The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XV: A Tale of Two Senators, Or How the Establishment Really Works

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Janet Langhart Cohen.

Perhaps no two figures better epitomize the kosher sandwich in action than former Maine Senators George J. Mitchell and William S. Cohen, Gentile and Jew, Democrat and Republican, equal and complementary slices of kosher bread in the neo-liberal order. They are, as we shall see, really quite perfect avatars.

George Mitchell

Following his stint in the US Senate from 1980 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1995, Mitchell was asked by Michael Eisner to join Disney’s Board of Directors; he also joined Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand (where Elliott Abrams—yes, that Elliott Abrams—worked before joining the Reagan administration), a law firm and lobbyist organization that in September 2002 merged with Piper Rudnick LLP, which would itself soon be part of the merger that would form DLA Piper. Mitchell is currently a partner and Chairman Emeritus of DLA Piper’s Board, and has been on or is presently on the Boards of Staples, Unum, Unilever, Starwood Hotels (owned by Marriott), Xerox, FedEx, and others; Mitchell was also on the Board of the American Security Project, which is not as innocuous as the name sounds. The American Security Project takes a very antagonistic stance toward Russia and works to advance interventionism in order to combat climate change. They also use climate change as a bogeyman for causing “ethnic conflict” in and mass migration from sub-Saharan Africa. The implications are obvious, and with people like John Kerry on the Board and former “luminaries” including Susan Rice, this is unsurprising. As one example, the same UNICEF that declares the West must open itself up to an indefinite number of “migrants” receives well north of $100 million annually from the United States government[1] and also has a multi-million-dollar partnership with DLA Piper.

Curiously, however, despite the supposedly carbon-driven mass migrations from the Equatorial world, Mitchell’s Bipartisan Policy Center, of which he is co-founder and co-chair, receives a substantial amount of funding from companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil.[2] It also receives funding from FedEx, which is surely a coincidence.

In 2004, Mitchell defended the Board’s ouster of Roy Disney and, as one might expect, was rewarded as Chairman of Disney from March 2004-December 31st, 2006. Roy Disney and Stanley Gold were vocal in their criticisms of Mitchell as former CEO Michael Eisner’s puppet. “Giving the company’s chairmanship to former US Senator George Mitchell, Eisner’s lap dog, is a fig leaf covering Eisner’s continuing control of the company,” wrote one observer. Additionally, as Gold wrote in his letter of resignation from the Board:

Senator Mitchell was appointed Presiding Director, despite having been recently employed as a Company consultant and notwithstanding that the law firm of which he was chairman received in excess of $1 million for legal services on behalf of the Company in fiscal 2001.

No conflict of interest there. It gets better, as Wesley B. Truitt reports in his book The Corporation:

After retirement, [George Mitchell] became a partner in a prominent Washington, DC law firm and accepted Michael Eisner’s invitation to join Disney’s board of directors and those of eight other companies. As a nonemployee director at Disney, he was paid $45,000 annually, plus $1,000 per meeting he attended. Disney also hired him as a $50,000-per-year consultant, and he became a consultant to six of the other companies on whose boards he served. Two of those firms, Federal Express (FedEx) and Staples, for which he was both director and consultant, also employed his law firm, as did Disney. This is all pre-2002. In that year, with corporate governance reforms occurring, Disney dropped Mitchell’s law firm, having paid it $2.6 million in fees over the previous seven years, and required Mitchell to give up all other board seats except three. He kept FedEx, Staples, and Starwood Hotels. He continued to take consulting fees, amounting to $175,000 annually from FedEx and Staples. His consulting fees from Disney had brought him $300,000 over seven years. In March 2005, Disney’s board of directors, following a search in which only one outsider was interviewed (in Eisner’s presence), announced their choice of Robert Iger, then president of Disney and Eisner’s handpicked insider choice, to succeed him as CEO later that year.[3]

In 1998, Verner, Liipfert et al. received $1 million in compensation from Starwood Hotels for their lobbying efforts; that number was $430,000 in 1999, $380,000 in 2000, $380,000 in 2001, and $300,000 in 2002, when they merged with Piper Rudnick. Starwood retained Piper Rudnick, and then what became DLA Piper after the merger, into 2016, at which point Starwood was acquired by Marriott.

As the ultimate Shabbos goy, Mitchell earned high praise from ADL Director Abe Foxman while serving as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace under Barack Obama. As if he could be any more of a living cliché, Mitchell is also in the Bilderberg Group.

Earlier this year, in documents unsealed on August 9th by federal prosecutors in New York at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Mitchell was among those named by Virginia Roberts Giuffre in a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as one of the men she was forced to have sex with while she was allegedly being trafficked for sexual acts as an underage girl by the duo. Mitchell denies the accusation; however a sworn affidavit by a former Epstein employee, Juan Alessi, affirms Giuffre’s claim. Mitchell was absolutely an associate of Epstein’s—Mitchell called Epstein a “friend and supporter” in a 2003 New York Magazine profile and Epstein referred to Mitchell as “the world’s greatest negotiator.” Giuffre named Mitchell in a 2015 defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell and again in a sworn deposition in 2016, saying she was instructed to give him a “sexual massage” while he was visiting Epstein in Palm Beach. From these documents, we learn:

American liberal icon, President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy Senator George Mitchell, frequently visited Epstein’s New York residence. Mr. Mitchell…was very close to Jeffrey, Virginia recalled. “He is very clean-cut. You wouldn’t think of him being part of Jeffrey’s crew.”

Though Mitchell cited work commitments as the reason and not the atrocious optics of an accused sex abuser’s affiliation with a fund for those abused by the clergy, he resigned in May from the oversight committee of the Philadelphia archdiocese’s Independent Reconciliation and Reparations Program (IRRP), a fund handled by administrators Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros. Feinberg made at least $3.3 million representing British Petroleum after their massive spill, and, per Judicial Watch:

Uncovered U.S. Treasury Department documents…reveal President Obama’s “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation” Kenneth Feinberg received a $120,830 annual salary to establish executive compensation levels at companies bailed out by the federal government. These documents contradict multiple press reports that Feinberg would not be compensated for this work for the Treasury Department.

Feinberg makes his living deciding on what, if any, financial compensation victims of tragedies like 9/11 are entitled to. There’s really not much else to say about that—a Jewish lawyer profiting wildly from tragedy and financial improprieties says it all, really.

William Cohen

William Cohen and George Mitchell were concurrent Maine Senators for all of Mitchell’s time in office. Cohen was a Senator from 1979 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1997. Cohen and his wife Janet Langhart have made a tidy profit from advertising their interracial marriage, first with the 2006 memoir Love in Black and White, and next with Langhart’s one-act play Anne and Emmett, which—I kid you not—debuted at the US Holocaust Museum and is about “an imagined conversation between Anne Frank and Emmett Till.”

After serving as the Secretary of Defense during Bill Clinton’s second term, Cohen founded the Cohen Group, a lobbyist organization and “business advisory firm providing corporate leadership with strategic advice and assistance in business development, regulatory affairs, deal sourcing, and capital raising activities,” of which Cohen remains Chairman and CEO. The Cohen Group has lobbied on behalf of special interests such as VR military training technology company Raydon, commercial satellite operator SES Americom, and technology-defense contractor Alion Science & Technology, and has facilitated donations to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King; a number of their employees and associates have donated to current presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg. Tellingly, Cohen rebuked Donald Trump during Trump’s 2016 campaign and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. In the 2016 election cycle, affiliates of the Cohen Group’s largest donation recipient was Hillary Clinton, although Republicans Susan Collins, John McCain, and Jeb Bush were also among the top donation recipients. This speaks volumes about the truly bipartisan nature of not just the Cohen Group, but of the DC Beltway—and the entire Establishment for that matter: they’re all pretty much on the same page.[4] Also consider that Cohen was John McCain’s Best Man in his second marriage, and the picture increasingly comes into focus. For further illustrative purposes, however, let’s look at some of the top donation recipients from the Cohen Group in other election cycles:

·         2014: Susan Collins, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Kennedy III

·         2012: Susan Collins, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joe Kennedy III, Tim Ryan

·         2008: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens

·         2004: John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, Arlen Specter, John Edwards

You get the idea. What many do not know, however, is that Cohen’s former chief of staff and top political strategist Bob Tyrer (who by the way is now co-president of the Cohen Group) was tasked with running Susan Collins’s campaign for Senate in 1996 as Cohen’s hand-picked replacement—a position she enjoys to this day. The substantial and consistent donations to Collins especially make much more sense in this light. As you’ll recall from the previous piece, DLA Piper is also a major campaign donor to Collins, as are companies like FedEx. You can see how the pieces are starting to fit.

Cohen is also on the Advisory Board of the Partnership for a Secure America, which, like Mitchell’s American Security Project, considers “climate change” to be a “threat multiplier.” Other organizations of which Cohen is currently or has been involved with include Viacom, CBS, the Council on Foreign Relations, AIG, MIC Industries, the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Partnership, Thayer Capital, and the Trilateral Commission.

The Sandwich

The most obvious connection between Cohen and Mitchell, aside from the fact that they were concurrent Senators from Maine for a decade-and-a-half and clearly worked closely together is their co-authored book on the Iran-Contra affair published in 1988. Not-so-obvious would be the other aspects of their working relationship. Presently, DLA Piper has established, “a strategic alliance with The Cohen Group, a business consulting firm, to help clients identify and achieve global business and strategic opportunities.”

The first identifiable financial ties are from 2003, when the Cohen Group’s lobbying services were retained by Piper Rudnick for $250,000; in 2004 that number rose slightly to $280,000, but in 2005, when a three-way merger created DLA Piper, the Cohen Group’s compensation fell to $80,000. The working relationship persisted, however, with the Cohen Group’s compensation for their lobbying efforts on behalf of DLA Piper totaling $110,000 in 2006 and $140,000 in 2007. Though DLA Piper is listing as having retained the Cohen Group in 2008, I could not find the amount, at which point the financial record of the Cohen Group’s explicit lobbying endeavors on behalf of DLA Piper appears to vanish. As indicated above, however, this did not end the Cohen-DLA Piper working relationship, but rather precipitated what would grow into a major partnership.

Cohen was a featured speaker at DLA Piper’s annual Global Real Estate Summit in Chicago this year and Ambassador Nick Burns serves as Senior Advisor to DLA Piper through the firm’s exclusive relationship with the Cohen Group, where he is a Senior Counselor. DLA Piper and the Cohen Group have collaborated on “independent reports” designed to influence policy—for which they were financially compensated—and a litany of other projects both domestically and globally. One such project may potentially have involved a coup attempt in Turkey. A large percentage of the Cohen Group’s leading figures are ex-diplomats and military figures; there is a curious paucity of “traditional” business or legal acumen at the top. Oh, and by the way:

We know, from sworn testimony given by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, that former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman committed treason when he divulged classified information to Turkish operatives in the summer months of 2001, included in that information was the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame were CIA…Marc Grossman’s former boss at the State Department, Richard Armitage…The ATC helps facilitate billions in defense contracts between the Turkish government and FBI Director James Comey’s friends at Lockheed Martin, where Comey used to be VP and Senior Counsel. Lockheed Martin’s Board of Directors also includes Joseph Ralston and James Loy who work with Grossman at the Cohen Group.[5],[6]

There are deep ties not just between the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, but between the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, as Laurence Shoup relates:

The Cohen Group was founded by former Defense Secretary and CFR director William S. Cohen when he left the Clinton administration in early 2001. The objectives of the firm are: “helping multinational clients explore opportunities overseas as well as solve problems that may develop. The Cohen Group has the unique ability to provide our clients with truly comprehensive tools for understanding and shaping their business, political, legal, regulatory, and media environments.” The Cohen Group has a strategic alliance with the international law firm DLA Piper, one of the largest law firms in the world. Both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper have multiple connections to the CFR. Besides Cohen himself, Marc Grossman, a vice chair at the Cohen Group, is a Council member, and former ambassador and undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns is both a CFR member and a senior counselor at Cohen. Former Senator George J. Mitchell, DLA Piper’s former chairman, was a Council director, and former U.S. senator and CFR member Tom Daschle is a policy adviser at this law firm.

