Will the Gaza War Threaten Jewish Power in the U.S. and Their Status as Occupying the Moral High Ground?

/24 Comments/in /by

Jewish Power in the U.S. Is on Full Display

The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture. It’s a display that could effectively wake Americans up to how deeply entrenched Jews are in the American power structure. Even the mainstream media is featuring images of Gazan suffering, bloodied children, and the over 10000 Gazan deaths, mostly women and children. Even clueless White liberals must be starting to wake up about Israel, but of course they will turn a blind eye to the Jewish power in America as enabling all of this, such as that they’re basically funding the Democratic party and its woke agenda; the party that preaches a utopian vision of ethnic harmony as a moral imperative supporting yet another round of the decades-long destruction and ethnic violence against the Palestinians.

The Biden administration seems to be realizing that their blind support for Israeli violence can’t be sold to their voters and are pleading with the Israelis for humanitarian pauses. To no avail. As always, “America’s greatest ally” thumbs its nose at America when it wishes. And why not? Just one example: America has been vainly pleading with Israel to stop the West Bank settlements for over 50 years. To no effect. And right now the settlers are violently attacking the West Bank Palestinians. The money and diplomatic support just keep coming. Today’s New York Times:

There is a long history of U.S. presidents realizing they don’t have as much leverage over Israel as they thought,” said Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine who served four tours in Iraq. And he said the same applies to Ukraine, “where this is first and foremost their fight, even if we have huge stakes in the outcome.

The atmosphere in Jewish circles right now can best be described as “Blood lust.  Kill all the Palestinians, or at least the Gazans. There is no context in the messages emanating from the high ground of American culture—little or no mention of the decades-long occupation, the ethnic cleansing and apartheid, or the open-air prison status of Gaza and the 17-year blockade. And it’s obvious that Jewish media influence is critical for this.

However, as always, the ultimate cause of Jewish power is simply money — most obviously funding a powerful infrastructure of influence, organizations like the ADL. AIPAC, JINSA, left-leaning and war-mongering lobbying groups like WINEP — the sorts of organizations that ambitious (and sociopathic) politicians necessarily pay attention to. Jewish financial clout is thus on full display, e.g., punishing the universities and pro-Hamas protesters for allowing anti-Israel speech (= anti-Semitism if you haven’t noticed). Pro-Hamas students and protesters at Ivy League universities have been doxxed and blacklisted from jobs they had been offered at prestigious law firms.

Billionaire Bill Ackman demanded a blacklist of students who’d been protesting Israel, so he and others would not inadvertently hire them in the future. A mobile placard went around Harvard Square with the names of students who’d backed the Palestinians even as Hamas’ atrocities were unfolding. “We need to make sure these students pay a price and that their neighbors, friends, and employers know that they harbor these beliefs,” explained one CEO. He repeated his accusations in an November 4 tweet directed at Harvard’s affirmative action president Claudine Gay:

“Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images,” Ackman wrote.

Ackman, 57, also noted that students on campus have been calling for “violent insurrection” and “use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Assuming this is true, Jews are definitely on the defensive in universities. But the message is clear. Ambitious students would be well advised to forget their principles and go with the Jewish perspective on the war. And of course, it’s not just Ackman: Alan Dershowitz, Leslie Wexner, Marc Rowan, Richard Wolf, David Magerman, Steven Solomon, Clifford Asness, Leon Cooperman, Steve Eisman — wealthy and powerful people all. Rowan’s activism threatens to blow a billion-dollar hole in the budget of the University of Pennsylvania and the jobs of the university president and head of the Board of Trustees are on the line.

As always, Jews, as an elite, aim their activism at influencing the most powerful, prestigious institutions in society. Jewish influence is always top-down—control the high points of the media, academic, and political pyramid of power, and the rest will conform or at least be manageable. And to further emphasize the point, Ackman’s activism was followed up by 27 prestigious law firms sending letters to the law schools of prestigious universities.

Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for the death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel. Such anti-Semitic activities would not be tolerated at any of our firms. We also would not tolerate outside groups engaging in acts of harassment and threats of violence, as has also been occurring on many of your campuses.

A Reuters article noted:

A Sullivan & Cromwell spokesperson said on Thursday that senior chair Joseph Shenker spearheaded the letter to the law schools known in the legal industry as the “T-14,” as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Other signatories include some on the nation’s biggest and most profitable law firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

The Jewish editor of eLife, an online journal for the life sciences was fired for retweeting an Onion article that called out indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians” with the title “‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That.” Great title and obviously true. The article talks about the likely costs of any criticism of Israel, including being blacklisted from their jobs. The article way too close to home for the powers that be.

