In my previous essay in this series, we examined the Jews who owned and operated the media “watch dogs” and fact checkers who harassed and censored popular natural health doctor Joseph Mercola and Children’s Health Defense (CHD), especially for their views on covid vaccines and the covid pandemic generally. While Mercola wrote in extensive detail about the media firms defaming and denouncing him as a quack and “disinformation agent,” and CHD featured Mercola’s essay on its website in solidarity, neither mentioned the overwhelmingly Jewish dominance of their adversaries, such as at Publicis Groupe and Newsguard, among others. Mercola and CHD were strong enough to mount an aggressive defense against their accusers, but too weak to indicate that they were primarily Jews. I speculated that Mercola and CHD must have known, but suffered the grip of Semitophobia in imagining what dire defamation would ensue should they mention the Jewish Issue. They could confront Big Pharma, main media and the government health agencies, but not Jews.

(I must note that I have changed the title of this series from “Jewish Problem” to “Jewish Issue,” because I have come to think that Jews are not simply a problem to be solved, but something much more complex: an issue to be resolved.)

Now another popular and growing outlet, Global Research, appears to have succumbed to the same Semitophobia as Mercola and CHD in obscuring the Jewish Issue. Titled “How Private Interests and the Banking Dynasties Control Washington,” I was naturally intrigued to see if author Shane Quinn (“obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization”) obscured or revealed the Jewish Issue on this obvious topic.

Like many authors at Global Research, Quinn is too critical of US foreign policy, especially in the decades throughout the Cold War prior to full Jewish dominance in the US. I strongly disagree with such statements he makes as “The disappearance of the USSR in 1991, a strategic catastrophe for Russia…” and “The Soviet Union’s existence had guaranteed a measure of security in the international arena, providing a bulwark against the expansionist forces of the United States.” In my understanding, the disappearance of the USSR was an eventual blessing for the Russian people—the overwhelmingly Jewish oligarch predation during the transition was the catastrophe—and while the US was mostly concerned with capitalist access to resources and markets, its pretext of preventing the spread of communism was not without merit, especially given its disastrous record in many places.

Much of the later portion of Quinn’s essay focuses on arms makers and oil companies, departing from the focus of the title, banking dynasties. For our purpose here, let us examine the following key statement Quinn makes in his sixth paragraph:

The strongest branch of the Federal Reserve is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which fell under the control of 8 long-established banking families. Only 4 of these dynasties hail from largely American backgrounds which are Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The other 4 are the Rothschilds in Paris and London, the Warburgs from Germany, the Lazards from France and Israel Moses Sieff from Britain.

Quinn gives no specific citations, only a general bibliography. I traced this quote to his source The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes by Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (Springer, 2019). Bandiera cites Dean Henderson’s essay on Global Research of June 2011, “The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families,” which was reposted in October of this year because it is “Of relevance to the current crisis.” Global Research calls it a “carefully researched article.” Quinn citing Bandiera citing Henderson all quote almost the exact same phrase:

W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank—by far the most powerful Fed branch—by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs [sic] of Rome.

The only J W McAllister (different spelling) I could find was an author of science fiction and fantasy books self-promoting on Twitter. I found no reference to a book, article or publisher named The Grim Reaper. Who the “Saudi bankers” were who disclosed the eight families that owned the Federal Reserve, and how they knew, remains a mystery. It is considered that the House of Saud itself is crypto-Jewish, descended from followers of the Jewish depraved cult leaders Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank.

I do have an issue with Quinn’s extensive plagiarism in this section of his essay, quoting verbatim or almost verbatim, without proper citation. For our purposes however, let us accept that this reference is accurate since it is so widely cited as a credible source. A quick glance at the eight names immediately shows that at least six are Jews: Goldman Sachs, Lehmans, Kuhn Loeb, Rothschilds, Warburgs and Israel Moses Sieffs. After confirming their Jewish racial origins (not necessarily their religion), we will examine another Jewish banking family, the Lazard family of Paris. The Rockefellers we will maintain as the lone exception, since they are well-known to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS), although inter-marriage, collusion and philo-Semitism must not be excluded.

Goldman Sachs

While the bank’s Wikipedia entry makes no mention of Jews, it does explain the founding of the investment bank in 1869 by Jew Marcus Goldman, joined by Goldman’s son-in-law Jew Samuel Sachs in 1882. Of thirteen CEOs and Presidents, ten were/are Jews, aside from the founders including Weinberg, Levy, Rubin, Friedman, Blankfein and Solomon (current). Be assured all of their Wikipedia “Early Life” or “Personal Life” entries reveal that they were/are Jews. Much of the rest of the Goldman Sachs entry chronicles the frauds and scandals the bank has perpetrated, and some of the enormous fines it has paid while maintaining its status in the government’s Troubled Assets Relief Program—a bailout scheme for banks such as Goldman Sachs that are “too big to fail.”

In his excellent Rolling Stone essay of 2010, Wall Street journalist Matt Taibbi recounts six major swindles Goldman Sachs has perpetrated. His title is expressive of his theme: “The Great American Bubble Machine”: “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again.” Taibbi gives us this succinct description of Goldman Sachs: “The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Humorous, but true.

Lehman Brothers

The history of this corrupt investment bank began when three Jewish brothers, Henry, Emanuel and Mayer emigrated to the US southeast from Germany, and founded Lehman Brothers in 1850. As was common among Jews in the American Southeast, at least one brother, Mayer, owned seven Black slaves. They began trading in cotton before and during the Civil War, and moved their headquarters to New York City by 1870.

Later a son named Phillip and then a grandson Robert led the company through the troubles of the Great Depression. By 1969 Robert died and none of the founding Lehmans were in management. A non-Jew named Pete Peterson (real name Petropoulos, apparently Greek) took over through hard times, and by 1977 merged Lehman Brothers with the Jewish Kuhn Loeb and Co. (see below). Peterson brought up Jewish Lewis Glucksman to be co-CEO, but inevitable disputes ousted Peterson and left Glucksman sole Jewish CEO. Due to his dysfunctional personality disrupting internal operations, American Express bought Lehman Kuhn Loeb in 1984. Peter A Cohen became CEO. By 1993 Harvey Golub was CEO, during which time American Express spun off Lehman Brothers Holdings as a public offering. Richard Fuld took over the new firm. He was named by Time Magazine as one of the top 25 people to blame for the financial collapse of 2008. Cohen, Golub, and Fuld are or were Jewish.

In 2008 when Lehmans was foundering under losses in the subprime mortgage crisis, members of executive management joined together to force non-Jewish President and Chief Operating Officer Joseph Gregory to resign, and installed non-Jew Bart McDade in his position. Fuld remained as CEO, but was distanced from the new President and upper management. McDade brought back two executives Gregory had dismissed, at least one of whom, Michael Gelband is likely Jewish based on a Haaretz article from 2017. I could not confirm whether the other returning manager Alex Kirk is Jewish.

In mid-September 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, further shocking the financial markets in their downward plunge. By March 2010 consideration arose that Fuld might go to prison, along with other executives, Jewish and non-Jewish, at Lehman Brothers.

Kuhn Loeb

This international investment bank based on Wall Street in New York City was founded by Jews  Abraham Kuhn and his brother-in-law Solomon Loeb in 1867. Jewish Jacob Schiff came to America and married Loeb’s daughter and led the bank to prominence and competition with JP Morgan’s bank in funding America’s industrial development.

To demonstrate the nepotism and close in-group extended family relations of these Jewish bankers, Jewish author of an acclaimed Schiff biography Naomi W Cohen states: “For many years the early Schiffs shared ownership of a two-story house with the Rothschilds.” Jacob was raised in this house. Wikipedia tell us that Jacob’s father Moses was a broker for the Rothschilds.

