western territory many times over and wipe out Western identity forever. Even today, however, millions of Whites who reject the lunacies and lies of transgenderism are failing to reject the lunacies and lies of trans-Westernism. They fail to even see the parallels between perverted men claiming to be women and hostile non-Whites claiming to be Western. But this blindness will lift. When transgenderism is discredited and defeated, trans-Westernism will soon be discredited and defeated too. After the so-called Enlightenment, the left built a dam of lies to hold back reality. Today the dam is leaking and weakening. The weaker it gets, the more it leaks. Collapse isn’t far off. Leftism and its lies will not survive the catastrophic but cleansing flood that follows.