How the Media Preys upon our Values

/29 Comments/in , /by

The Cultural Marxist media adorns their arguments with “holy relics” which cannot be criticized. This diabolical strategy is deployed to persuade normal Americans to act contrary to their own self-interest.   It entails playing upon our inherent respect for certain institutions and principles, which are held in uniquely high esteem by Western/Anglo-Saxon peoples.  This unique foible of ours is actually a good thing while it stays within a basically White society—but it becomes a huge liability when it is exploited by those who hate us. Unfortunately for them, they have tried to tap this emotional reservoir too many times, and so their strategy is currently yielding diminishing returns.

First of all, our media elites do not even believe their own pieties, though perhaps some credulous liberals lower down on the food chain are in fact foolish enough to believe them.  For example, we saw via WikiLeaks that John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, is perfectly aware of the disaster that the refugees in Europe have created.  He received intel that “Muslim immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of mayhem across Germany—with far worse to come because of demographics.”  He was almost sociopathic, however, in his enthusiasm to wreak this same havoc on the US, should Clinton have won.  Woe to the liberal dumb enough to actually believe in the benefits of bringing in Middle Eastern and African refugees.

What should we consider more deplorable: the sociopathic cynicism of Podesta and Clinton, or the naïve stupidity of liberals who actually believe in their own professed values?  The elites are certainly counting on the American public’s naiveite.  And all too often, the American public has obliged.  As such, every time they try to play on our emotions, I ask myself, “Are people actually going to buy this?” I have some trepidation in answering that question.

Surely Blacks are a holy object in leftism; John Derbyshire has long expounded upon this droll metaphor.  But there is an ever-shifting array of entities which our media seeks to exploit for their perceived symbolic significance among the American public.  This process is based on a subtle psychology of what the media divines to be held as sacred by your average White person.  Hence this is an insidious psy-ops campaign, meant to pull at our heart-strings and enlist us in causes we would otherwise have nothing to do with. Read more

Juden und Geldverleih: eine zeitgenössische Fallstudie,Teil II

/in /by

Eine bemerkenswerte Karriere im Online-Kreditgeschäft machte Al Goldstein, ein Jude aus Usbe­ki­stan, der 1988 mit seiner Familie nach Amerika kam. Goldstein ist Mitbegründer und Vorstands­vor­sitzender von AvantCredit.com. Das Unternehmen gehört zu den am schnellsten wachsenden Anbietern von Ratenkrediten. Nachdem sich die Gesellschaft mehr als 1 Mrd. Dollar Kapital beschafft  hatte, war AvantCredit.com im Jahr 2014 die zahlungskräftigste Gesellschaft in Chicago. Sie hat mehr als 100.000 Darlehen vergeben und operiert in 46 US-Bundesstaaten, sowie in Großbritannien, wo sie unter dem Firmennamen SpringCoin.co.uk tätig ist. Aber das sind nicht die einzigen Fäden in Goldsteins Netz. Für diese jüdischen Geldverleih-Aktivitäten im Megabereich ist charakteristisch, daß sie mit einer ein­zelnen Gesell­schaft anfangen, und dann mit der Zeit unzählige neue Zweig- und Tochter­unter­nehmen hervorbringen. Auf diese Weise werden die Eigentumsverhältnisse, die Verflechtungen und die Ver­bind­lichkeiten der einzelnen Gesell­schaften schnell verschleiert. So war Goldstein z.B. auch Mitbe­gründer, Präsident und Vorstands­vorsitzender des Unternehmens CashNetUSA, dessen Name dann von 2004 bis 2008 in Enova International geändert wurde. Enova ist unter verschiedenen weiteren Firmen­namen tätig in Canada (Dollars Direct), Australien (Dollars Direct Australia) und Großbritannien, wo die Gesellschaft unter QuickQuid, Pounds to Pocket wie auch On Stride Financial firmiert. Fragt man sich, wo Goldstein wohl einen Teil seiner „Ernte ohne Regen“ anbringt, stelle ich fest, daß Gold­stein ein „aktives Mitglied“ des America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ist.