But why does it matter that Mitchell, Cohen, and their associates have these connections to the CFR? There are hundreds of these think tanks that recycle the same old “bureaucratic tape-worms,” to borrow Tucker Carlson’s phrase, in between governmental appointments. As Shoup explains in his excellent book Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014:

The CFR’s own leaders, in their own publication, [state] that U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century was made by a “professional class” (their term for a ruling capitalist class) of only “several hundred” people, augmented by a number of “experts” beginning in the 1960s. Almost all of these people were members of the CFR, which actively promoted a foreign policy suitable to the U.S. capitalist class…The Council is the most important U.S. and global center of “deep politics” and the “deep state” that rules behind the scenes, a way that the 1 percent conducts their unrelenting class war against the 99 percent. Despite pretensions to “democracy” and endless attempts at instructing the world, U.S. “democracy” is, in reality, largely a fraud, a hollowed-out shell, devoid of any substantive content. The fact is that the U.S. government—led behind the scenes by the CFR—is largely run in an anti-democratic fashion by and for the interests of a financialized capitalist class, their corporations, and the wealthy families that control and benefit from these corporations. No matter who is elected, people from the Council propose, debate, develop consensus, and implement the nation’s key strategic policies. The deep state, in the form of the CFR, operates behind the scenes, making and enforcing important decisions outside of those publicly sanctioned by law and society. A focus on the Council on Foreign Relations is a key way to understand concretely the central sector of the ensemble of power relations in the United States and its informal global empire.

The Cohen Group and DLA Piper each feature both current and former members within or affiliated with the CFR, as well as other major geo-political players; these connections are anything but incidental. Major DLA Piper alumni include: A.B. Krongard, former Executive Director of the CIA; Mel Martinez, former Senator, member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, and JP Morgan Chase’s Chairman of the Southeast US and Latin America; and Harry Cummings McPherson, Jr., who served as counsel and special counsel to Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969 and was Johnson’s chief speechwriter from 1966 to 1969. Additionally, DLA Piper represents over 150 Israeli companies and investors. From the firm’s website:

The firm has also assisted over 75+ of its foreign clients who require legal assistance in Israel…Our Israel Country Group delivers all the benefits of a global elite law firm through a team of lawyers dedicated to the Israel market. Our broad knowledge and access to local advice has led to us becoming a key address for advising Israeli clients as they do business across the globe. Recent involvement has included advising on M&A transactions in Japan, Norway, Spain and South Africa; HR matters in Brazil, Singapore and Italy; real estate deals in the US, Germany and the UK; IP and tax in Turkey, Dubai, Australia and Czech Republic; fund formation in Poland and the US; commercial and mining advice in Africa; and litigation advice in the UK, Africa and the US.

Don’t forget that George Mitchell of DLA Piper was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Recall also the “changing role” of the NSA following 9/11 and the fact that the NSA gave Israel access to all US citizens’ communications data. This all dovetails rather nicely, as, returning to Shoup:

William J. Clinton was himself a CFR member before he became president…Of Clinton’s three secretaries of the treasury, the first, Lloyd M. Bentsen, was not a CFR member (my note: or a Jew, but definitely a Shabbos goy), but Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers were (my note: both Jewish), with Rubin later becoming a director and co-chair of the Council. All three of Clinton’s choices for Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, William J. Perry, and William S. Cohen, were CFR members, and Aspin and Cohen were directors. Cohen was a director when Clinton called on him to serve in the government…George W. Bush was never a member of the CFR, but…his vice president, Richard B. Cheney, was a longtime member and was a two-time director between 1987 and 1995. Both of Bush’s secretaries of state, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, had long been members of the Council when they were appointed, and Powell became a CFR director in 2006…George W. Bush had two secretaries of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Robert M. Gates. Rumsfeld was a CFR member during the 1970s but later dropped out of the organization. Gates has been a continuous Council member since 1985. Bush’s appointees to head the CIA, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, were CFR members prior to entering office, as were both of his appointees to head up the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick, who had also been a Council director. Three of the four men Bush appointed to be UN ambassador, John D. Negroponte, John R. Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad, were CFR members prior to their appointmentsSusan E. Rice, who also served as Obama’s first UN representative, has been active in the organization for years…Obama’s second secretary of state, John Forbes Kerry, became a CFR member in the early 1990s. He married his second wife, the near billionaire Teresa Heinz (who inherited the Heinz food fortune), in 1995, the same year she was elected to Council membership.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that Janet Napolitano, who made a brief appearance in Volume IX, is also a member of the CFR, but in light of all of these other revelations, that does seem a bit incidental, doesn’t it?

Reposted from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[1] “‘Migrating is not a choice,’ according to Henrietta Fore, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), speaking to reporters last week on the sidelines of the G7 ministerial summit in Paris. Fore insisted: ‘Migrants do not want to leave their country, but they are forced to do so because of the economic situation or the violence that reigns there.’…‘Those of us who live in more developed countries must do whatever we can to allow them to get here and integrate.’… UNICEF is funded by governments and private donations. Due to relentless lobbying on Capitol Hill by UNICEF USA supporters, the United States has ‘traditionally provided more unrestricted funding to UNICEF than any other government.’ The U.S. remains UNICEF’s top funder with $132.5 million in 2019, just as it was in 2016, 2017, and 2018 with similar contributions. What remains to be determined is why the Trump administration continues to write a blank check to [them].” https://cis.org/Rush/UNICEF-Chief-Developed-World-Must-Welcome-All-Migrants-Because-Migration-Not-Choice

[2] Would you like to know more? https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/bipartisan-lobbying-center

[3] P. 209.

[4] Consider the 636 business organizations that signed their approval of a prospective “Immigration Reform” bill in 2014 that enjoyed bipartisan support, and which would have provided for DREAMER amnesty and the re-orientation of immigration toward “economic necessity”: https://www.uschamber.com/letter/multi-industry-letter-immigration-reform

[5] http://illinoispaytoplay.com/tag/the-cohen-group/

[6] Lockheed Martin is a major donor to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and House Representative Chellie Pingree—Republican, Independent, and Democrat. Yup.

Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to anti-Semitism

“ [Kevin] MacDonald’s theory is a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.”
Slavoj Zizek

“Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”
Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Current Affairs, Oct. 18 2019.

 

This is an essay on anti-Semitism, but because it’s also about Slavoj Žižek we’re going to have to start with the subject of extra-marital affairs. Very early in my academic career, I was asked to take part in a cross-faculty seminar, where PhD students could present small talks on the development of their research. It was hoped that, as a newly-minted PhD, I’d ask presenting students some tough but helpful questions, and thus somehow contribute to a team atmosphere in my department. I was provided with a list of proposed talks and immediately felt an overwhelming sense of apathy at the litany of feminist tripe and quasi-Marxist navel-gazing, none of which was in any way related to my own fields of research. I was eager to please in my new role, however, and so I fell dutifully into line. I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal, being an effeminate young African-American who quite literally gave a performance poem titled “Black Skin” about, well, you get the idea. But the more memorable event of the day came later, when a young woman gave a presentation on gender in the media, or something to that effect. Something about her manner irritated me considerably, so I gave her a hard time during the Q & A. This was picked up on by a senior figure in the department, a soft meek-looking and much-gossiped-about English historian, who, after the seminar had finished, invited me to his office for a discussion on gender and sex politics.

I’ve been politically aware since I was a teenager. I’d read deeply about Marxism since the age of seventeen, and was familiar with its cultish elements. None of this prepared me for my adventure in this otherwise unremarkable Englishman’s office, the walls of which were festooned with small red flags and quasi-religious images of Lenin and Trotsky. So, I thought, here was a Red in the flesh. I was in the presence of a dedicated Marxist, and that right there in front of me stood a solitary tangible example of the long march through the institutions. He made tea, and we sat down. He began to talk, I listened. During his initial monologue, my host started speaking from a personal perspective, explaining that even in his private life he aimed to live in accordance with his “socialist beliefs.” Before he got married, he explained, he and his fiancée agreed that they wouldn’t take traditional vows, agreeing they wouldn’t be so possessive as to make an oath of exclusivity to one another. They might “expect” exclusivity, but they wouldn’t demand it. They believed in “freedom,” he said, and ultimately this was what social progressivism and modern gender and sex politics was all about. It wasn’t anything to get upset over, he implied, or laugh about.

Except that it was. The faculty gossip I’d heard was that the wife of this “free love” advocate had been on a short-term teaching stint in Norway and had just recently decided to permanently settle there with a Norwegian lover she’d been having an affair with for some time. She had the marital couple’s two children with her in Norway, and was making it extremely difficult for the meek, permissive, Lenin-loving Englishman to see them. The family home had also been declared off-limits, and my Marxist colleague was apparently reduced to staying in a local bed and breakfast. Tragic? Quite possibly. Hilarious? Most definitely. All of this flooded my mind as the cuckolded Leninite sat opposite me recounting his lukewarm marriage vows, tea in hand, eyes glistening with — tears? Steam from the tea he said, wiping them casually and glancing at the window. My face was stone. The time passed, and my host gradually fell silent. I thanked him most disingenuously, and made a hasty retreat, taking a deep breath as I emerged from the building. I never set foot in that office again.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism? If you’re the superstar Marxist intellectual Slavoj Žižek, it has everything to do with anti-Semitism, since as we will find out, infidelity and anti-Semitism are irrefutably linked. I say “irrefutably” quite deliberately, because his arguments are irrefutable — and they are irrefutable because they are nonsensical. Read more

The Way Life Should Be: #SquadGoals and the U.S Corporate Elites That Fund Them

The rhetoric of climate change has become millenarian and hysterical, uncoupled from any genuine environmental concerns, of which there are many. If a picture is worth a thousand words, let the image of Greta Thunberg, the teenaged Swedish environmental activist’s arrival in New York on a former Rothschild family racing yacht—and the numerous flights that made the journey possible in the first place—serve as example number one. It is in the climate of Establishment-generated climate change hysteria that the contradictions of, say, an Ayanna Pressley—vocal supporter of fellow Squad Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal—and the sources of her financial backing—such as Global Partners LP (whose “operations focus on the importing of petroleum products and marketing them in North America”), a slew of real estate developers, and Blue Haven Initiative—become all the more grotesque. Blue Haven Initiative, by the way, is another one of these “impact investment” organizations I’ve written extensively on; its co-founder and principal investor is none other than Liesel Pritzker Simmons, of the Jewish Pritzker family. Blue Haven will make another appearance later.

The Green New Deal resolutions in the US House of Representatives and the Senate were sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, respectively. It is always worth looking into where politicians derive their campaign finances from, as this gives us a window into the interests that they represent. For Markey, in the current election cycle, that would be PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Akin, Gump, et al.,[1] DLA Piper,[2] Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Tufts University (alma mater of Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt), Harvard University, Google, Immigrant Learning Center, DISH Network, iHeart Media, Estee Lauder, the National Basketball Association, Verizon, Brownstein, Hyatt, et al., WilmerHale LLP, T-Mobile, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sprint, Hilton, Morgan Stanley, Dell, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Twitter, and Oracle. As evidenced in The Way Life Should Be? pieces, many of these organizations are a part of Michael Bloomberg’s New American Economy and/or are helmed by Jewish CEOs (or commissioners in the NBA’s case). Also, Markey’s wife, it should be noted, is the Jewish Susan Blumenthal, whose resumé includes a number of high governmental positions, professorships at Georgetown, Brandeis, and Tufts, and a column for the Huffington Post.