At Kuhn Loeb, Jacob Schiff issued loans amounting to $200 million at the time, $4.6 billion in 2020 values, to the empire of Japan in its war with Russia in 1904–5. Schiff’s Wikipedia entry admits that Schiff harbored a hatred for the Czar and Russia due to alleged “pogroms” against Jews there, but only supported the Kerensky Provisional government, not Bolshevik Jews Trotsky (Bronstein) and one quarter Jew Lenin (Ulyanov) when they quickly seized power from Kerensky. This could be whitewashing, since other accounts claim Schiff was so anti-Russian he was willing to be pro-Bolshevik. Some historiography claims it was possibly Jacob Schiff who issued the order for the Czar, his wife and five children to be slaughtered in the basement of the Ekaterinberg house where they were confined.  A number of the most active murderers were Jews.

Schiff died in 1920, and Jews Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg took leadership of the bank. Kahn gained public prominence and was called “The King of New York.” As a lawyer, Kahn was adept at smooth-talking a Federal Congressional investigation of the Great Crash of 1929 (for which Jewish bankers bore a large share of guilt).

In 1933, the smooth and affable Kahn successfully disarmed antagonism against members of the banking community during four days of testimony before the United States Senate’s Pecora Commission hearings into the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Felix Warburg was a member of the infamous Jewish banking family that had been operating since 1798 in Germany. So many of these Jewish bankers we are examining intermarried, becoming one large extended family of nepotism exercising control over huge areas of finance and commerce. Felix married Jacob Schiff’s and Teresa Loeb’s daughter Frieda, bringing him into the family and into leadership at Kuhn Loeb bank. American Communist author John Spivak

argued that the (Business Plot to enact a violent coup d’etat of the Roosevelt administration in 1933) was part of a ‘conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups’, referring specifically to Felix Warburg, the McCormack–Dickstein Committee, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J. P. Morgan.

As we saw, Kuhn Loeb merged with Lehman Brothers, which was then bought by American Express in 1984. At that time the Kuhn Loeb corporate name was retired. The families continued.

The Rothschilds

Turning to those foreign bankers cited by Quinn in noting that the Federal Reserve, “fell under their control,”  we come at once to the Rothschilds of Paris and London. So much has been written about the Rothschild (Bauer) banking family, making it the most infamous of all the Jewish banking families, that we can hardly consider much of it here. Werner Sombart in his canonic work The Jews and Modern Capitalism mentions the Rothschilds only once, among a list of other Jewish banking families dominant in Europe by at latest 1850. The National Socialist government of Germany under Dr. Joseph Goebbel’s Ministry of Information established a new agency, the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question, which produced its report by 1937, Germany and the Jewish Problem, also identifying the Rothschilds—among a number of other Jewish bankers—as primarily responsible for the impoverishment and ruin of the German nation and people during the Weimar period (1919–1932). Rothschilds were also active in neighboring Austria, centered in Vienna’s financial district, from which the world-wide Great Depression spread through Europe, just as in the US it spread from Wall Street in New York City.

The greatest white-washing of the Rothschilds’ devastating usury, war-mongering and mass impoverishment activities while glutting their rapacious greed and world control agenda is found in Niall Ferguson’s two volume official biography of the family, The House of Rothschilds, Volume 1: Money’s Prophets, 1798–1848 and Volume 2: The World’s Bankers, 1849–1999. Even here Ferguson acknowledges the family used deception, family and tribal nepotism, blackmail, of course ruinous usury rates imposed on desperate people, economic bullying and other typically unscrupulous Jewish business practices on a grand scale to increase its already enormous fortune. Ferguson would never use these terms, but we must if we are to be honest about the devastating effects the Rothschild Jewish banking family has had throughout the world.

I wrote a historical research essay that was featured on the cover of the September/October 2021 anniversary issue of The Barnes Review, titled “Hitler Versus the Rothschilds.” Readers learned that the National Socialist government, in bold moves for self-defense of their nation and people, imprisoned five members of the Rothschild family, starting immediately after the Anschluss (re-unification of Germany and Austria) in the spring of 1938, including Louis Rothschild, President of the Vienna branch of the banking empire. This alone was reason enough for the Rothschilds to direct Britain, France, the US and other nations to wage war on Germany—60-70 million people died in World War II, but the Rothschilds profited (One Rothschild family member, an aunt named Aranka, died in the Ravensbrook prison for women, reportedly from disease such as typhus. Louis was released to Britain after one year in German prison).

The outcome of World War II saw the promise of the Balfour Declaration, an agreement between the British government and the House of Rothschild first arranged in 1916, to give British-administered Palestine over to Zionist Jews for their final “homeland.” The Rothschilds were instrumental in establishing the Zionist state though their funding of the Jewish National Fund, and the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, support for Theodore Herzl and the World Zionist Congress, funding for infrastructure, including government buildings and for arms to the Zionist terror groups Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang (Lehi) and many other measures to build up the nation of Israel. Almost immediately this inflicted the Nakba (i.e., “the Catastrophe”), on at least 700,000 Palestinian people who had been living and working in the region for centuries, and caused their ongoing misery and death to this day—to say nothing of the ongoing misery and death Israel has spread throughout the wider Middle East since, at the urging and support of the Rothschilds.

In the last section and Conclusion, we will turn to the most respected and accepted account of the founding of the Federal Reserve, which of the eight families Quinn cites, the Rothschilds and Warburgs are the primary culprits.

The Warburgs

This Jewish banking family is said to have originated as Venetian Jews, built up a fortune in Spain, and ended up establishing in Warburg, Germany, adopting the name in the 1500s. After establishing major banking firms from 1798 through to a great-great grandson in 1946, Wikipedia (which we know is Zionist-controlled) is so honest as to state:

Paul Warburg is most famous as an architect of the US Federal Reserve System, established in 1913. Paul was a member of the first Federal Reserve Board, and its Vice Chairman until his resignation in August 1918.

The only edit I would introduce here is from “famous” to “infamous,” since the Federal Reserve system and its accompanying income tax collection to pay the interest on the debt to the Jewish bankers has been to blame for the greatest impoverishment and financial enslavement ever imposed on the US population. Paul Warburg himself wrote a comprehensive account of the creation of the Federal Reserve, titled The Federal Reserve System, Its Origin and Growth (Arno Press, A New York Times Company, New York, 1975).

Four other major accounts of the creation of the Federal Reserve are presented, three of them having Paul Warburg in the title: J. Lawrence Broz, The International Origins of the Federal Reserve System (Cornell University Press, 1997); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Paul M Warburg,” Federal Reserve History, n.d.; Michael A. Whitehouse, “Paul Warburg’s Crusade to Establish a Central Bank in the United States,” The Region (Publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 1989); Richard A. Naclerio, “Paul M. Warburg: Founder of the United States Federal Reserve.” History Faculty Publications—Sacred Heart University, 2013. In the Broz book, the name Warburg is mentioned 105 times in 260 pages.

The Abstract of Naclerio’s paper at Sacred Heart University will serve to summarize:

The name Paul Moritz Warburg is synonymous with the founding of the Federal Reserve System. Over the years preceding the formation of the Federal Reserve, Warburg wrote many essays and gave many public addresses on banking reform. His reform ideas were modeled on the central banking systems of many European counties he dealt with through the family business M.M. Warburg.

From this, we may ourselves further summarize: Paul Warburg imposed the same ruinous debt control and usury grift on the Unites States as his ancestors and other Jewish bankers had imposed on European nations. In our last section and Conclusion we will return to Warburg’s role in creating the Federal Reserve, referencing the most well-known work on the subject.