We think of the left as the main perpetrators of cancel culture but the mainstream right, which is all in for Israel, has the same tendencies despite having less power. But here’s  Republican Senator Tom Cotton, in a letter to the evil DHS secretary Majorkas, this week:

I write to urge you to immediately deport any foreign national — including and especially any alien on a student visa — that has expressed support for Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israel. These fifth-columnists have no place in the United States. Swiftly removing and permanently barring from future reentry any foreign student who signed onto or shared approvingly the anti-Semitic letter from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee on October 7 would be a good place to start.

But Glenn Beck takes first prize as the most subservient, clueless conservative:

Beck, a devout Christian, said on his show that he wants to do more than simply offer words of support for the country.

He is asking for citizenship, he said, so that he might offer “deeds” for the Jewish people, rather than simple words.

“I don’t know why I was born, but there is something about the state of Israel that connects deeply to me,” Beck told his listeners.

He added, “To have the privilege to stand with the Jew is a tremendous honor, spiritually. So, I want to read a letter that I wrote that I am sending to the state of Israel.”

Beck then recited the letter, which said: “To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the honorable officials at the state of Israel. In this moment, I have chosen to ask you for citizenship in the state of Israel.

Republicans are reliably worse on Israel than the Democrats who likely have a more difficult time reconciling Israel’s behavior with their virtue-signaling about ethnic hatred. Like at the recent Republican Jewish Coalition convention in Las Vegas. Nikki Haley was the star, and has the support of the neocons who deserted Trump in 2016 but managed to dominate foreign policy in the Biden administration. Ramaswamy was the villain, and with the Never-Trumpers in the driver’s seat:

Trump is too much of an isolationist for these people, and he criticized Netanyahu and called Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, “very smart.” …

“I will not criticize Israel’s prime minister in the middle of a tragedy and war,” Haley added as Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza, with Netanyahu warning of a long and difficult war after Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7.

Ramaswamy expressed support for Israel’s right to dismiss the “myth” of a two-state solution—at least he acknowledges it’s a myth, but it wasn’t enough. After all, he had the temerity to say in an interview with Tucker Carlson that U.S. interests must come first, even with Israel. Ramaswamy argued the U.S. needs to remember the mistakes of the recent past, like getting into trillions of dollars of debt for two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—wars that were not well-planned and had no clear objective. Unacceptable! War is good!

DeSantis, who held his first cabinet meeting as governor in Florida in Jerusalem, referred to the West Bank as “the most ancient Jewish land going back to biblical times—apparently giving a green light for ethnic cleansing. Sen. Tim Scott of Florida reiterated his calls to deport foreign students participating in “antisemitic” protests on college campuses. Basically, the Republicans are hopeless as they are about pretty much everything.

Incidentally, Nikki Haley is bought and paid for:

When Haley last served in office as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, her family’s finances were a mess. Her parents owed over $1 million and were in danger of losing their Lexington, South Carolina home. A devoted daughter, Haley had loaned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past with her husband. But she could not solve all of her parents’ problems, with less than $100,000 sitting in her bank accounts and $185,000 coming in each year in salary.

Since then, Haley’s net worth has ballooned from less than $1 million to an estimated $8 million. How did she make so much money in so little time? By following a tried-and-true playbook for politicians looking to cash in on their fame. Speeches to companies like Barclays and organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided more money in a day than Haley had previously earned in a year. It’s not clear how many talks she gave from 2019 to 2021, but Haley hauled in $2.3 million from just 11 events in 2022.

Jewish Revenge

In a speech to IDF soldiers, Netanyahu framed the invasion in biblical terms, declaring that “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”  (1 Samuel 15:3)

And that is exactly what they are doing. The repeated bombing of a refugee camp in Gaza with many casualties, not to mention hospitals, seems to have had an impact on even the US media. In the case of the refugee camp, hundreds of civilians have died for supposedly killing two top Hamas leaders. No one seriously believes that Israel is trying to spare civilians.