Regarding House sponsor Alexandria “AOC” Ocasio-Cortez, since becoming a media darling after her surprising victory over her district’s incumbent Joe Crowley—a genuine grassroots victory, where Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 18-to-1 in the Democratic Primary—Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become the new face of the corporate class. In gearing up for her re-election campaign, Ocasio-Cortez’s primary donors so far include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Delta, Kaiser Permanente, “majority women-owned” law firm Selendy & Gay, and WilmerHale LLP. Robert Mueller is a partner at WilmerHale’s Washington office, and the firm is notorious for shady dealings and representing the unscrupulous, including Jewish insider trader Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky. In this election cycle, donations from individuals affiliated with WilmerHale have gone not just to Markey and AOC, but Elijah Cummings (now deceased), Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Jerrold Nadler, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tim Ryan, Ben Sasse, Ted Lieu, Joe Kennedy III, Lindsey Graham, Maxine Waters, Tulsi Gabbard, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Mike Levin, and Cory Booker. Donations from affiliates of WilmerHale and Alphabet Inc. went to Ayanna Pressley in her initial election bid.

While we’ve discussed half of “The Squad,” we should not neglect to look into who’s footing the bill for Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s re-election bids as well. For Omar, her top donors in this election cycle include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Google, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Creatis Capital, Evercore Partners, Dana Investment, Paradigm Global Group, Tiger Global Management, and Patagonia, Inc. (also a Pressley donor—maybe that’s why they’re all so fashionable). For Tlaib: Fedex, Boeing, AT&T, Evercore, the End Citizens United PAC, East Bridge Capital, Microsoft, and the commercial real estate IDS Real Estate Group. Indeed, irrespective of their “wokeness” or sass quotient, it appears the saucy Congresswomen are, as we expected, nothing but mouthpieces for multi-nationals and global capital. Insert “color-blind” joke here. Donald Trump, however, is not. From the Times of Israel:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman from Texas, tweeted: “When he calls 6 members of Congress — all women of color or Jewish — ‘savages,’ he wants you to think of them as less than human. Like when he calls immigrants an ‘infestation’ and says ‘no human being’ would want to live in Baltimore.’ We can’t be surprised when violence follows.”

Thank you, Robert Francis. Thank also his donation sources Sanchez Oil & Gas (O’Rourke has publicly supported the Green New Deal), Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Cisco Systems, the Blackstone Group, Amazon, the US Army, and the University of Texas. Alluded to but unmentioned are Elijah Cummings, Jerrold Nadler, and Adam Schiff. Schiff, recipient of WilmerHale campaign donations (as is Maine Senator Susan Collins), has also received money from PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which spawned Cortez donor Selendy & Gay, as well as Paloma Partners, Soros Fund Management, Raytheon,[3] DLA Piper, Georgetown University, Cisco Systems, Disney, Saban Capital Group, the University of California-Berkeley, Chelsea Handler Inc., Lauder Partners, the Federal Reserve System, Stanford University, Warburg Pincus, Lockheed Martin, the Council on Foreign Relations, Northrop Grumman, Point72 Asset Management (Steven A. Cohen’s Point72 was founded in 2014 as the successor to SAC Capital the year after the firm pleaded guilty to federal insider trading charges, paid a $1.8 billion fine, was given a five-year probation, was required to hire an outside monitor, and was ordered to terminate managing money for outside investors), Google, Amazon, WarnerMedia, and AT&T. Schiff and Nadler have also received funds from Alphabet Inc. (organizational PAC donations plus donations from affiliated individuals), as has “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, with Alphabet (only donations from affiliated individuals) forming his largest donor source ahead of PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with AT&T, Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Kaiser Permanente, McKinsey, Harvard University, Facebook, Apple, and the Blackstone Group.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational created through a corporate restructuring of Google and is now the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. Alphabet Inc. organizational PAC donations and/or affiliated individuals’ donations have gone to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley, plus over $200,000 to Elizabeth Warren, over $160,000 to Bernie Sanders, $120,000 to Kamala Harris, $60,000 to Andrew Yang, nearly $60,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $37,000 to Cory Booker, over $34,000 to Joe Biden, over $24,000 to Beto O’Rourke, and over $23,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in this election cycle thus far, as well as Tulsi Gabbard (sigh), Nancy Pelosi, Ro Khanna, Mike Levin, Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, Eric Swalwell, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Ted Lieu, Jared Golden (featured in my Maine pieces), John Lewis, Hank Johnson, Xochitl Torres Small, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy III, Jon Ossoff, Aisha Wahab, Nabilah Islam (it should be noted Islam is a Program Associate for the Land, Water, and Climate Justice team for the American Jewish World Service organization[4]), and a slew of PACs. Lest you think, like Israel, there isn’t strong bi-partisan support for the megalopoly that is Alphabet Inc., the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees have received funds from Alphabet Inc. sources in this election cycle, as have individual candidates Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, Mike Lee, Mitch McConnell, Steve Scalise, Tim Scott, David Perdue, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Justin Amash (now “Independent”), and…Donald Trump.

Alphabet Inc. as an institution, including affiliates (organizational PAC donations plus donations from affiliated individuals) dispensed over $5.5 million in the 2018 election cycle, including almost $85,000 to Maine Congressional candidate Jared Golden, another vociferous supporter of the Green New Deal, $16,000 to Maine Senatorial incumbent Angus King, and almost a quarter of a million dollars to Beto O’Rourke in his unsuccessful bid to unseat Ted Cruz in Texas.

Alphabet Inc. also has deep ties to numerous Jewish organizations, not least of which is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and other technology companies work with the ADL on the “Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab” and the Best Practices for Challenging Cyberhate. Google subsidiary YouTube has tasked the ADL with filtering out and banning “extremist content” from its platform. Further, as Corinne Weaver writes:

George Soros, Google, and the ADL all have something in common: they all take interest in “white nationalism” online. Google sent an interesting representative to the hearing on “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” on April 9. Alexandria Walden, Google’s Counsel on Free Expression and Human Rights, was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman as a former Center for American Progress employee. The center is a liberal non-profit that was founded by President Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta, and funded by liberal billionaire George Soros… Google already had a friend at the hearing, however. Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-New York) tweeted on April 8 that he was “Honored to join #GrowwithGoogle for its launch with partners @GoodwillNYNJ @HudsonGuild @galeabrewer & others.” According to OpenSecrets.org, Nadler’s top donor for his 2018 campaign was Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which donated $26,000. Google is a major landlord and employer in Nadler’s district…The spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League, Eileen Hershenov, blamed platforms like Gab and 8chan for being “recruiting grounds for terrorists” and “round the clock white supremacist rallies.” She also stated that the rhetoric of “elected officials and candidates” was encouraging white nationalist crime.[5]

Hershenov’s bona fides include a stint as a law clerk for Jack B. Weinstein in New York’s Eastern District, a Karpatkin Fellow with the ACLU focusing primarily on “women’s rights” and immigration, and as general counsel for George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as his Central European University. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt served as the Director of the Impact Economy Initiative project at the Aspen Institute, which received more $500,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The Aspen Institute is also involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), discussed in The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

Since 1985, when it began tracking “hate groups’” use of online bulletin boards, the ADL has dedicated resources to censoring the internet, espionage, and sharing intelligence with law enforcement and the government (which includes Israel). Who can forget the infamous “HateFilter” the ADL sent to market in 1998? From a November 2017 Omidyar Network[6] press release on the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society:

The ADL…announced new funding for the center from Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar…Earlier this year at the South by Southwest conference, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that the organization was establishing the CTS with a $250,000 seed grant from Omidyar Network. Now up and running, CTS will lead ADL’s efforts to fulfill its civil rights mission in the digital space…Omidyar Network has committed additional funding and will provide $1.5 million to support the Center’s work…The board members are: Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace; Brad Hamm, dean of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University; Shawn Henry, former FBI executive assistant director; Reddit founder and CEO Steve Huffman; James Joaquin, co-founder and managing director of Obvious Ventures; Aileen Lee, Cowboy Ventures; Matt Rogers, Nest founder and chief product officer; Facebook VP of Product Guy Rosen; Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center and professor of law at George Washington University; Jeffrey Saper, vice chair of the global tech law firm Wilson Sonsini;[7] Snapchat’s head of public policy, Micah Shaffer; former Twitter executive Katie Jacobs Stanton, Color Genomics’ chief marketing officer; Anne Washington, a public policy professor at George Mason University who focuses on the social dynamics of information; and Whitney Wolfe, CEO of the dating app Bumble.[8]

What you might find interesting is that Greenblatt and Omidyar have a working relationship that extends back to the early 2000s when Omidyar invested in Greenblatt’s Ethos Water; they eventually sold the company to Starbucks and Greenblatt worked for Howard Schultz as the Vice President for Global Consumer Products. Remember how the ADL was going to do the anti-bias training for Starbucks last year?

The ADL’s CTS also has entered into a fellowship program sponsored by the Robert A. and Renee E. Belfer Family Foundation.[9] The Belfer fortune is from “an oil empire that is now in its third generation.” Per Inside Philanthropy, the Jewish Belfers:

Have recently shown a major concern with cybersecurity. To that end, they recently gave a $15 million gift to the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School to establish the Cyber Security Project, which “seeks to help create the conceptual arsenal” for strategists to confront cyber threats.[10]

One of the three inaugural fellows is Samuel Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, who works with Jigsaw, Google’s think tank.[11] The Center also has joined forces with UC Berkeley’s D-Lab to create the Online Hate Index. In June:

The ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), Moonshot CVE and the Gen Next Foundation…announced a partnership to counter white supremacist and jihadist activity online. The program, dubbed the Redirect Method, will use advertising to redirect individuals who search online for violent extremist material to content that exposes the falsehoods of extremist narratives and directs searchers to non-violent content. This new effort borrows from best practices Moonshot CVE developed with Google for ISIS-related searches, and builds on the previous deployment of the Redirect Method USA – which the RAND Corporation found showed promise – in partnership with the Gen Next Foundation.[12]

Yasmin Green works with the ADL and is the Director of Research and Development for Jigsaw, a unit within Alphabet Inc., and was previously Head of Strategy and Operations for Google Ideas. Green launched the Redirect Method, born out of a partnership in 2016 among Google’s Jigsaw tech incubator, the Google-backed London-based Moonshot start-up, and the U.S.-based Gen Next Foundation. Edward C. Baig reports what the project will look like in practice:

If a person on the fringe, or in some pre-radicalization mode, enters a search query asking, “Is it true that the Mossad took down the World Trade Center?” the counternarrative reflected in a top search result would direct the person to a place that would make it clear that that was just an unfounded conspiracy theory. A search on “I want to join the KKK” could lead to a search result and link that says that “No race should be superior. Make up your own mind. Browse our playlist to find out more.”[13]

Rather rich coming from the self-proclaimed “God’s Chosen People,” don’t you think?