The Lazards

Just as with the five brothers of the Rothschild and Warburg families, this Jewish banking family’s enormous wealth and power began in 1848 when the five brothers began their bank during the the California Gold Rush. Within three years they were established in San Francisco and New York and expanded into foreign markets. By 1854 Alexandre Lazard moved to Paris to set up a banking firm there, and by the turn of the twentieth century they were operating interlocking investment houses in Paris, New York and Britain.

In the post-World War II affluence, the Jew Andre Meyer led the US operations of Lazard. Meyer teamed up with the Jewish Felix Rohatyn to practically invent the Mergers & Acquisitions market, in some cases known as “hostile takeovers.” Subsequent top management and CEOs at Lazard include Michel David Weill and two of his brothers, Bruce Wasserstein, and Kenneth Jacobs. Be assured all their Early Life sections in Wikipedia declare they are Jews, except Jacobs, whose entry is under the category American Jews. One current Lazard Board Member of note is Richard Haass, Jewish, who has also been the President of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations for almost twenty years. I profile Haass and the other Jews who dominate the CFR in my essay Jews of the CFR.

Notable current and former employees include Jews Mark Pinkus, Steve Rattner, Gerald Rosenfeld, Nathaniel Rothschild, Bernard Selz and many others. Most have started their own investment firms, with Rosenfeld a former CEO of Rothschild North America, and Selz also an “anti-vaccination supporter.” Of note among Lazard employees in politics and public service are Jews Ron Bloom (economic advisor to the Obama Administration), Peter R. Orszag, (Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Obama, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Fellow at CFR, New York Times columnist), and Lord Peter Mandelson (former British Secretary of State),

Israel Moses Sieff

The Sieff family of Jews came from Lithuania and set up a profitable textile business in Britain. Israel Sieff was born in Manchester and became friends with Simon Marks, also Jewish and son of a founder of a wealthy department store, Marks and Spencer. When Israel and Simon married each other’s sisters, they became brothers-in-law. Sieff joined the firm in 1923 as vice-chairman and joint managing director, Together he and Marks expanded Marks and Spencer throughout the British Isles, selling clothing, health and beauty aids, and food. When Marks died in 1964, Sieff became sole Chairman. By 1966 Sieff was recognized as Baron Sieff, of Brimpton in the Royal County of Berkshire. Sieff died in 1972 before the chain expanded into Canada, France and Belgium.

Israel Sieff was a devoted Zionist, and at the age of 26 “was a member of the Zionist Commission which visited Palestine under the leadership of Chaim Weizmann.” In fact, Sieff was its secretary. The Zionist Commission was inspired by the Balfour Declaration to visit Palestine and study conditions there in order to make recommendations to the British administration for the eventual creation of the Jewish state of Israel. Weizmann went on to become Israel’s first President.

In 1932 when Israel’s son Daniel died at the age of seventeen, Israel endowed the creation of the Science Research Institute in Daniel’s name, later renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science in 1949. This was located in the Jewish town of Rehovot, in the Negev Desert which was in Palestine at the time of its founding.

After Israel’s death in 1972, his son Marcus—also recognized as Lord Sieff of Brimpton by Margaret Thatcher—became chairman of Marks & Spencer until 1984. This was the era when Marks & Spencer spread into other European nations, struggling to remain solvent during repeated failures.

Marcus may have been a more devoted Zionist than his father, according to The Guardian promotion piece obituary of 2001:

Sieff, who came from a strongly Zionist family, had first visited Palestine in 1929. In 1948, he was invited by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, to become adviser on transportation and supplies for the Israeli defence ministry.

We know of the efforts of Jewish organized crime bosses such as Meyer Lansky and Samuel Bronfman in supplying arms to Israeli terror groups, and Marcus Sieff was officially asked to participate by Ben Gurion himself. This Sieff was chairman of the First International Bank of Israel Financial Trust from 1983 to 1994, chairman of the firm which published The Independent, and president of the Anglo-Israel chamber of commerce.

Turning to Marks & Spencer itself, we see Under Criticisms and Controversies, Anti-Israel Protests:

Marks & Spencer has been repeatedly targeted and boycotted by anti-Israel protestors during the Arab League boycott of Israel. In 2014, it was reported that the Marble Arch branch was picketed weekly by protesters objecting to the sale of Israeli goods.

Very little is mentioned of any involvement of the Sieff family in banking, and nothing among these various Wikipedia entries of its involvement in the Federal Reserve. The company does partner with notoriously corrupt—and Jewish—bank HSBC to offer financial services and loans. We must look to the work of Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (2014) to find some association. On page 76 Goodson presents a list of “(the Federal Reserve’s) principal shareholders”:

Rothschild banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers banks of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff banks of Italy
Warburg banks of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Shearson American Express
Goldman Sachs of New York
JP Morgan Chase Bank

Goodson’s source for this is the iconic work of Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, published in 1993. It states:

The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are the people who have controlled our political and economic destinies since 1914. They are the Rothschilds, of Europe, Lazard Freres (Eugene Meyer), Kuhn Loeb Company, Warburg Company, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller family, and the J.P. Morgan interests. (p. 50)

Mullins makes no mention of Sieff, and provides no citations, instead offering an extensive bibliography. We have no reference for where Goodson derives his knowledge of Sieff banks in Italy being principal shareholders of the Federal Reserve by 2013. I could find no other reference to Sieff banks in Italy. It is interesting that five of the Jewish families mentioned here are on the list of eight Quinn cites at the founding of the Federal Reserve, with American Express possibly qualifying as a sixth, since it once owned Kuhn Loeb. Mullins’ list also covers six of Quinn’s original families, substituting Lehmans for Sieffs.

The Canon on the Founding of the Federal Reserve
The most well-known source among certain circles describing the founding of the Federal Reserve is The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. In this extensive work, Griffin concurs that Paul Warburg was the dominant force in imposing the central bank’s control over the US, citing other authors who state the same:

With the exception of Aldrich, all of those present (on Jekyll Island) were bankers, but only one was an expert on the European model of a central bank. Because of this knowledge, Paul Warburg became the dominant and guiding mind throughout all of the discussions. Even a casual perusal of the literature on the creation of the Federal Reserve System is sufficient to find that he was, indeed, the cartel’s mastermind. Galbraith says “Warburg has, with some justice, been called the father of the system.” Professor Edwin Seligman, a member of the [Jewish] international banking family of J. & W. Seligman and head of the Department of Economics at Columbia University, writes that “in its fundamental features, the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than any other man in the country.” (p 17)

Griffin lists the seven men in the gilded train car traveling to Jekyll Island on that cold winter night in 1910, who controlled one quarter of all the world’s wealth. Number seven is described thus:

Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands. (p 5)

Griffin says it was Rothschild funding that enabled Paul and Felix Warburg to buy partnerships in Kuhn Loeb (p 18). Also, “the blunt reality is that the Rothschild banking dynasty in Europe was the dominant force, both financially and politically, in the formation of the Bank of the United States,” (p 331) which preceded the Federal Reserve. An alliance between the Rothschilds and JP Morgan in America partially hid the Rothschild role in the formation of the Federal Reserve, since “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Rothschild” sentiment was high regarding bankers. Morgan himself may have faked “anti-semitism” as part of the cover-up:

How much of Morgan’s apparent anti-Semitism was real and how much may have been a pragmatic guise is, in the final analysis, of little importance, and we should not give unwarranted emphasis to it here. Regardless of one’s interpretation of the nature of the relationship between the Houses of Morgan and Rothschild, the fact remains that it was close, it was ongoing, and it was profitable to both. If Morgan truly did harbor feelings of anti-Semitism, neither he nor the Rothschilds ever allowed them to get in the way of their business. (p 419)

Of the other six men on the train to Jekyll Island Griffin lists, no one else is Jewish:

1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican “whip” in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J.P. Morgan, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.;
2. Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury;
3. Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at that time, representing William Rockefeller and the international investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company;
4. Henry P. Davison, senior partner of the J.P. Morgan Company;
5. Charles D. Norton, president of J.P. Morgan’s First National Bank of New York;
6. Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; (p 5)

Conclusion

Our focus is on whether, in revealing the names of the banking family dynasties in Quinn’s Global Research article obscures the Jewish Issue. He most certainly does, given that at a glance at least six of the names out of eight are immediately recognizable as Jewish, yet Quinn will not say as much. Many other sources we have examined in this essay also obscure the Jewish Issue. For instance, in 611 pages G Edward Griffin only mentions Jew, Jews and Jewish 9 times, a few of them only in citations.