Jews have a long memory and a powerful sense of vengeance against those they see as their enemies. The problem is that ultimately Jews see us as deadly enemies. For serious Jews, their history in the West is little more than a long series of disasters—the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, medieval expulsions and pogroms, nineteenth-century pogroms in Russia, the 1924 U.S. immigration law and quotas at Ivy League universities, and ultimately the holocaust. The transformation of the U.S. into a multiethnic, multicultural cauldron and an impending White minority should make White Americans realize that ultimately Jews will turn on them when they have enough power, as they achieved in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Jews and the Moral High Ground

Perhaps the greatest strength that Jews have is that since World War II they have occupied the moral high ground. The Western media has been deluged with messages of Jews as victims of irrational anti-Semitism. This message has been blasted by the mainstream media for decades and it is an integral aspect of academic culture where Jewish power and influence greatly expanded, especially during the 1960s. Of course, we as White Americans have very good reasons to oppose Jewish influence, particularly their influence in promoting the transformational changes resulting from massive non-White immigration which has already weakened the power of White Americans. It’s no accident that the present Secretary of Homeland Security is a Jew who has imported around 4–8 million illegal aliens who will eventually vote, along with their children.

But non-White immigration is presented as a moral imperative in the media and you’re an evil Nazi if you oppose it. The fact is that Jewish efforts to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. reflect Jewish hatred for the traditional West because of anti-Jewish movements in the past reaching back to the Roman Empire, and in particular many Jewish activists explicitly seek to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, some quoted in the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique, but the most recent one I have found is from Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum writing in a very mainstream outlet, The Boston Globe, who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of the Holocaust is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” So you can see this hatred against the West on full display. The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-White groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

It’s the same in the U.K.: Tobias Langdon quotes Barbara Roche, immigration minister in the disastrous Tony Blair government:

“Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migration, The Independent, 24th June 2003)

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

But this mass migration into Western societies presents some problems for Jews, particularly immigration from Muslim countries. Since the Gaza invasion there have been huge protests in Western countries against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, with a highly visible representation of Muslims. I have always thought that Jewish activists, like Steven Steinlight, have known that such immigration would have some downsides for Jews, but that the Jewish establishment feel it is manageable, and so far, they certainly have been correct. In general Muslims throughout the West have voted for the left along with the Jews. However, because of Biden’s support for pretty much anything Israel does, such as making the outrageous claim that “We’re certain Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties” and opposing a ceasefire, this may change. And Jews may want to rethink their support for Muslim immigration if things continue in this direction.

But at present Jews retain their victim status in the media. Holding the moral high ground is especially important in Western individualist societies. Unlike the rest of the world where kinship relations and extended family are paramount, the social glue of Western societies is reputation in a moral community, a major theme of my 2019 book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. We want to be seen as morally upright, good people and we evaluate people based on their competence and personality traits, not kinship connections. This concern with a good image is especially characteristic of far too many White women for whom status in the mainstream political culture is a sure way to avoid the many dangers of getting outside this moral framework—social ostracism, loss of job, and even physical attacks from antifa, etc. It’s no surprise that White women are far more likely to vote for the left’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion agenda, buy into CRT and White guilt messages, to welcome refugees from failed states like Haiti, adopt non-White children and all the rest.

In traditional Western culture, the moral framework was provided by Christian religious authorities who were often, even typically, not friendly to Jews. Anti-Semitism was very common in the US in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g., Henry Ford, who financed the Dearborn Independent which stressed the Jewish role in murderous Bolshevism and their efforts to eradicate Christianity from the public square, and the Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin who had a very popular nationally syndicated radio show tuned in by 30 million listeners at a time when the U.S. population was 130 million — a Super Bowl-level audience — and very explicitly attacked Jewish bankers). But both Ford and Coughlin were silenced by Jewish activism, and anti-Jewish attitudes declined rapidly after World War II in concert with the rise of Jews to the commanding heights of American society, including particularly their deep influence in academia and in the media (a very conscious effort of an offshoot of the Frankfurt School intellectuals) at a time when the media and academic culture establish the boundaries of Western moral communities.

I want to underline this: the traditional religious and patriotic themes of the American moral community were replaced by media-generated themes that have been produced by Jewish elites in the media and academic world and that reflect the attitudes of the wider Jewish community. These themes are now all in on the DEI agenda, CRT, and LGBTQ+. Psychological research shows that media messages are able to inhibit ethnocentrism among Whites, and there’s no doubt that the evils of White ethnocentrism are front and center in the media. Add to that the general tendency to want to conform to the wider culture in order to get ahead (all the rewards are on the side of conforming to the media narratives) and to avoid the ostracism, job losses and other problems that happen to people who dissent from these narratives.