Incidentally, every single Democratic candidate for president who has received funds from Alphabet Inc. has also endorsed the Green New Deal, notable—beyond its infeasibility and general ridiculousness—for its preoccupation with “carbon emissions.” I’ve written numerous times that if carbon emissions were a problem, the solutions are actually rather straightforward: curtail mass migration, focus on localized trade and sustainability and re-structure the economy so productive people don’t have to commute (gulp!), and simply plant more trees! There’s no money in that in the current system, obviously, but it does beg the question: why carbon, especially when fossil fuels produce such massive revenues?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the alternatives so far have been wildly inefficient and sorely lacking. As with the whole “climate change” manufactured hysteria in general, this is about resource consolidation and speculation first and foremost, but there are other key reasons as well, ranging from the propagandistic—fewer white babies to save climate while guilty Western nations must also accept millions of African “climate change refugees”—to the “proprietary.” “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall,” said Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital and former power trader at Enron. The carbon-trading market, masquerading as “environmentalism,” does nothing positive for the environment nor does it even address the “problem” of carbon emissions. From Bank Track:

Carbon trading, especially through banks’ proprietary trading desks, is a way for banks to make money from money, without contributing new capital towards solving climate change.[14]

The term “Green New Deal” was first used by the Jewish Thomas Friedman in January 2007 and the United Nations Environment Program began to promote the concept in 2008. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, IKEA, Coca-Cola, and GM have publicly backed the “renewable” plank of the Green New Deal. But what are the specifics? They’re sorely lacking. We all know about greenwashing, the term activists developed to describe the corporate practice of claiming that self-serving policies and harmful products are environmentally-friendly. As with “equality,” “inclusion,” and the other plethora of Cultural Bolshevist concepts, most of this rhetoric regarding “sustainability” and the like is a smoke-screen for power and profit, most of which tends to accrue to a certain ethno-religious group and their sycophants. Regarding “greenwashing,” Katharine Schwab writes:

The International Monetary Fund estimates the collective worth of Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft at $3.5 trillion, more than the GDP of the United Kingdom…Google and Apple claim to be completely carbon neutral: Apple says all its facilities are powered entirely by renewable energy, while Google has become the world’s largest buyer of renewable energy to offset its energy costs… A story in Gizmodo in February 2019 revealed how Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are helping to “automate” the climate crisis by providing big oil companies with the technological tools to streamline their operations and help them find even more oil.[15]

Not exactly “sustainable,” but if these major companies are set on a “zero emissions” US economy by 2030, they’ll need a whole lot of solar panels, and that will require a massive energy expenditure. As Jasper Bernes writes:

From space, the Bayan Obo mine in China, where 70 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are extracted and refined, almost looks like a painting. The paisleys of the radioactive tailings ponds, miles long, concentrate the hidden colors of the earth: mineral aquamarines and ochres of the sort a painter might employ to flatter the rulers of a dying empire…Dotted with “death villages” where crops will not fruit, the region of Inner Mongolia where the Bayan Obo mine is located displays Chernobylesque cancer rates…To meet the demands of the Green New Deal, which proposes to convert the US economy to zero emissions, renewable power by 2030, there will be a lot more of these mines gouged into the crust of the earth. That’s because nearly every renewable energy source depends upon non-renewable and frequently hard-to-access minerals: solar panels use indium, turbines use neodymium, batteries use lithium, and all require kilotons of steel, tin, silver, and copper. The renewable-energy supply chain is a complicated hopscotch around the periodic table and around the world. To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany. Many of the most efficient, direct-drive wind turbines require a couple pounds of the rare-earth metal neodymium, and there’s 140 pounds of lithium in each Tesla…It takes energy to get those minerals out of the ground, energy to shape them into batteries and photovoltaic solar panels and giant rotors for windmills, energy to dispose of them when they wear out. Mines are worked, primarily, by gas-burning vehicles. The container ships that cross the world’s seas bearing the good freight of renewables burn so much fuel they are responsible for 3 percent of planetary emissions…Mines require a massive outlay of investment up front, and they typically feature low return on investment, except during the sort of commodity boom we can expect a Green New Deal to produce.[16]

Ah, there it is. There will be a commodity boom and there will need to be more cheap labor to manufacture and distribute the commodities. One of the primary goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to “combat climate change” is to “prevent labour market exclusion” and “ensure…openness,” meaning no impediments to the movement of labor across international boundaries, which is obviously at odds with lowering humans’ carbon footprint. This will naturally keep labor costs low and destroy social cohesion, which is essential to the maintenance and expansion of neo-liberalism. From the European Union to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it starts with “intra-regional labor mobility”[17] and ends with mass migrations, particularly from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is expected by some measures to quadruple by the end of the century. 70,000 arrived in Malaysia—Malaysia—alone in 2012: “Malaysia is now a country of asylum for forced migrants originating from Angola, Burundi, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Algeria, Guinea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Rwanda and Senegal.”[18]

Beyond the need for cheap labor, there will need to be more markets beyond just the United States to purchase these products as the United Nations and the complicit globalist establishment hammers us with propaganda about the need for “global solutions in an increasingly global world”—which is precisely the root of the problem.

In terms of catering to these “new markets,” the Omidyar Network has facilitated partnerships between oil companies like Shell looking to diversify with their New Energies division and d.light, a solar energy company launched at Stanford University aimed at opening up the “developing world” market:

Shell’s New Energies business was created in 2016 and focuses on two main areas: new fuels for transport, such as advanced biofuels and hydrogen; and power, which includes low-carbon sources such as wind and solar. Within the power portfolio, Shell is also actively pursuing commercial opportunities to invest in energy access solutions in Africa and Asia. The New Energies business is supported by Shell Ventures B.V., the corporate venture capital arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (“Shell”)…Shell Vice President Energy Solutions Brian Davis said, “We are impressed by d.light’s track record in meeting evolving customer needs for access to electricity across both Africa and Asia. Their experienced team has developed efficient sales and distribution channels in these markets and continues to expand their product range. We look forward to supporting d.light to realize its growth ambitions. With this latest investment, Shell takes a step closer to meeting its ambition to provide a reliable electricity supply to 100 million people in the developing world by 2030.”[19]

Blue Haven Initiatives is pursuing a similar strategy. Blue Haven Senior Advisor Chad Larson is the co-founder of M-Kopa, a pay-as-you-go solar company based in Kenya. As an answer to the deep corruption and unreliable electrical grid in Kenya, M-Kopa profits off of selling the panels to the rural poor and extending lines of credit to them in order to afford the attendant kit of batteries, bulbs, et cetera. The kit also includes a SIM card that “can communicate with M-Kopa headquarters in Nairobi. When a customer has made a payment via mobile phone, the SIM card sends a signal to activate the battery, which is powered by the panels.”[20] This inter-connectedness is central to the profit-multiplying effect of these companies, firms, and organizations working in tandem. As Stephan Faris writes:

In 2007 the Kenyan mobile operator Safaricom launched a service called M-Pesa, allowing customers to use a phone to send cash. Originally intended as a way to help microfinance borrowers make and repay loans, M-Pesa was rapidly adopted for everything from salaries to taxi rides, bringing banking to people who were miles from physical bank branches. Today about a third of the Kenyan economy flits across Safaricom’s airwaves, and 82 percent of Kenyan adults have a mobile phone…Slogans hand-painted on concrete buildings hawk the power of the Internet in the service of selling smartphones: “Take Google With You” and “You Are Not on Facebook?”… It was [M-Kopa co-founder Nick] Hughes, when he was an executive at Vodafone—which owns 40 percent of Safaricom—who first came up with the idea that would become M-Pesa. M-Kopa’s director of operations, Pauline Vaughan, was in charge of the mobile-money service during its early years.[21]

As M-Kopa grows its market, it will need more employees, and another senior advisor, Paul Breloff is there as CEO of Shortlist, “a recruiting technology startup transforming how talent meets opportunity in emerging markets…Shortlist is on a mission…source and screen great job-seekers for growing, purposeful companies across India and East Africa.” The market growth is intended to be inter-connected, multi-faceted, and exponential:

“If you take the long-term view and if you treat low-income people as customers…you can change the world,” [co-founder Jesse] Moore says…Once M-Kopa has a customer, it works hard to sell him more products on installment. “Your anchor product is clean energy, and then you build a finance relationship,” Hughes says…M-Kopa also sells Samsung smartphones and offers loans to pay for school fees…The interest M-Kopa charges is high by U.S. or European standards. The cash price of one of its products is about 20 percent less than the installment price. But in the markets where the company’s working—so far, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—the rates are competitive. Traditional microfinance companies typically charge about 20 percent interest on their loans…In November [2015], M-Kopa received a clear vote of confidence when it completed a $19 million investment round, including $10 million from Generation Investment Management, a fund co-founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore that’s also invested in SolarCity, the biggest U.S. rooftop solar installer, and digital thermostat maker Nest Labs.[22] “We think they have the potential of being a multibillion-dollar African success story,” says Colin le Duc, GIM’s head of research. Other investors in the round included Virgin’s Richard Branson and AOL co-founder Steve Case.[23]

Superficially it all sounds great—feel virtuous, make money, and save the planet, but the reality, as is virtually always the case with any ruling-class-hatched scheme, is the opposite: not just grim and ugly, but deadly. Concluding with Jasper Bernes:

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it promises to change everything while keeping everything the same… The appeal is obvious but the combination impossible…The Green New Deal…thinks you can keep capitalism, keep growth, but remove the deleterious consequences. The death villages are here to tell you that you can’t. No roses will bloom on that bush.[24]

Every rose doesn’t even get the chance to have its thorn.


[1] For more on Akin, Gump, et al. see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII, XIV, and XVI.

[2] For more on DLA Piper, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII and XV.

[3] For more on Raytheon, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. III, IV, and XIII.

[4] “As the only American Jewish organization solely dedicated to ending poverty and advocating for human rights in the developing world, AJWS partners with Jewish leaders to shape policies that will help people in the developing world… In our current political climate, many U.S. policies have harmful effects on millions of people who live far beyond our national borders. For example, the recent expansion of the ‘Global Gag Rule’—a policy that blocks U.S. federal funding to international organizations that provide abortions or abortion-related services to their patients—is an assault on the human rights of women, girls and LGBTI people.”

[5] https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/04/09/google-sends-former-soros-funded-employee-white

[6] For more on the Omidyar Network, see The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

[7] Saper is also a national commissioner for the ADL.

[8] https://www.omidyar.com/news/leading-tech-platforms-and-cyber-experts-join-new-adl-advisory-board-clamp-down-online-hate

[9] “FUNDING AREAS: Arts, Education, Health and Jewish causes…In 1992, Robert founded Belco Oil & Gas Corp., a leading independent producer of domestic oil and gas. Belfer is currently chairman of Belfer Management LLC, a private investment firm. Belfer took a big financial hit a while back, losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million because of shares he held in Enron…Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University also received more than $120,000 from the foundation in the past. The foundation is also passionate about Jewish causes. They’ve given more than $86,000 recently to the American Jewish Committee. Central Synagogue, the UJA Federation of New York and Columbia Barnard Hilel have all received funds from in recent years.” https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[10] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[11] “His fellowship project will work to understand how political bots and algorithms have been leveraged to target the Jewish community and use this understanding to find ways to counter this bias.” https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adls-center-for-technology-and-society-announces-first-class-of-belfer-fellows

[12] https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-and-partners-counter-white-supremacists-online-through-google-search

[13] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/06/24/adl-fighting-kkk-jihadism-by-redirecting-online-searches/1437331001/

[14] Regarding carbon trading, I’ve written more on the subject, which you can read here.

[15] https://www.fastcompany.com/90363968/what-big-tech-has-to-learn-from-the-green-new-deal

[16] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

[17] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/southeast-asia-realising-importance-high-skilled-immigration/

[18] https://www.boell.de/en/2017/08/02/future-forced-migrants-asean

[19] https://www.dlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Shell-Press-Release_FINAL-FOR-PUBLICATION.pdf

[20] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[21] Ibid.

[22] Nest Labs was acquired by Google in January 2014.

[23] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[24] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

 

Jeremy’s Jackboots: Even More Jewish Hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party

“Gobsmacked” is a good English word that’s gaining ground in America, I’ve read. If it’s not familiar to you, it means “very surprised or otherwise affected,” like someone who has been unexpectedly smacked in the gob, or mouth. I’ve recently been gobsmacked not once but twice by a Scottish journalist called Stephen Daisley.

Corbyn’s a monster, Blair’s a mensch

My first gobsmacking from Daisley came when I read this article by him in the cuckservative Spectator:

A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism

The Labour party (1900 – 2015) is dead. It died the day a majority of members, £3 and otherwise, voted to make their leader a man already plainly drenched in the moral sewage of anti-Semitism. The Labour party (2015 – ) is Corbyn’s party and if the famous centrists are working to preserve any party, it is that one. They might eventually salvage something out of it — Corbynism without Corbyn — but they will remain culpable for his actions until then.