Overwhelmingly the single group responsible for imposing and operating the Federal Reserve system over the American people and yielding enormous wealth for themselves, were Jews. Of these, the Jew Paul Warburg, backed and even at the direction of the Jewish Rothschilds, were the dominant culprits.

This is of immense importance. It goes beyond even the control that the Federal Reserve’s system has over the US economy. It leads us toward the final revelation of a Jewish agenda for world domination. Recall the statement made by son of Paul Warburg, James Paul Warburg, on the Congressional Record in 1950, before a Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, regarding Revision of the United Nations Charter. We will consider it in its succinct but potent entirety:

I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.

The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world’s two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.

The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here [sic] present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.

Here we see a Jewish banker, direct descendant of the man who established the Federal Reserve declaring we shall have a world government. He incites fear, drives division, and claims concern for the little people of the nation, an old strategy and cover story we have seen from Jewish bankers many times in history, and particularly now with fears of “climate change,” viral pandemics, and another nuclear war with Russia.

Clearly Jewish bankers have vast influence over the United States and much of the world, but authors such as Quinn, Griffin and many others are afraid to say so. Obscuring the Jewish Issue in banking does not keep anyone safe, including the authors. It only makes living in the world more dangerous. It might mean the end of the world as we’ve known and loved (or at least tolerated) it up until now.

As we penetrate the obscuring of the Jewish Issue in alt media, we have hope that we can move toward a final resolution of the Jewish Issue before the mass doom of the “world government” that James P. Warburg insisted was inevitable. It is coming now in the form of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset,” and it is known that the Board of Trustees of the WEF is dominated by Jews, and that Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab is Jewish through his mother.

Knowledge is power, and power is an effective self-defense.

Christoph Steding (1903–1938) was born in the village of Waltringhausen in Lower Saxony to a peasant family that had been settled in the region for several centuries. Much like Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia — which lost political animation ever since the Thirty Years’ War was concluded with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 — the area in which Steding grew up was more or less politically neutral since the decline of the Hanseatic League at the end of the seventeenth century. Only its incorporation into the North German Confederation of 1867, after Prussia’s victory in the Austro-Prussian War, granted it some continued political significance. This fact may have influenced Steding’s later decision to write his magnum opus on the contest between neutral states and imperial ones like Bismarck’s Reich and the Third Reich.

Steding attended the universities of Freiburg, Marburg, Munich and, again, Marburg. For his doctoral thesis he first wished to present a study of mediaeval Javanese culture but later had to change the subject of his dissertation to the bourgeois liberalism of sociologist Max Weber. He obtained his doctorate in 1931 and, at the end of 1932, he won a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation that enabled him to undertake extensive travels in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Scandinavia that lasted for two years.[1] The subject of his researches during this period was the role played by these neutral states in the Bismarckian Reich.

In 1935, Steding returned to Germany and worked on the long study which was called Das Reich und die Krankheit der europäischen Kultur (The Reich and the Disease of European Culture). It found the support of Walter Frank, director of the Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands[2] (Reich Institute for the History of the New Germany) whom Steding met in November 1935, and, in the summer of 1937, he was invited to deliver a talk at Frank’s institute titled “Kulturgeschichtsschreibung und politische Gesichtsschreibung” (Cultural and Political History).

Although Steding never joined the NSDAP, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Adolf Hitler. He first heard Hitler speak at meetings in October 1935 and, in 1937, following a meeting he attended at which Hitler and Mussolini were speakers, Steding noted in his diary that the Führer reminded him immediately of Hegel’s words in 1806 about Napoleon — that the latter seemed to Hegel like the “world-soul” on horseback. In January 1938, however, Steding died of a renal illness.

Since he had strongly supported Steding’s project, Frank worked on Steding’s manuscript from June to September 1938 and published it in the form in which it now exists, unfinished in spite of its extraordinary length (around 760 pages), but with a completed Introduction by Steding himself (written in the autumn of 1937), and a Foreword by Frank. The publication of the book was a success since it was reprinted five times during the Reich, until 1944, while a short extract from it called Das Reich und die Neutralen (The Reich and the Neutrals) was also published in 1942 as an encouragement to the front soldiers. However, Alfred Rosenberg was opposed to Steding’s work[3] and his collaborators criticized it sharply in their various reviews of it.[4]

Steding’s work is, in Frank’s edition, divided into two parts, the first dealing with the ideological consequences of the political neutralisation of the border states and the second with the diverse cultural attacks conducted by these neutral states against the Reich. The aim of Steding’s work is to reverse what Steding himself describes in the opening lines of his Introduction as “a withdrawal of the Germanic peoples from world history” ever since the French Revolution. Already the decline of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation from the end of the Thirty Years’ War signalled the end of the dominance of the Germans as the organizing force of the Holy Roman Empire:

The victory of the Western powers, of the Swedes and the French, was at that time (in 1648) as much the beginning of the disintegration of their kingdoms as the so-called victory of 1918. The liquidation of the ancient Frankish empire in the French Revolution, the withdrawal of Sweden, the decomposition of Austria, the destruction of the Germanically infused Russia of Peter the Great, and the modern destruction, issuing from within, of the Anglo-Saxon world — of the Empire, are only consequences of that process of the crippling of Central Europe that emerged most visibly with the Thirty Years’ War.[5]

Not only did Switzerland withdraw into a sterile neutrality but the English and the Dutch too turned away from the Germanic core in Central Europe through their wide-ranging colonial enterprises. France, meanwhile, sought to steadfastly reduce the European influence of Germany from the time of Louis XIV up to the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte. Bismarck’s Second Reich was the first attempt to reverse the process of Germanic decline and, when Bismarck’s efforts were undermined by the Westernising Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler arose to restore Germany to its rightful role as the authentic anti-liberal leader of Europe.

Whereas the Western European states, including Scandinavia, may rejoice at the growing prosperity that they experienced in relation to the Germanic centre, Steding points out that economic considerations cannot obscure the fact that the Germans remain the most highly developed politically since they have been prepared and matured “by God in a quite special way through endless suffering in order to be able to cast the deepest glance into the structure of our world.” The Bismarckian Reich and the Prussian state were thus the most potent sources of the political renewal of Europe and Hitler’s Reich must be considered a continuation of the Prussian insofar as it had the same political discipline and expansionist impulse.

*   *   *

                   The social condition of Europe after 1918, sealed by the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, was one of corruption and degeneracy that served as a preparation for the Bolshevist invasion from the East:

And to this degeneration of European man, this threat to all of Europe from within, there corresponded a threat from outside, through Tartar-Jewish Bolshevism, such as did not exist up to now. For, this external threat receives its character of extreme dangerousness only through the fact that European man, as a result of his corruption, becomes the condition of the possibility of the self-consciousness of the Tartar steppe against Europe and at the same time encourages the latter covertly to advance to an attack. … Material well-being seems to have been lent by fate only to anesthetize Western Europe via the sensuality of material pleasure and to then conduct it so much more surely to perdition.