But the horror of Israeli behavior in this war combined with the incessant clamoring by Jews that opposition to or even criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism is bound to produce cognitive dissonance among many American liberals (and perhaps even some conservatives) as they become aware of the decades-long brutality of the Israelis toward the Palestinians. The increasingly hopeless moral position of Israel at a time when the West is deluged with messages about the evils of ethnic hatred is a huge problem. Apart from Christian conservatives who think that the Second Coming depends on Israel winning, it’s likely to be a major problem for American Jews.

This is being played out on my faculty email lists as the ethnic studies professors and other liberals are calling attention to Israeli behavior while the Jewish activists are forced to leave the story at the level of the October 7 attack on Israelis and completely remove the context—the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza as an open-air prison along with its blockade of everything except the bare necessities of life, is completely avoided.

They no longer have the moral high ground, and frankly that gives me considerable pleasure. Back a few years ago when I was saying a lot of the same things about Israel, I got no support at all for similar statements about Israel (as well as calling attention to Jewish attitudes toward immigration into Israel versus Jewish attitudes on immigration to Western countries). Even now there is a movement to relocate Gazans out of Gaza into other countries (an Israeli think tank suggested moving them to Egypt or to Western countries) and there can be little doubt that that will include Western countries, although Jews may think twice about allowing in millions of Palestinians who have good reason to hate Jews. The NYTimes:

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative [always effective with Western governments—the moral high ground, etc.] that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

The suggestion was dismissed by most of Israel’s interlocutors — who include the United States and Britain — because of the risk that such a mass displacement could become permanent [which is obviously the intention]. These countries fear that such a development might destabilize Egypt and lock significant numbers of Palestinians out of their homeland, according to the diplomats, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss a sensitive matter more freely.

The idea has also been firmly rejected by Palestinians, who fear that Israel is using the war — which began on Oct. 7 after terrorists from Gaza raided Israel and killed roughly 1,400 people — to permanently displace the more than two million people living in Gaza. [Who would possibly think that?]

Many writers have argued that Israel must have known about the Hamas attack given their sophisticated intelligence capabilities, informants, drones, etc. If so, we must assume that Israel had an end game in allowing it to happen, despite the deaths to Israelis. What they are now asking for is complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that they started in 1948. They may get it, as Western countries eventually cave in to their demands.

But the Jews won’t give up their morally pure victim status easily. They still basically run our media, and most academic Jews are still shilling for Israel. Ambitious politicians still cling to the pro-Israel narrative for dear life, no matter what the level of hypocrisy, and the media continues to promote the holocaust victimology narrative that justifies any behavior by Israel. One of our biggest problems is that Western politicians are basically sociopaths interested only in power, money, and having a great career. Context-free discussions of the war still dominate the mainstream media.

The world is changing in the direction of a decline of American power and the rise of the BRICS nations economically and militarily. The moral pariah status of Israel in these countries is a huge problem for American foreign policy. Israel has never been a good ally, but this war is going to be an albatross around the neck of the West because of its indefensible history of support for Israel.

But it’s easy to see that many Americans, especially liberals, many non-White ethnics, and young people in general are bailing on this narrative. People on our side don’t have the belief that Jews are paragons of virtue and never harm others. We remember the role of Jews in the Soviet mass murders and their traditional ethics in which non-Jews have no moral value and in which exploiting non-Jews is just fine as long as it doesn’t hurt Jewish interests in general. We worry about a future dominated by non-Whites in which vengeful Jews retain or expand their power. It’s about time this becomes the mainstream view.

Jews Declare War on America

/23 Comments/in /by

We face an unprecedented and revolutionary situation.  The Jews have declared war on America.

This is a disaster for America, and may also be a disaster for the Jews.

A little background.

At a moment when Israel is fighting for its very life (if one is to credit the analysis of Scott Ritter (Scott Ritter, “Why I no longer stand with Israel”) and retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas MacGregor (“Israel has LOST no matter what they do! WW3 is HERE!” at 9:18), not to mention Israeli IDF retired Major General Itshak Brik (Israel could cease to exist before 80th anniversary, says ex-premier Barak), and Israel is absolutely dependent on American support (Macgregor: “Israel played right into their hands.. They have LOST BIG TIME!” at minute 9), the Jews have decided to open a second front!  And maybe a far more dangerous one.  A front against America.