Every vote for Labour is a vote for Corbyn. Every leaflet delivered is a two-fingered salute to British Jews. Every door knocked is a declaration: this is who I am and this is my tribe. You can campaign for Labour and vote for Labour without being an anti-Semite but in doing either you announce that you have reached an accommodation with anti-Semitism. Colluding in the organisation of politics against the Jews is worth it to get the railways renationalised.

The Labour party is going to fail the anti-Semitism test and the country might too. (A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism, The Spectator, 29th October 2019)

As you can see, Daisley thinks that Jeremy Corbyn (often nicknamed Jezza) killed the Labour party by becoming its leader in 2015. Obviously, then, Daisley also thinks that Labour was alive and well under the leadership of Tony Blair. You remember Blair, don’t you? He’s the devious narcissist who lied the UK into a disastrous war in Iraq that killed huge numbers of innocent people and that directly led to the rise of the head-choppers and sex-slavers of Islamic State. Blair also nefariously opened Britain’s borders to migrants not just from Eastern Europe, who undercut the wages of Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but also from the Third World, who set about raping and sexually enslaving the daughters of those traditional Labour supporters.

Porcine punims

Having left office after these crimes, Blair began piling up a vast fortune (now possibly well north of £100 million) as he was rewarded by the greedy and amoral globalists for whom he had worked so hard as prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed Blair’s Iraq disaster and is not interested in money or material possessions. Yet it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who’s “drenched” in “moral sewage,” and it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who “killed” the Labour party – according to Stephen Daisley. And this brings me to the second gobsmacking I’ve received from Daisley. I looked for photographs of him and found these:

The porcine punim of Stephen Daisley

The porcine punim again

I have never seen a more porcine and less trustworthy punim (which is Yiddish for “face”). And I doubt I ever will. Daisley looks as though he’s in training to play the role of the giant slug-like villain Jabba the Hutt in a remake of one of those old Star Wars movies. But I’m glad Daisley looks like that, because it means his punim is as repulsive as his ideology. I’m no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, believe me. But clearly he’s a far less immoral person than Tony Blair and has been responsible for far less evil in the world. Corbyn opposes war and the military-industrial complex. Blair supports war and has grown rich by working for the military-industrial complex. Read more

“A necessidade do antissemitismo”

 Um abismo sempre existiu entre europeus e semitas, desde quando Tácito reclamou do “odium generis humani”.
(Heinrich von TREITSCHKE)

Em 1989, o roteirista e jornalista judeu Frederic Raphael foi convidado a proferir palestra no Instituto Parkes de Pesquisa das Relações entre Judeus e Não Judeus, pertencente à Universidade de Southampton, por ocasião do 25º aniversário desse Instituto. Fundado pelo pastor Dr James Parkes (1896–1981), um neurótico ministro da Igreja Anglicana que dedicou sua vida a promover o filossemitismo no seio da Cristandade e narrativas autoinculpantes entre os cristãos (em 1935 ele era celebrado pelos judeus e sofreu tentativa de assassinato da parte dos nacional-socialistas), o tal Instituto logo se converteu num centro de propaganda judaica disfarçado de instituição acadêmica. Em vez de oferecer análises objetivas sobre as relações de judeus com não judeus, o dito Instituto fomentava as manjadas narrativas de que os judeus eram vítimas inocentes do catastrófico e completamente irracional ódio europeu. Raphael, sentindo-se honrado como orador na comemoração dos 25 anos do projeto, houve por bem apelar à provocação e ao sarcasmo nesse evento. Assim, ele escolheu a frase “A necessidade do antissemitismo” como título do seu discurso.  “Poderia ser o título de um livro”, disse Raphael, “e esse livro poderia estar na biblioteca do Instituto Parkes, a não ser pelo fato de que tal livro nunca foi escrito, não existe”, completou ele.

Na tortuosa exposição que se seguiu, Raphael falou dos supostos conteúdos desse livro imaginário, sugerindo seus potenciais argumentos e o que eles revelariam sobre seu autor e sobre a cultura europeia. Confirmando a opinião de todos os presentes, Raphael disse estar certo de que esse livro espectral e perturbador, embora não existisse, seria produto assombroso que não estaria fora de lugar num continente onde o antissemitismo era “premissa permanente e fundamental da tenebrosa e irregenerada lógica da Europa”.[1] Para Raphael e sua presunçosa audiência, A necessidade do antissemitismo serviria apenas de justificação para a cabeça doente do europeu. O antissemitismo seria então, de fato, extremamente ilógico e, num sentido moral, completamente desnecessário.

Desde que li o discurso de Raphael vários anos atrás, A necessidade do antissemitismo também me deixou assombrado num certo sentido. Não existe livro que corresponda a esse título, conforme dissemos. Entretanto, milhares de tratados, panfletos e livros com esse mesmo teor terão sido escritos sobre a Questão Judia por autores europeus ao longo de muitos séculos. Nessa literatura  de apologia antissemítica, A necessidade do antissemitismo estará presente nas várias modalidades de diferentes perspectivas religiosas, políticas e sociais.  Mas como seria o livro se de fato fosse escrito hoje? Como poderia um autor tratar dos vários aspectos da Questão Judia num único volume? No ensaio que se segue, em parte literário, em parte historiográfico, eu quero que nos juntemos a Raphael na suposição de que o livro fantasmal exista realmente, embora nós o vejamos de um ponto de vista contrário.

Eu imagino que nosso autor faça a introdução do seu volume explanando em termos gerais A necessidade do antissemitismo, apontando a presença dos judeus e de sua influência nas quatro culturas fundamentais que levaram ao declínio branco. Nomeadamente: a cultura da crítica, a cultura da tolerância, a cultura da esterilidade e a cultura da usura.

A cultura da crítica

O capítulo intitulado “A cultura da crítica” é uma piscadela dada a Kevin MacDonald e, também, uma ampliação do trabalho dele. Começando esse capítulo, nosso autor recordaria a famosa observação do historiador judeu Louis Namier (1888-1960), quando lhe perguntaram por que ele não se ocupava da história judaica: “Os judeus não têm uma história, eles têm um martirológio”. Este martirológio é o que jaz no coração da cultura da crítica. Enquanto quase toda nação tem uma história objetiva sob muitos aspectos, só os judeus possuem uma simples semi-história eivada de míticos e esotéricos autoenganos que dão permissão psicológica para os comportamentos sociais mais tribais e subversivos e para as atitudes mais hostis para com outros povos. A cultura da crítica, uma espécie de vingança cultural inspirada no martirológio judaico, é a mais clara expressão da corrosiva natureza das desastrosas relações de judeus com não judeus, as quais o reverendo James Parkes pranteia em desgraçado engano.

Na cabeça do judeu, a corrosiva natureza de sua interação com os povos europeus sempre foi pensada como algo de aspecto heroico. Uma farsa é representada para os próprios judeus, assim como para nós, de sorte que vejamos nessa interação um excepcional e virtuoso questionamento da parte de críticos infiltrados, como de outros do lado de fora, unicamente posicionados para cumprir a providencial finalidade de denunciar as mazelas da cultura ocidental. Os judeus acreditam possuir especiais talentos quanto a isso — talvez possuam mesmo, em certo sentido perverso — mas em todo caso, na grande dissimulação deles, eles estão nos dissolvendo “para o nosso próprio bem”. David Dresser and Lester Friedman, acadêmicos judeus da mídia, argumentam que os cineastas judeus possuem uma singular e indefectível objetividade, a qual atribuem ao seu judaísmo. Eles escrevem que “A marginalidade dos artistas judeus dá-lhes um ponto de vista privilegiado que outros pensadores criativos mais culturalmente integrados não têm”.[2] Isso bate muito bem com o que disse um escritor no Times of Israel, ao comentar as atividades de um político judeu chamado Alan Shatter, que destruiu as bases jurídicas da família na Irlanda, dando conta de que “o judaísmo de Shatter era uma vantagem, pois o libertava do fardo cultural que pesava sobre os seus homólogos católicos”. Exatamente como a Escola de Francforte, esses heróis culturais conhecem-nos melhor do que nós mesmos, o que torna possível que nos ajudem a perceber o quanto nós somos irracionais, malignos, preconceituosos e necessitados da redenção judaica. Nós estamos sempre sendo advertidos pelos nossos tutores judeus de que os ensinamentos que eles nos ministram servem ao próprio bem do Ocidente. Eles nos libertam de nossa “bagagem”.

Na realidade, o que eles querem com tudo isso é a nossa destruição. A Crítica, a que faltam objetivos coerentes para além da vontade de corromper, não termina nunca. Ela está sempre a procura de novas e puras feições da cultura ocidental para cobrir de lama. O “Discurso do rabino”, uma passagem do romance de Hermann Goedsche intitulado Biarritz, publicado em 1868, é uma obra de ficção, mas muitos fatos e instintos inspiraram seu autor. Numa noite, no cemitério dos judeus de Praga, o rabino de Goedsche dirige uma reunião secreta com os chefes das treze tribos de Israel. Ali ele fez a promessa seguinte: “Nós haveremos de extirpar todas as crenças, toda a fé em tudo o que os nossos inimigos cristãos  respeitaram e veneraram até hoje, nós usaremos o encanto das paixões como arma na guerra aberta que moveremos contra tudo o que até hoje mereceu respeito e veneração”.

O espírito da coisa é esse mesmo, mas nem tudo se passa conforme a sugestão de Goedsche. Não há reuniões clandestinas em cemitérios à meia-noite ou encontros dos sábios de Sião, o que existe, em vez disso, é um instinto coletivo que defende com ânimo cáustico interesses compartilhados. E, na realidade, a cultura da crítica não corresponde a declaração de guerra aberta, senão a trabalho de sapa acobertado pelo disfarce da amizade, da medicina, da libertação. [Franz] Boas minou a confiança na cultura ocidental, enquanto alegava que libertava os ocidentais dos erros e fardos do chovinismo. Freud perverteu tudo o que era sagrado em relação ao sexo e ao casamento, chamando o que fez de “terapia”. Marx chamou os trabalhadores do mundo a que se unissem e conseguiu mesmo uni-los — nas filas de comida, nos gulagues e nas fossas coletivas da Ucrânia, onde morriam à míngua. A guerra foi fragorosa e sanguinariamente travada, mas silenciosa e subversivamente declarada.

Na verdade a guerra não terminou ainda, mesmo que eles já tenham derrubado “tudo o que as pessoas respeitam e veneram”. As igrejas estão infiltradas, foram completamente derrotadas e são ridicularizadas e desprezadas. A história da Cristandade foi colocada no moedor de carne que é o aparato intelectual judaico e dessa máquina ela emerge hoje como uma novela sinistra de perseguição e escravismo. Concha esvaziada de sua pérola, a Igreja agora guarda apenas a tolerância ilimitada. Nem as maiores figuras históricas do Ocidente, mesmo quando avessas à religião, sobreviveram à cultura da crítica. E quando, no apanágio de sua perspicácia, os nossos tutores judeus se cansam de bostejar reputações, eles usam os procuradores de sua etnia e começam a derrubar estátuas, remover nomes e queimar retratos. Nenhum aspecto da cultura ocidental quiseram deixar de pé. Sua ciência, sua filosofia e seus sistemas morais foram vilipendiados, ridicularizados e furiosamente atacados; cada soneto, cada concerto ou avanço tecnológico terá servido — de forma meio obscura, mas decisiva — para a instalação de campos de concentração da Segunda Guerra na Polônia, e dizem com ar de seriedade que nesses lugares os passarinhos não cantam até hoje.

Entretanto, visitei o que restou de um desses campos e, ao contrário do que dizem, os passarinhos cantavam, sim. Não há mistério nenhum lá. A vida continua. As crianças que as escolas mandam para lá riam e rabiscavam velhas portas e camas-beliches, enquanto os adultos mostravam preocupação com a possibilidade de estarem sendo observados, procurando parecer solenes e comovidos em sua frieza e sem-graceira.