We see that what Steding is describing here is the cancerous corruption of European society that is today called “Modernism” and “Cultural Marxism.” And it is one of the merits of Steding’s work that he pinpoints the cultural centers where this movement of degeneracy was initially located, in Basel, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and the other metropolises of Western Europe. Basel is, in Steding’s synoptic view of European history, the center most responsible for the dissemination of cultural historiography that revolted against the manly spirit of the Prussian Reich. This influence of Basel spread to German academic centers, primarily Heidelberg:[6]

For that reason, Heidelberg — which not wrongly was considered the city of Max Weber — had with an inevitable necessity to become a “cultural centre” of the first rank. Here, especially in the field of the sciences, the division and fragmentation characteristic of modern culture into disciplines that became autonomous was realized in a quite exemplary manner.

German emigrants like writer Thomas Mann (1929 Nobel Laureate for Literature) and Hugo Ball (the founder of the Dadaist movement in Zürich) as well as the numerous other literary and philosophical figures based in Basel and Zürich discussed in Steding’s work, represent a stage that is incommensurate with the living Reich of Bismarck or that of Hitler, since they belong to a past that the Reich has “banished” from its domain and that is naturally opposed in its decadence to the Reich. For Steding, the Western states are in a state of degeneration since they have become apolitical, neutral, and the Reich is the only source of political as well as cultural health within Europe, for politics precedes culture and the latter cannot become independent of the former as it has in the Western states.

Steding considered Thomas Mann and Max Weber as particularly pronounced embodiments of bourgeois decadence, the latter especially for his Puritanism and Protestantism and his Neo-Kantian rationalism:

Puritanism was the religion suited to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois culture which was especially classically realized in the neutral intermediate states at the mouth of the Rhine and at the source of the Rhine; and even in Denmark, Lutheranism since the nineteenth century stands closer to the spirit of Dutch Puritanism than to that of German Lutheranism. Further, Puritanism and Neo-Kantianism stand especially close to each other, because in Kant himself the classical sources continue to have an effect, and indeed, in a passionate Neo-Kantian such as Max Weber, was the close connection of this philosophical orientation to the spirit of the Puritan Protestant ethic is palpable.

Another reason for Steding’s opposition to Weber is the fact that his circle was often frequented by Jewish Bolshevist writers like Georg Lukács and Ernst Bloch.

In fact, Steding’s targets are all the intellectuals emergent from the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Wilhelmine Reich who encouraged the “Helvetization” and “Hollandization” of Germany and Europe. The decadence of the neighboring Western states is represented not only by the cultural historian Burckhardt in Switzerland and his disciple Huizinga in Holland but by intellectuals like philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in Denmark, who exerted a major influence on what is called Existentialist philosophy, and the Jews Husserl and Freud in Vienna, while through the influence of the Jewish literary critic Georg Brandes, the alien worlds of Zola and Dostoevsky were imported in translations into Germany. Even Norwegian writers like Knut Hamsun who are celebrated as champions of the Reich do not really represent the political substance of the Reich since their works are marked by an irony and hopelessness that are alien to the positive impulses of the Reich.

The Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga[7] in particular exemplifies the Romantic obsession with the decline of Germanic culture, with the “autumn of culture” as he called it in the title of his famous book Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen (Autumn of the Middle Ages). The end result of the spreading liberal culture of the bourgeois and Judaized intelligentsia is the withdrawal into a Romantic world of historical reflections that no longer has any political vitality in it:

[T]he “culture” protesting against Bismarck and Hitler is essentially characterized by the fact that it looks backwards and lives on the political past, which is so distant that one no longer understands it, so that life has become literary, interpretative, collecting and conserving, and is able to bring forth only ornamental squiggly forms or unimaginative photography as its type of productivity (cf. Thomas Mann, [Swedish playwright August] Strindberg, [Norwegian writer Knut] Hamsun), one therefore considers Goethe and Schiller only in a “literary” way and therefore one hates in Bismarck and Hitler precisely that they act as such because it cannot be misinterpreted so easily as Goethe and Schiller and because its efficient reality is too real for it to be understood — like the efficient reality of Schiller and Goethe or Hegel — only as “culture” in the sense of a literary culture of words.

The opposition between the moribund aesthetic culture of Western Europe and the rising political vitality of the Third Reich is evident even in the lack of depth that characterises the Western European cultural historical writing:

It is extremely significant that there is, in this world of neutral culture, nothing corresponding to the German word “destiny.”[8] Neither in Holland nor in the North. And no doubt even German Switzerland knows nothing of the meaning that every political man associates with this word. There is therefore nothing corresponding to this word in the domain of the states of neutral aesthetic culture because, [in those states] there has for a long time been no more history, which as such is always destiny and fate, and because, consequently, these states, like the old Western European states in general, can no longer represent any genuine destiny that engraves new features into the face of Europe. That is why the aesthetic culture, which also sees itself as a pioneer fighter for “justice,” opposes “power” because it must, being history-less and aesthetic, that is, moribund and impotent, fight to the death against the new creative principle that arose with the consolidation of the Reich in the center, in the heart of Europe. 

*   *   *

The major defects of liberalist culture, according to Steding, are indeed its aestheticism and feminism. Two major objects of Steding’s critique in the initial chapter of the cultural historical section of his study are Jacob Burckhardt[9] and Johann Bachofen.[10] While Burckhardt adheres to the Greek version of the irrationalism promoted by Nietzsche, Bachofen rather sympathises with the Asiatic and African peoples:

To be sure, Bachofen fights with extreme fierceness against the modern democratizing of the world since he sees its consequences. But he is one of its chief pathfinders since he has, according to his essence and attitudinal constitution, reached “materialistically” — and with his Basel and his Switzerland — such a stage of maturity that he has been able to give up his naïve peasant innocence of materialism and matriarchal naturalness, his voluntary self-restriction, and now assert matter as matter in an unrestricted manner.

The danger of the preoccupation with these exotic cultures is that it leads to an increasingly materialistic worldview:

That is indeed why Switzerland became ever “freer,” ever more democratic, that is, ever more materialistic in the sense of Marxism. That is why it had to, precisely with the foundation of the Reich, represent the rights of matter, that is, of “culture,” especially harshly. It could not do that more unequivocally than when it answered the overcoming of Marxism in the Reich with a special victory of Marxism within its own borders, naturally especially in the cities like Basel, Zurich and Geneva, whose present spirit is the linear continuation of the Bachofen “culture” and Dionysian-democratic-liberal spirit of freedom.

Bachofen’s focus on the matriarchal and the feminine in Nature is inextricably tied to the desire to develop a country in an industrial and capitalistic manner:

Not by accident does Bachofen explain to us that among matriarchal peoples, industrial activity is especially developed.[11] The capitalistic “character” of a culture that necessarily behaves in a way hostile to the Reich is even more especially supported by the matriarchal, gynecocratic quality of these areas, if indeed there is not in general an inner connection between the public and the secret world-rule and capitalism, which can be concluded from Bachofen’s remarks. And nobody will maintain that the Western European world, which was realized in a more classical manner in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark than in actual Western Europe — especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries — is an objection to the theses of Bachofen. Rather, the mores existing there as regards the position of the woman impels the search for as many connections between this phenomenon and the total urbanization and industrialization of all of life. For the two determine the public and private life of this world.

Indeed, cultural historiography in general exhibits a feminine character:

Cultural history is the actual feminine approach to the historical world. Its essential art is the art of the exclusion of the essential by discarding the event, destiny, deeds, from history and, instead of these, the cultural historian gathers together a colourful “tapestry of life” from the private, as it were, “beautiful,” side of the past, the arts, sciences, cosmetic arts. And it is further significant that the representation of these subjects that should be treated especially in salons is determined by intuitions, feelings, sympathies and antipathies, in short, by moods. The selection of the material results from a mood, the representation in itself is moody, playful, alinear, even “painterly,” so that coherence in this sort of historical writing must be sought especially in its lack of coherence, just as fine chats with beautiful women are necessarily distinguished by inconsequential zigzag courses, anecdotes and games. The perfect woman is able to realise herself primarily especially in the arts, stringing together with nimble, clever fingers that which has no intrinsic connection and making an apparent whole with ideas that diverge one from the other.