Im Gegensatz zu den meisten weißen Amerikanern, die mit Bestürzung erleben, wie die Vermögen der amerikanischen Mittelklasse immer mehr verfallen, sieht Goldstein in diesem Vorgang seine Chance. 2009 gründete er Pangea Properties, mit dem Ziel, Tausende Anwesen aufzukaufen, deren Hypotheken ver­fallen waren. Dieser Jude aus Usbekistan besitzt jetzt mehr als 10.000 Wohnungen, die zuvor Eigen­tum verschuldeter Amerikaner waren. Berichten zufolge hat sich Enova gebrüstet: „der Bedarf, den wir im Ver­braucher-Sektor decken, wurde durch mehrere demographische und sozioökono­mische Ent­wicklungen beeinflußt, einschließlich einer allgemeinen Zunahme der Bevölkerung und stagnieren­dem bis rückläufigem Wachstum der Haushaltseinkommen in diesem Bereich.“  Enova bezieht sich auf eine Umfrage des National Bureau of Economic Research, der zufolge fast die Hälfte der US-Ver­braucher angeben, nicht innerhalb eines Monats $ 2000 Rücklage aufbringen zu können. Enova sagt voraus, daß sich immer mehr Bürger zwecks finanzieller „Hilfe“ an das Unternehmen wenden werden, und Gold­steins Tätigkeit wurde von Dan und Bob Wolfberg, den Mitbegründern eines anderen Kredit­unter­nehmens mit Sitz in Chicago, PLS Financial Services Inc., als „ideal“ bezeichnet. Ein weiterer Glücksritter, der in den Jagdgefilden des amerikanischen Internet-Kredits zunehmend an Einfluß gewinnt, ist das Unter­nehmen LendUp, das 2011 von Sasha Orloff und Jacob Rosenberg in San Francisco ge­grün­­det wurde. Read more

Juden und Geldverleih, Teil 1

/in /by

„Schuldzinsen wachsen ohne Regen” – Jüdisches Sprichwort

Manche Dinge ändern sich nie, und dazu gehört offenbar die jüdische Verknüpfung mit Wucherzinsen. Ich hatte kürzlich ein Gespräch mit einem guten Freund, den die Wirtschaftskrise stark gebeutelt hat. Er erwähnte, daß er gezwungen war, einen Kleinkredit bei einem sogenannten Zahltag-Kreditgeber aufzu­nehmen. Diese relativ kleinen und kurzfristigen Kredite werden ohne Sicherheiten denjenigen angeboten, die krampfhaft versuchen, ihren sozioökonomischen Status zu bewahren, wobei die Gesellschaften oft Zins­sätze verlangen, die einem das Wasser in die Augen treiben. Im Laufe des Gesprächs teilte mir mein Freund ganz verzagt mit, daß aufgrund der hohen Zinsen seines jetzigen Kredits die Gefahr abzusehen war, daß er am Ende des Monats den laufenden Kredit nur durch eine erneute Kreditaufnahme tilgen könne.

Er saß in der Falle. Ich schaute mir den jungen Mann an, der in Kürze Vater wird, und schlug ihm vor, die gesamten Zinsen dieses speziellen Kredits zu übernehmen – unter einer Bedingungen: daß er es unter allen Umständen unterläßt, einen weiteren Kredit aufzunehmen. Er nahm mein Angebot dankbar an, aber ich konnte mich des Gefühls nicht erwehren, daß es nicht lange dauern wird, bis er wieder der Versuchung des schnellen (aber teuren) Bargelds erliegt.

Schon Cicero äußerte sich dazu, welch große Erträge die Sparsamkeit verschafft, und ich neige überdies zu der Auffassung, daß Sparsamkeit eher eine Frage des Charakters als der Finanzen ist. Aber in diesem Fall schien mir die Tatsache brisanter, daß mein junger Freund die Trag­weite seines Handels nicht überschaute und glaubte, seine Schäfchen im Trockenen zu haben, obwohl er sich in Wirklichkeit in einem internationalen Netz verfangen hatte, das gerade durch seinesgleichen gedeiht und floriert, durch Leute, die, wie er, hart arbeiten, aber wirtschaft­lich schwache Opfer „des Systems“ sind.