Nosso autor teria concordado conosco, indicando no livro A necessidade do antissemitismo que as histórias de campos de concentração são a joia da coroa do martirológio judaico e até mesmo o mecanismo da mais avançada forma da cultura da crítica. Passados quase 55 anos desde que foi escrito, o livro de Jerzy Kosiński intitulado O pássaro pintado volta a ser notícia. Trata-se de suas memórias do tempo da Guerra e desses famosos campos da Polônia. O livro está repleto de estupros de crianças, zoofilia e descrições de extrema violência, como a de olhos humanos que são arrancados para alimentar gatos. Na verdade, a obra é uma grande fraude, já bem desmascarada, um alucinado pastiche das fantasias psicossexuais do próprio Kosiński. Mas nada disso impediu que desse livro fizessem um filme bastante elogiado pelos críticos, mesmo que as pessoas vomitassem vendo as cenas, passassem mal e fossem embora dos cinemas. Possivelmente agora, quando prevalece a cultura da crítica, muitos brancos sintam-se agradecidos por terem sido advertidos de quão malvados eles foram em relação aos judeus, aceitando cada condenação como a dose de um remédio. Joanna Siedlecka, jornalista e biógrafa de autores, estudou a vida de Kosiński, tendo chegado à conclusão de que “[O pássaro pintado] não tem nada a ver com a verdadeira infância de Kosiński; ele inventou aqueles horrores, tendo ele mesmo estado muito bem, enquanto os campônios se arriscavam para homiziar toda a família dele. […] Kosiński ainda é tratado como uma vítima, mesmo que agora saibamos muito mais sobre sua biografia. Sabemos, por exemplo, que os poloneses não o torturaram.”

Em A necessidade do antissemitismo, nosso autor escreveria que o exemplo de Kosiński e os judeus corresponde perfeitamente à relação histórica de judeus com europeus. Alguém que estudasse a história desses dois povos poderia tentar mostrar a realidade da situação e, ainda assim, o judeu “continuaria a ser tratado como vítima”. E esta “vítima” arroga-se a condição de árbitro moral e crítico superior a tudo e todos. Armados com o pastiche histórico sadomasoquista bem próprio deles, os ativistas judeus já passaram da crítica à ação para finalmente vencer a guerra racial. Eles negam isso, dizendo que se trata de pérfida teoria conspiratória. Mas, na realidade, eles fazem lembrar aquela história do irlandês que nega ter roubado um balde, acrescentando a injuriosa crítica de que, de qualquer forma, o balde estava furado. Os judeus negam veementemente que tenham alguma coisa a ver com a decadência da cultura ocidental, acrescentando a injuriosa crítica de que, de qualquer forma, a cultura ocidental é podre, doente, racista, intolerante e irracional. Ao negar sua responsabilidade, os judeus acabam por admiti-la. Essa é a essência da cultura da crítica.

A cultura da tolerância

Este capítulo do livro pode começar com a observação de que a cultura da tolerância é filha da cultura da crítica. Quando é que o judeu começou a convocar os brancos para a autoextinção em seus próprios países? Nosso autor pode responder dizendo que a chamada para a morte começou quando foi da primeira penetração judaica na cultura europeia — não penetração no território europeu, mas na cultura europeia. Não foi Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) celebrado como o primeiro judeu “assimilado”, o primeiro verdadeiro intelectual judeu a desejar ser “parte da cultura germânica”, o primeiro a pregar pela “tolerância”? Ora, para onde é que Mendelssohn, o primeiro “alemão de fé judaica”, queria realmente conduzir os europeus? Não há dúvida quanto a isso, a resposta está nos registros históricos. Ele, sequiosa e descaradamente, perguntava: “Por quanto mais tempo, por quantos milênios a mais, deverá existir essa distinção entre os nativos de uma terra e os estrangeiros? Não seria melhor para a humanidade e a cultura que fosse obliterada tal distinção?” [3][grifo nosso].

Aí está: a primeira intrusão judaica na cultura ocidental consistiu num chamado pela abolição das fronteiras, pela migração e pelo direito de ocupação reconhecido a estrangeiros.

Desde o seu começo, o ativismo judaico na cultura ocidental buscou solapar a posição dos donos da terra e promover a “tolerância”, conforme convinha aos judeus. Considera-se que a obra de Mendelssohn intitulada Sobre o melhoramento civil dos judeus, de 1781, deu significativa contribuição para a ascensão inicial da “tolerância” na cultura ocidental. Entretanto, a palavra “Tolerância” tem certa acepção que a propaganda esconde. No campo semântico da medicina, essa curiosa palavra significa “O estado imunológico caracterizado pela ausência de resposta a toxina específica ou substância estranha que induz uma imunorreação no organismo, especialmente a produção de anticorpos.”

Não seria isso exatamente o que Mendelssohn preconizou quase 250 anos atrás, ou seja, que os donos da terra sofressem de imunodepressão, que ficassem sem defesa imunológica, mesmo quando toxinas se infiltrassem em seu corpo? Devemos perguntar como a tolerância acabou sendo considerada uma virtude. A resposta é a seguinte: a tolerância tornou-se virtude por força da intrusão judia na cultura ocidental.

Agora a cultura da tolerância já conta mais que dois séculos. Ela amadureceu lentamente, mas não há dúvida de que já chegou à maioridade. O trabalho de Kevin MacDonald demonstrou cabalmente que grupos organizados de judeus financiaram e realizaram a maioria dos trabalhos destinados a derrubar a lei americana da imigração de 1924, que finalmente caiu em 1965. Brenton Sanderson também revelou que os movimentos intelectuais e os ativismos etnopolíticos judeus foram a razão principal para o encerramento da política da Austrália branca — uma mudança política a que se opunha a vasta maioria da população australiana. Eu tenho escrito sobre quão conspícua foi a participação judia nas dramáticas mudanças das leis britânicas sobre cidadania, raça e censura desde 1950 até 1990. Um ministro da Justiça judeu mudou o processo de naturalização de estrangeiros na Irlanda, escancarando o país para africanos e paquistaneses. Atualmente os judeus dominam as ongues por trás das migrações de massa, comprovadamente detendo cargos executivos nas entidades seguintes: International Rescue Committee, International Refugee Assistance Project, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Immigration Justice Center, Equal Justice Works, The Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Law Center, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, the Asylum Advocacy Project, Refugee Council USA, the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, The Immigrant Learning Center, the Open Avenues Foundation, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, Central American Legal Assistance, Halifax Refugee Clinic e a UK Refugee Law Initiative. Aliás, o conselheiro de política para a imigração da Conferência dos Bispos Católicos dos Estados Unidos não é um católico, mas uma mulher judia.

A emigração de massa do Terceiro Mundo para o Ocidente, para a Europa, especialmente, resulta de um projeto judeu. Este projeto é administrado por judeus, promovido por judeus, explicado e justificado por judeus. Ele tem por causa a necessidade judia — tão antiga quanto o livro de Mendelssohn, se não mais antiga — de defraudar os donos da terra e entregar o solo a estrangeiros em nome de tolerância.

Tal qual fizeram com a cultura da crítica, os judeus oferecem-nos a cultura da tolerância como se por gesto de amizade. Com largos sorrisos e verbosidade melíflua, eles garantem que estaríamos perdidos se não eliminássemos “a distinção entre os donos da terra e os estrangeiros”. Afinal de contas, não é que, felizmente, fomos admoestados sobre o desvalor, a imoralidade, o chovinismo, a corrupção, a falsidade de nossa cultura? Por que não importarmos novas e mais vibrantes culturas? Assim nós poderíamos viver uma vida mais excitante e, melhor ainda, provaríamos que somos moralmente dignos da aceitação por parte dos nossos amigos judeus, os inocentes mártires da humanidade. E devemos acatar as advertências deles, porque o que dizem faz todo o sentido. Afinal de contas, nós precisamos dos desempregados africanos para pagar nossas pensões, precisamos dos terroristas islâmicos para cuidar das nossas populações envelhecidas, precisamos de milhões de imigrantes a mais para resolver o nosso problema de falta de moradia. Nós precisamos de uma maré de trabalho barato para aumentar os nossos salários. Nós precisamos de gente despreparada nos hospitais para fazer cirurgias, recuperar nossa saúde e cometer crimes sexuais. Nós precisamos tolerar a burca para demonstrar quão profundo é o feminismo da nossa sociedade. Nós precisamos expressar o nosso patriotismo, negando que existamos como um povo. Nós precisamos de mais mordaças na lei para garantir o direito à livre expressão. E, mais importante do que tudo, nós precisamos combater o racismo na nossa sociedade para levar a raça branca à extinção em todo lugar.

Nossos prestimosos amigos valem-se de meios diversos para nos passar esse tipo de “orientação”. Na sua “generosidade”, eles lançam sobre nós um bombardeio de lixo televisivo, retratando o multiculturalismo assim como ele não é na realidade. A mágica cinematográfica judaica é uma forma de alquimia cultural. A criminalidade e a hipossuficiência acadêmica dos negros são levadas ao laboratório de Hollywood e, então, assaltantes e estupradores transformam-se em personagens da elite intelectual sob assédio amoroso de ninfas loiras. Alternativamente, Hollywood toma a estabilidade e a tranquilidade das famílias da classe média branca e, então, seus lares demudam-se num antro claustrofóbico de neurose, intolerância e repressão.

Quando num estado de espírito menos generoso, nossos amigos judeus arrogam-se o direito de manipular o currículo escolar de nossos filhos; mas, quando contrariados, ficam furiosos, então cassam o direito à liberdade de expressão e mandam desafetos para a cadeia. Por outro lado, se alguém tentar coibir alguma prática cultural judia, proscrevendo, por exemplo, o rito tribal da circuncisão, eles revidam com algumas das outras armas de sua panóplia: a chantagem, a calúnia, a implacável guerra econômica, conforme ficou demonstrado quando a soberana nação da Islândia sofreu ameaças da ADL. Isso que se passou na Islândia lembra-nos da história do irlandês e do balde. Os judeus negam que tenham influência excessiva, mas acrescentam que, se nalgum país alguém repetir a acusação, o exclusivo clube dos judeus em Nova Iorque deixará esse país de joelhos diante deles.

Embora a cultura da tolerância siga fazendo as cabeças com força total, os judeus ainda não conseguiram resolver o problema de como evitar que crianças brancas continuem a nascer. Nesta altura nosso autor começaria o terceiro capítulo de seu livro.

A cultura da esterilidade

Em toda parte os judeus estão por trás da cultura da esterilidade. Esta é uma expressão adequada para designar o que eminentes estudiosos referem como o “rápido declínio” da natalidade na maioria dos países europeus.[4] Nosso autor iria inicialmente citar o fato de que o contraceptivo oral foi criado pelo judeu Gregory Goodwin Pincus, mas na realidade os judeus de muitos países do Ocidente foram os “pioneiros da indústria clandestina de contraceptivos”, no dizer do historiador judeu Howard Sachar.[5] Por algum plano, coordenação ou simples instinto, os judeus concentraram-se em áreas hostis à natalidade dos brancos, como a contracepção, o aborto, as leis do divórcio, a promoção da pornografia, a homossexualidade, a confusão de gêneros, a promiscuidade.

De acordo com certo estudioso, a relação daqueles na vanguarda das clínicas de aborto, da literatura de prevenção da gravidez para casais, das medidas políticas de controle da natalidade nos Estados Unidos inclui os nomes seguintes: “Anna Samuelson no Bronx; Olga Ginzburg e Rachelle Yarros em Chicago; Sarah Marcus em Cleveland; Nadine Kavinoky e Rochelle Seletz em Los Angeles; Esther Cohen e Golda Nobel na Philadelphia; Hannah Stone, Marie Warner, Cheri Appel, Anna Spielgeman, Naomi Yarmolinsky e Bessie Moses em Baltimore; Elizabeth Kleinman em Boston; Lena Levine em Nova Iorque, Hannah Seitzwick-Robbins em Trento; e Lucile Lord-Heinstein em Massachusetts”.[6] Todas essas mulheres eram judias. Hannah Stone foi especialmente influente, trabalhando em ligação com [Margaret] Sanger, escreveu textos importantes sobre planejamento familiar, como Contraceptive methods of choice (1926), Therapeutic contraception (1928), Contraception and mental hygiene (1933), e Birth control: a practical survey (1937).