While it may be true that Steding is excessively prejudiced against whatever cultural merits the literary movements that militated against the Bismarckian as well as the Hitlerian Reich may have possessed, the central argument of his work remains sound: no organizational power can emerge from emotional expressiveness and feminine sentimentality. This political energy is characteristic only of the German Reich and, without it, there will no longer be any real politics but only diffuse individualism and nihilism.

It is true also that Steding does not dwell at any length on the fine arts and the excellence of non-Germanic Italy in this regard. However, in his discussion of the monumental style, he rightly points to the fact that the latter could be developed only in states that did not encourage individualism — as Julius Langbehn had contrarily maintained in his Rembrandt als Erzieher [Rembrandt as Educator](1890)[12] — but rather the overarching architectonic of empire. He cites as examples the case of Egypt and Rome as creators of the monumental style:

The most blatant example of a disciplined state system was the Egyptian empire. And if one scrutinises Burckhardt carefully one will discover that the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian art is not culture, that culture in the proper sense is characteristic of Athens, Venice, the Renaissance, and naturally of Switzerland, especially Basel, insofar as it also, deviating from the Confederation, sets itself up independently. If Bachofen is enthusiastic about the Egyptian world, this is not the world of Egyptian state socialism but the chthonic world of the dark, materialistic, orgiastic religions that sprouted from the swamp and the miry religion of the Nile as growths of the swamps and rushes as it were and are still very closely allied to matter.

Similarly,

When [Abraham] Kuyper[13] understands the great world empires of the East, of Rome, the Middle Ages as embodiments of Satanic aspirations of the men belonging to them, even the “culture” belonging to these empires cannot be considered by him as “culture” in the characteristic sense of aesthetically beautiful flower-bulb small businesses, even if he has not expressly stated that.

Thus Steding concludes that “Everything monumental is essentially anti-subjective, just as it signifies also the overcoming of all purely aesthetic culture.”

*   *   *

The danger of the aesthetic view of the world, on the other hand, is that it reduces culture to mere play, sexuality and economic materialism:

The secret sense of all these efforts is indeed to “reduce” life in its highest cultural stage itself to such an extent that of it, only a shadow-play, or the pure matter of the sexual, erotic, economic, etc., remains.

It is this general atmosphere of frivolity that is exploited with great success by the Jews:

   It also becomes understandable that the Jews exhibit a special talent for “culture” in its aesthetic-playful aspect. For, among them, often through the excess of endogamy and inbreeding, that de-naturalisation is achieved which is the precondition for the delight in mere deft game-playing and which, as such, naturally requires a quite special neutral talent for nimbleness that the doubtless often clumsy fundamental seriousness of the hard, grounded, political Germans does not dispose of. It does not because, typical of the Reich as the European center and point of gravity, is solidity and tenacity, which a political organism requires in order to be able to be respected as the “foundation” of the European political system.

Unfortunately, the degeneracy of “frivolity, cynicism, overindulgence, pretence, irony, wastefulness, unrestricted sexuality” spawned in the Western states has not only manifested itself in the West but it has spread to the Central European German lands too, sometimes through symptoms that may seem to be the reverse of the above traits, thus in “rigid morality … prudery and austerity” that betoken an internal emptiness. Whereas the imperial Austrian elites were marked by the former sort of degeneracy, the Prussian bureaucratic ones were characterised by rigidity and a tendency to ossification. The degeneration of politics to aesthetics is evident also in Kaiser Wilhelm II’s adoption of Dutch fashions and his penchant for theatrical play-acting.

The neutralisation of German man was thus present also in the Wilhelmine-Stresemann interim Reich and the defeat of Germany in the First World War was only the external culmination of an internal illness. This illness is concentrated in the aversion of the liberalized neighbouring states to the Prussian state as a political and military formation:

Perhaps one will be able to expect of an impartial observer that he would understand the phenomenon of Prussian militarism, the wonderful architectonic of the German army, as a very stylistic formation, as the product of a very high culture whose creation doubtless involves more intellectual work than the composition of a brilliant essay, of an artistic historical work when indeed the proviso is not stated — as in Langbehn, Pierson, Nietzsche, Burckhardt and all the men subject to him in the neutral zone around the Reich — that “culture” and “style” exist only where individualism prevails and that, further, “culture” is understood necessarily as aesthetic, indeed especially as only literary!

The neutrality of the Western states with regard to the fate of the whole of the European continent with its Central European center meant that the entire life of these states is neutralized, in internal as well as external politics, in the arts and in the sciences, to such an extent that these states are virtually moribund. As Steding summarises,

The old definition of man, that he is a “zoon politikon” [political animal] implies also that man is man only when he is political. The submergence into the apoliticization of neutralised life thus destroys the humanity of man itself.

The political concomitant of this process of the aestheticization of politics is Liberalism:

It too develops in its late, thus modern, forms an unmistakable tendency towards neutralization of all life relations, which again signifies the aestheticization of the same.

And this process of social disintegration is observed most acutely in the army, which in the Wilhelmine Reich loses its organizational and directive force by becoming a mere ornament of politics:

If, in Bismarck’s, Moltke’s and Roon’s[14] times, the army was still in complete harmony with the entirety of the people, there entered very quickly, in the Wilhelmine age, a separation and a being-for-itself of one part of the officer corps away from the people that alienated this stratum of the substance of the nation and drove it increasingly into an artificial, groundless position. And in this way was developed that aesthetic playful instinct that let the army exist for its own sake. It was understood especially by the Kaiser as a mere cultural value in the sense of the aesthetic culture of the neutral neighbours so that it became a mere “glistening weapon.” It reached the point of the big gestures of that gesturing boastfulness characteristic of neutral culture – here in the form of saber rattling behind which there was no serious will to take drastic action.

Go  to Part 2.

[1] His travels took him to Basel, Zürich, Bern, Geneva, Leiden, The Hague, Copenhagen, Oslo, Uppsala, Stockholm and Helsinki.

[2][2] Walter Frank (1905-1945) was a National Socialist historian who wrote studies on the anti-Semitic court chaplain Adolf Stoecker as well as on the Dreyfus Affair in France. His institute, established in 1935 by Bernhard Rust, Reichsminister für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung, cooperated with Alfred Rosenberg’s Institut für Forschung der Judenfrage, which was established in 1939.

[3] See Helmut Heiber, Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1966, p.527.

[4] See, for instance, Theodor Heuss, ”Politische oder polemische Wissenschaft. Zu Christoph Stedings Werk,” in Das deutsche Wort, XV, 1939, pp. 257-260, and Heinrich Härtle, “Steding neutralisiert Nietzsche,” in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, September, 1939.

[5] C. Steding, Das Reich, “Einleitung.” All quotes from Steding are from this Introduction as well as from the first chapter of the second part of the book entitled “Cultural Historiography.” All translations are mine.

[6] Other universities that Steding cites as having fallen to the foreign influences of the neutral states are those of Freiburg im Breisgau, Frankfurt am Main, Bonn and Cologne.

[7] Johan Huizinga (1872—1945) was a Dutch cultural historian and professor of history at the University of Leiden. His most famous work Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen (The Autumn of the Middle Ages, 1919) stressed the importance of spectacle and ceremony in mediaeval French and Dutch society while his later work Homo Ludens (1938) maintained that play was the primary formative element in human culture.