Der Sofort-Kredit in dem kleinen Ladenlokal deiner Heimatstadt oder die scheinbar geringfügigen Online-Darlehen mit den verharmlosenden Namen stellen nur die extremsten Auswüchse dieses Netzes dar. An diesem, von den armen Arbeitern reich gedeckten Tisch mästet sich eine Vielzahl von Geschäftemachern, die einer ethnischen Gruppe entstammen, die in genau dieser Sparte eine lange, stetige und vielgestaltige Geschichte aufweist. Dieser Sachverhalt ist gut dokumentiert und wird, wie ich hoffe, mit diesem Artikel noch besser untermauert, ungeachtet all derer, die jetzt laut „Vorurteil“ kreischen. Und aller Verschleierung durch offensichtliche Falsch­meldungen zum trotz sollte ich hinzufügen, daß sich dieser spezielle Stamm diese Betätigung überwiegend freiwillig selbst erkoren hat. Denn im Gegensatz zu den Ernten, die Mühsal, Schweiß, Bodenständigkeit und ja, eben Regen benötigen, wachsen Zinsen einfach und unaufhaltsam mit dem Ticken der Uhr.

Trotzdem möchte ich zur Widerlegung aller Vorwürfe von „Voreingenommenheit“, die sich dieser Artikel zuziehen könnte, darauf hinweisen, daß ich die unten angeführten Gesellschaften und Personen aufs sorgfältigste untersucht habe. Der Leser möge die Tatsachen, die ich daraus ableite, für sich selbst sprechen lassen.

Ich möchte in erster Linie die Auffassung widerlegen, daß die Verbindung zwischen Juden und dem ausbeuteri­schen Finanz­wesen ein Mythos oder ein Vorurteil sei. Anhand eines geschichtlichen Überblicks wie auch der detaillierten Schilderung von Tatsachen über eine große Anzahl heutiger Personen, Gesellschaften und Geschäfts­­prakti­ken hoffe ich, meinen Ausgangspunkt zu belegen: daß sich in unserer Mitte ein breitangelegter und schädlicher Transfer von Reichtum und Ressourcen von Nicht-Juden auf Juden vollzieht, und daß dies unter Verwendung uralter Methoden geschieht. Ich will die typischen Merkmale dieser Methoden – deren auffallendster der Finanzbetrug ist – detailliert schildern und unter Beweis stellen.  Read more

Björn Höcke and the Potential Return of Sanity in German Politics

/55 Comments/in , , /by

On January 17th 2017, one of the leading members of Germany’s new alternative conservative party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Björn Höcke, gave a speech before his party’s youth organization (Junge Alternative) in the city of Dresden. In his 20-minute speech, Höcke addressed the future of his party, its rebellious function and patriotic orientation, the architectural disfigurement of landscapes and cities, the failures of the political establishment in the refugee crisis, German cultural identity and — yes, he did — the World War II guilt cult and the Holocaust memorial. The speech had the potential of ringing in a new era of self-liberation from the shackles of the post-war historical narrative that denies the German people their sense of self-worth.

However, Höcke clearly poked a hornet’s nest, given the hysterical reactions across the political establishment, including the media and representatives of the Jewish lobby in Germany. Although the speech was well-received by young patriots, some remarks did not go over well with the ruling class. Höcke had been bold enough to suggest that

  1. Instead of focusing primarily on those twelve dark years of the country’s history, German youth should be allowed to develop a positive identity by remembering and honoring the achievements of Germany’s numerous composers, poets and philosophers, of which the country had produced perhaps more than any other.
  2. Germany was the only country in the world that had decided to plant a ‘monument of shame’ in the heart of its capital, and had made the most horrible event in its history the foundation of its national identity.
  3. The Allied fire-bombing of Dresden was a war crime comparable to the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The guilt cult, however, allowed for a portrayal of Germans as perpetrators only, preventing them from mourning their own victims.