Desde 1920 até 1940, Margaret Sanger emprestou sua face de não judia para os movimentos em favor do aborto e da contracepção em Nova Iorque, tendo como seu principal advogado o judeu Morris Ernst. E quando Sanger decidiu patrocinar a legislação federal de controle da natalidade, ela escreveu ao rabino Stephen Wise, em 1931, solicitando a ele que se valesse da influência política judia e de sua própria lista bem extensa de contatos políticos para ajudá-la nesse intento, ao que o rabino respondeu alegremente, prontificando-se para dar conta da honrosa incumbência.[7] Sanger, é claro, casar-se-ia com um judeu e, segundo seu biógrafo, “encerrou-se em círculo de colegas e amigos judeus”.[8] 

Com efeito, a influência judia liga-se tão estreitamente às origens do aborto nos Estados Unidos que o historiador Daniel K. Williams caracterizou o debate sobre o aborto na década a partir de 1930 como um conflito religioso, observando que  “Quase todos os médicos que argumentavam contra o aborto eram católicos, enquanto os outros que arrazoavam sua legalização eram quase todos judeus”. [9] Williams refere ainda o fato de que “Os rabinos do judaísmo reformista foram os primeiros capitães do movimento a favor da lei de liberação do aborto”.[10] A ligação entre organizações judias e outras partes ainda mais sórdidas do submundo da profissão médica — nas quais, aliás, os judeus eram dominantes — tornou-se meridianamente clara durante as investigações de abortos ilegais em Nova Iorque, nas duas décadas desde 1940, conforme o historiador Leslie J. Reagan.[11] Quando Pincus criou a sua pílula, ele sabia que a sociedade poderia associar o antinatalismo ao ativismo judeu. Então, a fim de evitar o perigo do “estigma antissemita”, ele escolheu John Rock, que era católico, para desenvolver um regime anticoncepcional para a mulher, poupando desse encargo os judeus Abraham Stone e Alan Guttmacher, seus colegas de longa data e chefes do movimento antinatalista.[12]

Situações análogas ocorreram em todas as outras nações ocidentais. Alan Shatter decerto atuou como chefe da propaganda do anticoncepcionismo na Irlanda dos anos setentas, mas um século antes das ações de Shatter um membro do clero irlandês reportava o seguinte:

Um judeu chegou de caminhão à cidade […] e ele começou a vender instrumentos abortivos disfarçados de porta-lápis. […] O prior foi informado do negócio ilícito. […] Ele avisou a polícia, que não pôde fazer nada. Então ele mesmo improvisou uma corte, que julgou o delinquente, aplicando-lhe multa de 10 libras. O judeu pagou a multa e escafedeu-se. [13]

Em Nova Iorque, judeus como Moses Jacobi e Morris Glattstine eram especialmente influentes e notórios no mercado clandestino das ferramentas abortivas, já por volta da década desde 1870.[14] Similarmente, no final do século XIX, “Os judeus estiveram entre os campeões da revolução anticoncepcionista no Sul da Alemanha”. [15] Neste país, durante o entreguerras, segundo o acadêmico Harriet Freidenreich, “As médicas judias tiveram participação muito importante na campanha em pró da legalização do aborto. […] Elas estavam sobrerrepresentadas  no movimento da reforma sexual, que promoveu a distribuição mais ampla de meios anticoncepcionais. Essas judias eram notórias na disseminação de dispositivos contraceptivos”. [16]

Na Polônia, durante a Segunda República [1918-1939], a precursora principal da educação sexual, da contracepção, da promoção da homossexualidade e do aborto era Irena Krzywicka (nascida Goldberg). Além de fundadora da Liga Reformy Obyczajów (Liga para a Reforma dos Costumes), Krzywicka era articulista do influente jornal Wiadomosci literackie (Notícias Literárias), no qual ela se batia pelo casamento civil, pelo divórcio e pela contracepção facilitados, pela “liberação sexual” feminina e pelo aborto.[17] Em Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland, o historiador Robert Blobaum refere que a “imprensa antissemita” na Polônia estabeleceu a ligação entre os judeus e “a difusão da literatura anticoncepcionalista” e a pornografia, mas muito timidamente ele trata da carreira de Krzywicka ou de seus numerosos colegas judeus. [18] Ronald Modras observa que até os dirigentes não judeus do movimento polonês pela contracepção destacavam-se pelo seu “filossemitismo”. [19]

Na France, a principal entidade por detrás da legalização da contracepção e do aborto era a Choisir (Escolher), fundada pela advogada judia Gisèle Halimi, e a legislação correspondente foi finalmente aprovada quando era ministra da Saúde a judia Simone Veil (nascida Simone Jacob).[20] Nos Estados Unidos, é claro,  Roe v. Wade significou um produto do ativismo da National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws [Associação Nacional pela Revogação das Leis do Aborto], fundada pelo judeu Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson participou diretamente da militância pela legislação a favor do aborto, ao lado da feminista judia  Betty Friedan, até o momento quando, no final dos anos setentas, ele sofreu uma crise de consciência, que parece ter sido verdadeira mesmo, depois da qual ele se converteu ao catolicismo. Até então, ele, pessoalmente, tinha feito mais de 60 mil abortos, havendo depois explicado numa entrevista que “Nós éramos desonestos, vivíamos enganando pessoas, inventando estatísticas; nós cooptávamos a imprensa com adulações, agrados, mimos. […] Nós nos apresentávamos como defensores do aborto e do direito de escolha, mas a verdade é que nós gostávamos de abortar”. E com certeza os judeus gostam mesmo do aborto. De acordo com o Pew Research Center, os judeus apoiam o aborto muito mais do que qualquer outro grupo religioso nos Estados Unidos. Na realidade, os judeus gostam tanto de limitar a fertilidade de outras populações que em 2013 Israel reconheceu haver aplicado contraceptivos nos imigrantes que chegavam da Etiópia, sem o consentimento deles.

Nosso autor decerto trataria com mais vagar do assunto referente ao aborto e aos anticoncepcionais somente porque a predominante participação dos judeus nas outras áreas da cultura da esterilidade já está bem documentada. O envolvimento judaico na incipiente sexologia, mediante influentes figuras tais quais Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch, Magnus Hirschfeld, Albert Eulenberg, Hermann Joseph Lowenstein, Julius Wolf, Max Marcuse e Eduard Bernstein ligava-se sempre à pretendida necessidade da “tolerância” e do pluralismo social. O que na verdade eles fizeram foi promover toda sorte das mais aberrantes patologias sexuais, separando o sexo da reprodução, para atacar a coesão social. Hirschfeld, provavelmente quem lançou a propaganda do “Amor é amor”, “subverteu a noção de que o amor romântico deveria estar orientado para a reprodução”, defendendo, ao contrário, a aceitação dos modos de vida homossexuais e de relações sexuais hedonísticas e não reprodutivas em geral.[21]

Nesta altura vale ressaltar que os judeus não se concentraram na promoção da “tolerância” para homossexuais, unissexistas [no original:gender benders],feticidas [no original: abortion-seekers] e travestis por acreditarem autenticamente nos “direitos” e no “valor” desse tipo de gente. Antes, os judeus veem nessas pessoas os perfis que querem promover na sociedade inclusiva, generalizando sua influência, com o que ficaria facilitado seu trabalho de aliciar mais sujeitos para a cultura da tolerância. A sociedade nunca aceitou realmente a homossexualidade e o transgenerismo, mas o que aconteceu foi que a própria sociedade primeiramente tornou-se “homossexual” em algumas de suas características, antes que viesse a tolerar os que de fato eram homossexuais e transexuais. Enquanto o Ocidente foi progressivamente ficando sem crianças e mais promíscuo, mais hedonístico, mais iludido e cheio de si mesmo, a distância entre o normal e o anormal estreitou-se, então ficou parecendo que não havia razão para negar a “igualdade”. As sociedades preocupadas com a própria demografia sofrerão severas consequências por causa da homossexualidade e do aborto/infanticídio. O Ocidente, celebrando ambas as práticas, está com a sua demografia em queda livre, não tem consciência das seriíssimas ameaças à sua sobrevivência racial, e seus povos seguem aceitando uma cultura conducente a seu próprio suicídio demográfico. A homossexualidade nunca antes fora tão aceita. O aborto nunca foi tão fácil e desestigmado. E os brancos nunca como agora estiveram na iminência de deixar o palco da história.

A promiscuidade tomou o lugar do carrinho de bebê. Um rápido olhar para a atual geração dos brancos em idade reprodutiva suscita grave preocupação. As taxas de doenças sexuais nos Estados Unidos nunca foram tão altas. Segundo especialistas da área médica, o Reino Unido está a caminho de uma “crise na saúde sexual.” O mesmo fenômeno tem sido verificado na Austrália, no Canadá, na Irlanda, na  França e na Alemanha. Enquanto isso, o Gatestone Institute informa que:

O aborto assumiu recentemente proporções épicas em países como a Suécia e a França. Na França, são feitos 200 mil abortos por ano. Para efeito de comparação, o número de nascimento na França é de  750 mil por ano. A França, então, está abortando a cada ano 20% de seus bebês/fetos/embriões/aglomerados celulares — que o leitor escolha o termo de acordo com suas convicções pessoais.

Não são os muçulmanos na França que estão abortando seus bebês aos milhares e milhares, o que talvez explique a manifestação dos mafomistas diante do arcebispo de Estrasburgo, para quem eles disseram que “Um dia a França será nossa”.

No livro The Population Bomb (1968), o biólogo judeu Paul Ehrlich escreveu que o melhor método para a redução da população era a legalização do aborto. Isso sem considerar os efeitos do controle da natalidade e a mais geral cultura da esterilidade, que glorifica a pervertida, a vazia visão do “amor” sem filhos. Quando os europeus começaram a legalizar o controle da natalidade e o aborto, 40 anos atrás, alguns anos depois do caso Roe versus Wade (1973), a Igreja Católica alertou contra o perigo de a Europa vir a ser uma “civilização mórbida”. Foi isso mesmo o que aconteceu.

A cultura da usura

Num Ocidente entregue ao mais selvagem materialismo, pode ser difícil ter consciência da extensão da agiotagem judaica. Quando se fala dos agiotas judeus, a maioria das pessoas geralmente pensa na Idade Média. Mas a agiotagem judaica está viva e passa muito bem na modernidade, havendo muitos países na condição de devedores dos prestamistas judeus, que por sua vez repassam sua riqueza para organizações dedicadas à promoção das três outras culturas do declínio branco (Crítica, Tolerância, Esterilidade). Paul Singer, ligado a “fundos de investimento” judaicos, tem sido descrito pela Bloomberg como “o mais temido investidor do mundo”, mas na realidade ele é o mais medonho parasito dos endividados. A República Democrática do Congo deve a Singer e seus colegas judeus 90 milhões de dólares, o Panamá deve-lhes 57 milhões de dólares, o Peru deve-lhes 58 milhões de dólares e a Argentina deve-lhes 1,5 bilhão de dólares. Quando os pagamentos estiveram atrasados, Singer sequestrou e manteve em seu poder um navio da marinha argentina, e quando a Coreia do Sul lutou para evitar que ele controlasse a Samsung, o “abutre” levou o presidente sul-coreano  ao impedimento e à prisão.