[8] Schicksal

[9] Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) was a Swiss art historian whose works on the Italian Renaissance, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien (1860) and Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien (1867) established his reputation as one of the earliest and most influential cultural historians in the West.

[10] Johann Jakob Bachofen 1815-1887) was a Swiss anthropologist and professor of Roman Law at the University of Basel. His work on prehistoric matriarchy Das Mutterrecht (1861) posited an initial “lunar” stage in human cultural evolution that was matriarchal. This was later superseded by a transitional Dionysian stage of societal masculinisation and by a final “solar,” or Apollonian, stage of patriarchy.

[11] Bachofen, Mutterrecht..

[12] See my English edition, Rembrandt as Educator, London: Wermod and Wermod, 2017.

[13] Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Calvinist theologian and served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905.

[14] Albrecht Emil, Graf von Roon (1803-1879) was a distinguished Prussian statesman and Minister of War from 1859 to 1873.

“Thou shalt not recognize patterns.” It’s one of the core commandments of modern leftism. But that’s only the short version. In full, the commandment runs: “Thou shalt not recognize patterns — except when they’re not there.” For example, you’ll be severely punished if you recognize any genuine pattern involving misbehavior by a favored minority like Blacks or Jews or homosexuals. But you’ll be showered with funding and praise if, for example, you recognize patterns of “systemic racism” that force naturally virtuous and intelligent Blacks into poverty, crime and academic failure.

Monetizing masturbation

In short, realists are flogged, fantasists are rewarded. In the mainstream, at least. Fortunately for those of us who believe in reality, there are still hate-sites like the Occidental Observer and Unz Review where we can describe and discuss patterns of misbehavior among favored minorities. Take two big scandals about pedophilia that have erupted in Britain recently. Nobody in the mainstream media dared to connect the dots and identify some obvious patterns. The first scandal involved one Karl Andersson, a Swedish PhD student of Japanese culture at the University of Manchester. Like many other people, I would call cultural studies and other branches of post-modern academia a load of wank, which is a crude British expression meaning “load of rubbish.” Well, Karl Andersson brought that crude expression to life, because his “ethnographic method” involved literal masturbation over Japanese comics portraying “young boy characters” in a “sexually explicit way.”

And not only was he being funded to fiddle with himself: he explicitly described his masturbatory methodology in an academic journal called Qualitative Research. And before he’d been approved for his PhD he’d self-published a “Magazine Full of Half-Naked Little Boys,” as the headline at Vice put it. Even leftists professed to be shocked and disturbed by all this, but they didn’t point out some obvious things. For a start, Andersson had obviously enjoyed homosexual privilege: his pedophilia had not merely been ignored by his academic supervisors but actually condoned or even approved. After all, his article about wanking over gay pedo-porn wasn’t sent to the police by the editors of Qualitative Research, but accepted and published.

Pensions for pedophiles

But no mainstream commentator talked about “gay privilege” and connected this scandal with a much worse scandal at Islington council in London back in the 1980s. Under the leadership of the obnoxious Jewish leftist Margaret Hodge, homosexual pedophiles had been allowed to abuse boys in children’s homes without being challenged and, in the end, without being prosecuted. Hodge and her council protected men like Peter Righton, the gay founder of the gay Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned for pederasty to be made legal. Like Karl Andersson, Righton made no secret of his sexual preferences: “Every Islington care home manager knows I like boys from 12.” But if Hodge and the Labour council she headed did nothing to stop the abuse, it worked hard in other ways: “Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some … received death threats. Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.”

That was gay privilege at work back in the 1980s. Now it’s been at work in the 2020s, allowing Karl Andersson to be funded for fiddling with himself and to have his wank-work published in Qualitative Research. But unlike the non-existent “white privilege” and “male privilege,” gay privilege isn’t recognized in the mainstream. It’s a pattern that really exists, so it can’t be mentioned. Nobody asked how many more Anderssons there are in Western academia, using gay privilege to conduct worthless or immoral “research.” I would predict that there are many, but I didn’t expect another one to emerge so quickly. I was wrong: meet Dr Jacob Breslow, another gay academic in the worthless field of “cultural studies.” Except that it’s not worthless for Breslow any more than it was for Andersson. Breslow has also been funded to pursue his sexual interest in boys and was the center of the second scandal about pedophilia to hit the British media this year. The transgender organization Mermaids, which campaigns for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children and teenagers, had appointed Breslow as one of its “trustees.” Then unfortunate details emerged of how he had been using his gay privilege. The homosexual website Pink News reported the news like this:

Mermaids has apologised and said it will review its recruitment processes after it emerged that a former trustee participated in a conference organised by a paedophile support group. The trans youth charity’s chair of trustees, Belinda Bell, confirmed it became aware of Jacob Breslow’s involvement in the conference, which “would have disqualified him from becoming a trustee”, on Monday (3 October [2022]), and that it “immediately launched an investigation”.

Breslow resigned the same day. An associate professor of gender and sexuality at the London School of Economics (LSE), Breslow gave a presentation at a 2011 symposium held by US group B4U-ACT. The organisation provides “compassionate assistance” to paedophiles, who it calls “minor-attracted people”. It was founded in 2003 by convicted sex offender Michael Melsheimer.

In a description of his 2011 presentation, Breslow wrote: “Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it potentially creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can begin to better understand minor-attracted persons. This understanding may displace the stigma, fear and abjection that is naturalised as being attached to minor-attracted persons and may alter the terms by which non-normative sexualities are known.”

Bell offered an apology on behalf of Mermaids, saying: “We want to apologise for the distress and concern this news has caused. It is clear that Dr Breslow should never have been appointed to the board, and as chair of the trustee board I am horrified that he was.”

Bell also addressed concerns over how it was possible that Breslow was ever appointed, especially as a Google search of his name quickly brings up articles from 2021 mentioning his troubling work around paedophilia. She said: “All trustees and staff are subject to background checks including enhanced DBS searches, social media reviews and other due diligence. On this occasion, we also placed weight on the fact his employer is a globally renowned institution that would have carried out its own checks.” (“Mermaids says trustee who quit over paedophile group links ‘should never have been appointed,” Pink News, 6th October 2022)

Belinda Bell of Mermaids is using a disingenuous excuse: the London School of Economics (LSE) is a “globally renowned” leftist institution, which means that it isn’t particularly careful about child welfare. On the contrary, like leftist Islington Council and leftist Rotherham Council, it places child welfare far below minority-worship. That’s why Islington Council allowed homosexual pedophiles to operate with impunity and why Rotherham Council allowed (and still allows) Muslim rape-gangs to operate with impunity. It’s also why the “globally renowned” London School of Economics employed Dr Jacob Breslow as he pursued his sexual interest in boys and sought to “displace the stigma, fear and abjection that is naturalised as being attached to minor-attracted persons.”

Jacob the Jew? Dr Jacob Breslow of the London School of Economics

It was gay privilege at work again. It was also an example of how homosexuals seem both more likely to be pedophiles and more brazen about pursuing their pedophilia. But another forbidden pattern may be apparent in Dr Jacob Breslow: that of the over-representation of Jews in the promotion and practice of sexual perversion. I suspect Dr Breslow is Jewish. He looks Jewish and, according to the leftist Wiktionary, his surname is a “[v]ariant of German Breslau, a Jewish Ashkenazi surname.” His politics are also typically Jewish: he has written that his work “interrogates and thinks with … anti-deportation movements.”