The press reacted “with disgust and horror” — as if Höcke had denied the Holocaust (which he didn’t). Although Höcke had remained rather factual in his description of the status quo without attacking anyone in particular, vocabulary from the familiar arsenal of curses was hurled at him: “Nazi”, “right-wing extremist”, “Goebbels”, “hard right”, “populist”, “nationalist”, “national Romantic”, and so on and so forth. In an article by Amanda Taub and Max Fischer in the New York Times, his brownish-grey hair suddenly turned blonde, more or less subtly conjuring up images of the blonde Germanic beast, familiar from countless anti-German Hollywood productions and books. Read more

Words as Weapons: Asymmetry and Advantage in Linguistic Competition

/61 Comments/in /by

What’s the connection between chess and peacock feathers? For most of human history, there was no sensible answer to a question like that. Today we can reply: “They can both be analysed using the branch of mathematics known as game theory.” Games like chess are about competition, about strategies for improving success and avoiding failure. So is evolution. Genes compete in ever more complex ways.

Camouflage and deception

Peacock feathers are a good example of advanced evolution. You can’t understand them without reference to the eyes and brains of peahens, whose mating preferences down the millennia have selected for ever more dazzling male plumage. Males send signals, females read them. Similarly, you can’t understand flowers without reference to the nervous systems of insects. Flowers send signals, insects read them.

Lunar Hornet Moth (Sesia bembeciformis) by Ian Kimber. False signal: Wasp-mimic moth

Or misread them, because biological signals can be deceitful. Some species of orchid trick male bees with flowers that mimic the appearance and odour of female bees. The males pollinate the orchids by trying to mate with the flowers. False signals can also repel or conceal: some harmless insects mimic wasps, others mimic leaves or sticks. Like parasitism, camouflage and deceit are found everywhere in the natural world. All three aspects of biology can shed light on human behaviour. Read more

Jewish activists urge aid to refugees: Is it good for the Jews?

/33 Comments/in , /by

Because of the executive order by President Trump (what a great feeling to write that!) closing down the refugee industry from seven predominantly Muslim countries, there is an entirely expected outcry from the usual suspects. Quite often the argument reverts to events in the 1930s in which Jewish refugees were prevented from entering the U.S. This article, originally posted in September, 2015, provides some context on those events. The fact that he signed the EO on Holocaust Remembrance Day was particularly galling.

Make no mistake. Pres. Trump is embarking on a revolutionary path here. By banning several (but not all) predominantly Muslim countries, the order avoids the accusation that it is discriminating against a religion. But that will count for exactly zero in how this is perceived by the media and the left generally. In fact, this is about Muslim immigration and that is enough to send the establishment into absolute hysteria.  The idea of any limitation on immigration to the West by a particular racial/ethnic or religious group is completely at odds with the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity, the “we’re all the same” mantra, and the ideology that Western countries are “proposition nations” committed only to abstract ideas like “freedom” and “democracy,” with no ethnic or religious content. This ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectual movements at least since World War II—a theme of The Culture of Critique. It has been internalized across the elite spectrum—by Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews alike — so much so that political figures like Chuck Schumer can confidently assert that the executive order goes against the entire grain of American history: “a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon.”

Either Sen. Schumer failed American History 101 or he is lying through his teeth, probably the latter. The idea that “American values” include importing tens of millions of people from different cultures, many with values hostile to America and the West, is a post-1965 creation of the media intent on redefining what it is to be American, nothing more. Until then, U.S. immigration law clearly and unapologetically favored the traditional European majority. Like every non-European country, we were intent on preserving our people and culture.

From the Left’s point of view, this is the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon. I think that a lot of the anger and frustration following Trump’s victory was that the endgame was in sight. Another presidency, either by Hillary or by one of the many Republican cuckservatives who ran against Trump, would have pretty much sealed the deal. The much hoped-for Hillary landslide would have ensured the passage of “Gang of Eight”-type immigration legislation, amnesty for illegals, and endless “refugees.” And a Republican Jeb Bush-type presidency would likely have overcome GOP resistance to the same. The demographic transformation would have been solidified yet further.

It’s very late in the day for a complete turnaround. But Trump’s first week has exceeded expectations. And he is unlikely to be dissuaded by the moral chorus from the media condemning his actions. He’s already well aware that the media is the “opposition party,” as Steve Bannon phrased it.

To be sure, there is much unfinished business, beginning with ending birthright citizenship (probably best put off until after another Supreme Court appointment or two), ending DACA. And the Holy Grail: Repealing the 1965 immigration act.