Embora esses fatos possam parecer pertinentes apenas às pessoas da alta sociedade, distantes da realidade da vida cotidiana (a não ser que o leitor viva numa cidade do Congo que teve o abastecimento de água suspenso por chantagem de Singer), a caterva de especuladores judeus está por trás de quase toda compra que se faça e de toda guerra em que o leitor pode ser obrigado a morrer. Singer, seu filho Gordin e seus colegas Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg e Richard Zabel contam com testas de ferro em quase todo país e eles têm forte participação em toda empresa familiar ao leitor, de livrarias a bancos. Com os ganhos de seu parasitismo, eles financiam a cultura da esterilidade, empoderecem a política sionista, investem milhões em segurança para os judeus e promovem guerras por Israel. Singer é um republicano e tem assento na diretoria da Coalizão Judaica Republicana. Ele é ex-membro da direção do Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, fundou grupos de pesquisa neoconservadores tais quais o Middle East Media Research Institute e o  Center for Security Policy e figura entre os maiores financiadores da organização neoconservadora Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Ele esteve ligado também à banca de advogados denominada Freedom’s Watch [Atalaia da Liberdade], que açulou a guerra contra o Iraque. Como se não bastasse, outro importante projeto de Singer foi o da Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).Trata-se de grupo de advogados de Washington criado em 2009 por várias figuras influentes da judiaria neoconservadora com o objetivo de desenvolver políticas de guerra no Oriente Médio em favor de Israel. Também nesse caso o numerário de Singer pagou os honorários dos patronos da agressão.

Embora Singer fosse inicialmente contra Trump e este tenha atacado Singer por causa de sua política em pró da imigração (“Paul Singer representa os imigrantes ilegais no nosso país e defende a impunidade deles”), Trump é agora basicamente custeado por três judeus: Singer, Bernard Marcus e Sheldon Adelson, que juntos levantaram $250 milhões para a tesouraria política de Trump. Como retribuição, eles só querem uma guerra para destruir o Irã. Prepostos de Singer  da Elliott Management, empresa de sua propriedade, foram os principais financiadores do senador republicano Tom Cotton, que pressiona Trump para atacar o Irã como vingança dos supostos ataques deste país a dois navios no golfo Pérsico. Esses parasitários financistas judeus alimentam a esperança da guerra com o Irã, eles cabalam pela guerra: o judeu quer a carne. Um analista político comentou que “Esses doadores já externaram suas preferências políticas abertamente em relação ao Irã. Eles aguardam o dividendo dos investimentos que fizeram no partido de Trump”. Quando Adelson e Singer primeiramente acenaram para Marco Rubio, Trump postou na rede que Rubio seria uma “marionete” deles. Trump agora já recebeu numerário desses mesmos marionetistas, mas não cedeu a tudo o que exigiam e até demitiu John Bolton, o favorito da troica judaica. Resta saber como a camarilha judaísta reagirá à desobediência de Trump.

A troica de judeus por detrás de Trump é exemplo perfeito do papel das finanças judaicas e da cultura da usura na sustentação e promoção do poder judeu e sua influência na sociedade contemporânea. Singer encarna a usura e o capitalismo de rapina, Bernard “Home Depot” Marcus atende ao mais desvairado consumismo e Adelson representa a sórdida exploração comercial do vício (jogos de azar). Não há nada de produtivo na atividade de nenhum desses figuros. A enorme riqueza deles vem do parasitismo sociopático, do nepotismo étnico e do desejo da decadência cultural.

Nós sentimos o aprofundar da decadência, porquanto vivemos na sociedade do consumo conspícuo, fundada no endividamento sempre crescente das famílias. Em todo lugar, as pessoas compram coisas de que não precisam com o dinheiro que não têm. A dívida das famílias segue num crescendo mais uma vez nos Estados Unidos. De acordo com a New York Federal Reserve, as famílias americanas devem 13,86 trilhões de dólares, o que é mais do que deviam logo antes da crise econômica de 2008. Na Australia, a dívida das famílias corresponde a 190% de sua renda, uma proporção entre as mais altas do mundo desenvolvido. A mesma situação ocorre no Reino Unido. Os judeus, evidentemente, tiveram participação desproporcional na expansão das lojas de departamento, na indústria da moda, no comércio varejista e em outros setores da sociedade de consumo. [22] No final do século XIX, na Alemanha, como ainda em vários outros países do Ocidente, os judeus deram início à “revolução do consumo” e mantiveram ou, pelo menos, inauguraram a grande maioria das lojas de departamento, de confecções e moda em geral em todo o país”. [23] Naquele tempo, Werner Sombart observou que as lojas de departamento eram o emblema de uma nova e degenerativa cultura econômica, caracterizada pelas “anônimas e reificantes forças do capitalismo e da propaganda”. Os antissemitas da época viam esses centros da cultura econômica como “templos do consumo num duplo sentido: enquanto templos onde se consumia e templos que consumiam — isto é, um lugar de destruição, um Moloque que vorazmente consumia a clientela vulnerável e os negócios da vizinhança”.[24] 

Atualmente, muitas das marcas de luxo de produtos praticamente inúteis pertencem a judeus, são promovidas pela indústria publicitária de judeus e são financiadas por prestamistas judeus. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder e Marc Jacobs são apenas alguns judeus cujos nomes tornaram-se sinônimos da cultura consumista escorada na dívida e na adesão a modismos cuidadosamente midiados. Outras empresas pertencentes a judeus, como Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple, Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel e a Toys “R” Us epitomam a produção supérflua e infinita de lixo para o consumo das massas alimentado a crédito.

O templo do consumismo onde arde a chama eterna da dívida vincula-se também às culturas da crítica, da tolerância e da esterilidade. O assim chamado antirracismo, o fomento da confusão de gênero, a celebração da imigração ilimitada e do multiculturalismo tornaram-se o carro-chefe da publicidade contemporânea. Agora, quando chega ao fim a guerra racial, o Ocidente ressona o estertor final de sua agonia.

Talvez alguém fosse perguntar o que é que bolachinhas de tortilha tem a ver com sodomia, mas isso decerto porque essa pessoa sofresse de algum défice de tolerância. O melhor remédio para esse doente seria reconhecer os privilégios da raça branca, comprar um Starbucks e experimentar novas calças de 200 dólares na Macy’s.

Conclusão

A critica, a tolerância, a esterilidade e a usura existem em convergência e se adunam. Nisso reside a necessidade do antissemitismo. Eu me senti assombrado com A necessidade do antissemitismo e também, e na mesma medida, com aquela imagem do rabino de Goedsche que discursa para os treze chefes das tribos judaicas reunidos à noite num cemitério. Isto me assombra porque parece coisa arcaica e ingênua, como se a situação pudesse ter sido tão simples, mas tudo é muito pior. A realidade sempre foi muito mais profunda e infinitamente mais perigosa. Em tudo o que tange à Questão Judia, os judeus sempre perguntaram se isso ou aquilo seria bom para os judeus. Os brancos, por sua vez, e diante disso, deveriam perguntar se os judeus são bons para eles. Ora, a resposta está na correlação entre os judeus e os quatro aspectos do declínio branco de que tratamos e é negativa: os judeus não são bons para os brancos. Portanto, nossa oposição aos judeus, pelo que fazem contra nós, é perfeitamente lógica e moralmente necessária.


Referências

[1] RAPHAEL,F. The Necessity of Anti-Semitism. London: Carcanet, 1997, p. 49.

[2] DRESSER, D.; FRIEDMAN, L. American Jewish Filmmakers. Univ. of Illinois, 2004 p. 7.

[3] MENDELSSOHN, M. “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

[4] KREYENFELD, M. Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes and Consequences.Cham: SpringerOpen, 2017. p. v.

[5] Apud RUSSELL, T. A Renegade History of the United States. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

[6] KLAPPER, M. R. Ballots, Babies, and Banners of Peace: American Jewish Women’s Activism, 1890-1940. New York: New York University Press, 2013. p. 151.

[7] Ibidem, p. 159.

[8] CHESLER, E. Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. p. 51.

[9] WILLIAMS, D. K. Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v Wade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 27.

[10] Ibidem, p. 66.

[11] REAGAN, L. J. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. p. 173.

[12] REED, J. The Birth Control Movement and American Society.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. p. 351.

[13] LEONE, M. P. Atlantic Crossings in the Wake of Frederick Douglass.Leiden: Brill, 2017. p. 111.

[14] BRODIE, J. F. Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-century America.Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. p.234.

[15] CROMBIE, A. C. (ed). History of Science.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. p. 371.

[16] FREIDENREICH, H. P. Female, Jewish, and Educated: The Lives of Central European University Women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. p. 154.

[17] HASHAMOVA, Y. (ed). Transgressive Women in Modern Russian and East European Cultures: From the Bad to the Blasphemous. New York: Routledge, 2017. p. 16.

[18] BLOBAUM, R. Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. p. 87.

[19] MODRAS, R. The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-39. New York: Routledge, 2004. p. 62.

[20] LAS, N. Jewish Voices in Feminism: Transnational Perspectives.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015. p. 91.

[21] DICKSON, E. R. Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914. Cambridge University Press, 2014. p. 7.

[22] REUVENI, G. Consumer Culture and the Making of Modern Jewish Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. xiii.

[23] LERNER, P. The Consuming Temple: Jews, Department Stores, and the Consumer Revolution in Germany, 1880-1940. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015. p. 5.

[24] Ibidem, p. 9.

89, the Jewish screenwr

Autoria: Andrew Joyce. Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Título original em inglês: “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism”. Data de publicação do original: 27 de setembro de 2019. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

What’s good for the Jews? Stephen Miller.

Editorial comment: This article was originally posted on February 8, 2018. I thought that, since Stephen Miller has now been officially outed as a “White nationalist”  by the SPLC it would be a good time to revisit it.

Young right-leaning Jews don’t have many Jewish figures to look up to.  Illustrious elder scholar and “alt right godfather” Paul Gottfried. Taki columnist and revisionist David Cole Stein.  Brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug).

But thankfully we now have Stephen Miller, the 32-year old Trump advisor and immigration hard-liner recently blamed by Democratic senators for scuttling their desired amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Transparently, the Dems are trying to spoil Trump’s relationship with Miller, as they did with Bannon, by insinuating that Miller is pulling Trump’s strings. Of course it is absurd to suggest that Trump is anything but his own man. But Miller is a crucially important figure in the Trump administration and his influence is, from what I can tell, entirely positive for the interest of Americans concerned with mass immigration and the very tangible threat of Europeans and people of European descent becoming minorities in their own countries.

Jews, and Americans overall, need more Stephen Millers. Brash, unafraid, quick-witted, verbally formidable, and unabashedly “America First,” Miller is a powerful spokesman for economic nationalist positions, anti-globalism, and for preserving this country’s original culture and people against the Democratic scheme to flood it with illegal and legal immigrants whose main gift to America will be their reliable Democratic votes in every future election. Miller is roundly despised by the establishment for his positions and rhetoric. Nancy Pelosi has called Miller a “White supremacist,” while others on the left have compared him to Joseph Goebbels. He’s the only Jew I can think of offhand that the mainstream media actively encourages the country to hate.

But we Jews should be honest: for every mensch like Miller, we have shmucks like  Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev, Rob Reiner, Charles Schumer, and thousands of other high-profile Jews who seem to hate or fear White Christian Americans and seek to hasten their demise as the ethnic majority of this country. Yes, we Jews have Miller, but we also have the ADL and the SPLC — powerful well-funded groups who conduct witch hunts against anyone who dares speak out against multiculturalism, open-borders, globalist doctrine, or who dares to criticize Jews. Jewish political influence in the US is still overwhelmingly negative, despite the great work of a few good Jews.

As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side. I have tried to explore my own motivations for this. Why do I find myself so far to the Right on the issue of immigration and of protecting European cultures and peoples?   Why do I hope other Jews follow me on this ideological journey?  And there is growing indication they are. Read more

Featured Video Play Icon

Scandza Forum talk, Nov. 2, 2019, Olso: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJEt8TBlRQ&feature=youtu.be