A noxious Nazi narrative: a Jewish pedophile offers candy to two gentile children

But is his pedophilia also Jewish in some way? Well, allegations of a close association between Jews and pedophilia go back many years. For example, one of the noxious narratives in an anti-Semitic Nazi publication called Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom) (1938) involves a Jewish pedophile trying to kidnap two gentile children by offering them candy. As the Jewish anti-racist Liz Fekete has complained, that kind of vicious stereotyping wasn’t confined to Nazi Germany: “There is, as you will know, a long history of racialising sex crimes in this country [Britain] — Jews being associated with paedophilia in the 1930s, West Indians with pimping in the 1950s and now the focus has shifted to Muslim ‘groomers’.”

Drinkers of Jewish blood

I’d suggest that all those “associations” are correct: Jews are indeed over-represented as pedophiles and Blacks and Muslims as pimps and rapists. By making such a claim about Jews, I am of course being anti-Semitic and exposing myself to the withering criticism levelled by the Jewish mother Laura Rosen Cohen at Mark Steyn’s website: “I’ve never seen a truly joyful antisemite. They are all scowling, angry losers who see Jews in their sandwiches or want to drink our blood.” Well, yes, I am a scowling, angry loser, but I don’t know where Laura gets the idea that anti-Semites want to drink Jewish blood. I certainly don’t. However, I do know of people who regularly drink Jewish blood. Trigger-warning for the easily (and not-so-easily) repulsed: those drinkers of Jewish blood are the Orthodox rabbis who suck clean the bleeding penises of the Jewish babies they have just circumcized. That’s part of traditional Judaism, but I don’t think it’s a healthy part or a good way to break the association between Jews and pedophilia.

I also know of someone who criticizes Jews as an “Idiot People” because they so consistently support and promote the most lunatic forms of leftism. That someone is Laura Rose Cohen herself, who regularly refers to Jews as “My Idiot People” in her columns for Mark Steyn and elsewhere. Finally, I know of someone who has written an article arguing that “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film.” The article says that the theme of the film, that of “an outsider battling against the social order,” is “typically Jewish” and has “Jewish appeal.” The article doesn’t explicitly say that Jews and pedophiles are natural allies, but that seems to be the subtext.

And where did this vile piece of anti-Semitism appear? It was in a widely read British newspaper, in fact, but no-one is going to be prosecuted and jailed for it. That’s because the newspaper was the Jewish Chronicle and the author of the article was the Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams, Professor of Film Studies at Bangor University:

It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film

The story’s theme of an outsider battling against the social order is — despite the troubling subject matter — typically Jewish

How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” was the question posed by the posters advertising the film version of Vladimir Nabokov’s notoriously scandalous novel, released in the UK on 6 September, 1962. The “they” in question were two Jewish boys from New York: the famous director Stanley Kubrick and his then producing partner James B Harris.

Fresh from the big-budget success of Spartacus in 1960, Kubrick and Harris wanted to carve out their niche in the film industry, and what better way to do this, they thought, in the newly liberalising 1960s than to adapt a novel about rival paedophiles vying for the affections of a teenage girl? Their adaptation became filled with Jewishness. Nabokov himself had put Jews in his novel possibly through the influence of his Jewish wife, Vera, who we now know played an instrumental role in his career in general and this novel in particular, even saving it from being burned by its author.

… Feeling that “the story offers a marvellous opportunity for humour”, Kubrick made sure Lolita retained as much of Nabokov’s smutty puns, innuendo, and double entendres as he could in an era when the production code still governed what could and could not appear in a movie.

And he cast the greatest British Jewish comic actor of his era, Peter Sellers. Jewish by birth through his “archetypal Jewish mother,” Sellers did not practice any religion. Nor was he bar mitzvahed. But he was circumcised and, as the only Jewish boy at a North London Catholic school, he was certainly aware of his ethnic and religious Otherness. …

The other key piece of casting was Shelley Winters as the unsympathetic and pseudo-intellectual suburban hausfrau Charlotte Haze. Winters was born Jewish, as Shirley Schrift, but took her mother’s family name. … The Holocaust was also much in the news and popular culture at the same time as Lolita was in pre-production. In 1960, Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina, kidnapped and transported to Israel where he was imprisoned while awaiting trial. Incidentally, at some point during his incarceration, one of Eichmann’s guards gave him a copy of the recently published German translation of Lolita, as German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt puts it, “for relaxation”. After two days Eichmann returned it, indignantly telling his guard it was “quite an unwholesome book”. Is it possible that Eichmann rejected Lolita not only because of its sexual content but also because he detected it as being somehow “Jewish”?

… Lolita was last adapted in 1997 with young Humbert Humbert played by Ben Silverstone. Other than that, it was wiped clean of any Jewish traces. Nevertheless, it remains a story that has attracted Jewish writers to adapt it: playwrights Harold Pinter and David Mamet both attempted and failed. Despite, or maybe because of, its controversial and troubling subject matter, Lolita has a Jewish appeal. As Kubrick put it, “It concerns the outsider who is passionately committed to action against the social order… fighting to do some impossible thing.” (“It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd September 2022)

I think the noxious Nazi Adolf Eichmann was right: Lolita is indeed “an unwholesome book.” It has undoubtedly encouraged pedophiles to act and may often have corrupted them in the first place. Whatever its literary merits, the manuscript would have been better burnt as its gentile author Vladimir Nabokov intended it to be. But Nabokov’s Jewish wife Vera “rescued” it and enabled it to be first published by the half-Jewish pornographer Maurice Girodias and then filmed by the Jewish director Stanley Kubrick. The book is about an “outsider,” after all, and Jews sympathize with outsiders, not with the majority (except in Israel, where they are the majority themselves). That sympathy obviously doesn’t stop when the outsider is a pedophile. Perhaps Girodias and Kubrick should have considered this disturbing insight from the poet Alexander Pope (1688–1744):

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (Essay on Man, 1733)

Or perhaps Girodias and Kubrick were already aware of the psychology described by Pope and fully intended that pedophilia should be more widely endured, pitied, and embraced. A Jew called Noah Berlatsky certainly intends those three steps to apply to pedophilia in America. He appears at Jewish Currents as the author of Nazi Dreams: Films about Fascism, which promises to teach readers “how to identify Nazis and punch them in the snoot!” He has claimed that “sex offender registries are ‘racist’,” is currently attacking Kanye West for his “flirtation with white supremacy,” and, like Jacob Breslow, prefers to call pedophiles “minor-attracted persons.” Like Breslow again, he spent a long time promoting pedophilia before he provoked a scandal:

Noah Berlatsky is the Communications Director of an organisation that engages in the normalisation of pedophilia. The name of the organisation is the Prostasia Foundation and it does appear to endorse extremely problematic opinions. Prostasia calls pedophiles ‘minor attracted persons’ or MAPs, which is an undisguised attempt to rebrand pedophilia as a sexual orientation such as homosexuality. In the past, it has condemned Tumblr removing “MAPs’ and allies’ blogs”. In a post on its website, Prostasia went on to claim that removing such content would harm children.

The post claimed, “An entire community at the “ground zero” of child sexual abuse prevention is being censored, and it’s children who will ultimately suffer the most.” The foundation also claims that “stigma” against pedophilia is a consequence of “alt-right conspiracy theorists” and “sexual conservatives”. (“Meet Noah Berlatsky: The Rutgers University Press published author working hard to normalise pedophilia,” OpIndia, 30th August 2021)

Meet Noah Berlatsky, Jewish anti-racist, anti-fascist and pro-pedophile activist

That article appeared at a mainstream website, so no pattern-recognition took place. Berlatsky’s Jewishness wasn’t mentioned, even though he appears to be yet another example of the patterns of perversion that link Jews with pedophilia. Nobody in the mainstream dares to discuss these patterns. After all, when it comes to a choice between saving children from being raped and shielding favored minorities from criticism, no good leftist hesitates for even a second. As the scandals in Rotherham and many other British towns and cities prove, leftists consistently side with the child-rapists, not with the raped children.