There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees. One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the US and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

Indeed, there is no question that Jews were under intense pressure during the 1930s that went well beyond the U.S. In 1936 Chaim Weizmann observed that “the world seems to be divided into two parts—those places where the Jew cannot live, and those where they cannot enter” [1]. Anti-Semitism was pervasive. Jewish pressure groups acknowledged the role of anti-Semitism in motivating the rejection of Jews by, for example, couching pro-refugee advertising in universalist terms and not mentioning that the refugees would be Jews. Read more

The Self-Defeating War Hypocrisy of the Left

/19 Comments/in /by

Drone alone: unbothered by protests.

The world tends to run more on unintended consequences than intended ones, it seems. One of the reasons that Trump is now in the White House tearing through Obama’s flimsy legacy like an angry tornado is because he was ultimately seen as the “peace candidate,” while Hillary came to be perceived as the “war candidate.”

The seal of approval from the Neocons during the campaign may have been the kiss of death. This was just another example of the power of unintended consequences to call the shots.

So, how did this happen? Of course, part of it was Hillary’s readiness to sell out to the highest bidder, but this is not the whole story. Hillary could only become such a “war whore “because of the hypocrisy of Leftists in general.

As Mike Whitney at Counter Punch observes:

The election of Donald Trump has sent millions of people pouring out onto the streets to protest a man they think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic bully who will destroy US democracy in his quest to establish himself as supreme fascist ruler of the country.

Maybe they’re right. Maybe Trump is a fascist who will destroy America. But where were these people when Obama was bombing wedding parties in Kandahar, or training jihadist militants to fight in Syria, or abetting NATO’s destructive onslaught on Libya, or plunging Ukraine into fratricidal warfare, or collecting the phone records of innocent Americans, or deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, or force-feeding prisoners at Gitmo, or providing bombs and aircraft to the Saudis to continue their genocidal war against Yemen?

Where were they?

This obvious double standard effectively means that it is a lot harder for a Republican President to be a war president than it is for a Democrat.

Any Republican President getting involved in a war will face far tougher criticism than a Democrat from the so-called “Peace Movement” and their many friends in the media. This is because it is mainly a status signalling device for tribal Lefties. Both Bushes were savaged for the wars they fought. Clinton and Obama not so much.

This may even have been a factor in GHW Bush’s decision to limit the Gulf War to the expulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait, even though his Saudi backers wanted to see a lot more blood on the sand.

GW Bush went full neocon of course, because 9-11, whoever did it, changed the national mood, but he soon became the whipping boy of the Peace Movement. In fact, he was so widely reviled at home and abroad as the moronic war president, that his chief ally Tony Blair lost all legitimacy, and the global position of the United States itself was undermined.

Among other things, Obama’s fast-tracking to the White House could thus be seen as an attempt to revamp America’s hawkish capability, and, to a degree, that is exactly how it turned out, as Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in tow, kept America’s military profile as high as it could go under the circumstances.

This realization that only a Democrat could be a successful hawk may even have prepared the way for Trump’s race through the ranks of the GOP primary field from “joke candidate” to historical inevitability. There was obviously something rather fake about the likes of Jeb or Ted or Mario pretending they could don GW’s war mantle, something that Trump started to realize, as he grew stronger and started to directly attack the Neocon pieties.

Down near the base of the GOP reptile mind was a visceral fear of having yet another unpopular war president, assailed by the Peace Movement assisted by the liberal media, and vilified both at home and abroad. When Trump started talking about being pals with Putin, who’s to say that a subterranean switch wasn’t thrown in the minds of the Republican base, followed by a barely perceptible sigh of relief?

The neocons, wedded to war and bloodshed by the eternally precarious position of Israel, certainly seemed to sense something similar, explaining their defection en masse to Hillary’s camp during the campaign – little realizing that rather than hurting Trump they were instead hurting her.

In short, the hypocrisy of the Peace Movement made their preferred candidate into the war candidate, and thus may well have damaged her campaign, while bestowing the mantle of peacemaker on her rival and aiding his victory. Irony doesn’t get much richer or sweeter than that.