For the Jews, this is very foolish.  Even in the worst case (for the Jews), if Israel is annihilated or its population expelled, the Jews still have the United States as a refuge — a refuge which they have spent 100 years spitting on and one which they disdain, but a refuge nonetheless.  Moreover, it is exactly this refuge that could — if anything can — ensure that the first object of their affections — Israel — continues to exist.

One would think that this would be the time U.S.-based Jews would “cool it” on the “anti-Semitism” war they have been waging on any and all deviating from the “Jewish” line for the past century — even if just for a time, to avoid alienating the great power that is the only thing standing between Israel and its potential destruction.

But no.  The Jews since the October 7 Hamas attack have essentially declared war not on Hamas — the IDF is haltingly attempting to do that — but on Americans!  And not just on any Americans, but on the most precious commodity that non-Jewish Americans — whether Christian, Muslim Americans possess.  Their children.

Beyond this, the Jews have declared war not on “any old” Christian/Muslim/Shinto/Buddhist/Hindu children, but on the very best and brightest of all of them — the ones at Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, MIT, and, by implication, the ones at all the other top Universities in the United States.

A timeline is in order:

October 10.  Jewish billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman calls for the “unmasking” of all students at Harvard who signed an October 8 pro-Palestinian petition.  As discussed in an earlier article this petition was relatively benign, saying nothing that had not been  said 70 years before by Israeli heroes General Moshe Dayan (Moshe Dayan’s Eulogy for Roi Rutenberg — April 19, 1956) and Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion (Ben-Gurion’s Notorious Quotes: Their Polemical Uses & Abuses — Partners For Progressive Israel )— not to mention Israeli founding father Ze’ev Jabotinsky in his writings starting in the 1920’s. “The Iron Wall” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org) .

October 11.  Famed Jewish Harvard constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz (retired but still overly active) calls for the same thing, saying he will “unmask” every student involved in any statement blaming Israel for the violence in the Middle East.

October 11.  Professor Dershowitz “unmasks” a Black lesbian law student who had issued a manifesto similar to that issued at Harvard.  As if on cue, a “Big law” law firm Winston & Strawn then withdraws its offer of summer employment to this unfortunate black lesbian law student, stating as its reason her statements on  “Holy” Israel.

October 12.  Jewish Mega-billionaire Leslie Wexner (who does not know, never knew, Jeffrey Epstein) follows suit with Bill Ackman, threatening to use his influence to destroy the reputations of any student taking a non-Israeli line.  Wexner, the creator of the “Limited” brand and Victoria Secret is a man to be reckoned with.  Although he has never been convicted of a crime, his tax lawyer, Arthur Shapiro was found in front of a condominium door, dead, having been shot several times with a pistol — Les Wexner’s tax attorney Arthur Shapiro was murdered in 1985 in what looked like a Mafia “hit.” The crime was never solved. This Columbus Ohio police report discusses Wexner’s ties to organized crime. : r/Epstein (reddit.com); Who Murdered Arthur Shapiro, the Lawyer of Victoria’s Secret Billionaire Les Wexner? (thedailybeast.com)  See also   A Kingpin, the Mob, and a Murder: The Deeper Mystery behind the Arthur Shapiro Homicide (unlimitedhangout.com)  Rumors of connections to persons associated with organized crime have dogged the poor Mr. Wexner over the years. A Kingpin, the Mafia and a Murder: The Deepest Mystery Behind Arthur Shapiro’s Assassination (reseauinternational.net).  How unjust!   As one of Shakespeare’s solid citizens might say:  “Who steals my purse steals trash…but he that filches from me my good name makes me poor indeed.”  Iago, Othello, Act III.

In October, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan urged alumni to “close their checkbooks” until Penn attacks “anti-semitism.” (He is Jewish despite his WASPY sounding name — remember Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh In”?) and subservient to mega-billionaire Jewish founder Leon Black, as well as Chairman of the New York United Jewish Appeal.

In October, TV producer, Jewish Richard Wolf, announces he will follow suit with Rowan.

In October.  John Huntsman, not Jewish but from time to time interested in politics at the national level requiring Jewish money, followed suit with Rowan, saying that the Huntsman Foundation would “close its checkbook”.

October 17.  Ronald Lauder threatens to pull all funding from the University of Pennsylvania.  Billionaire Ronald Lauder threatens to pull funding if UPenn doesn’t do more to fight antisemitism | CNN Business .  Like Clifford Asness (below) he whined about the highly dangerous — help, help! — Palestinian writer’s conference.

October.  David Magerman (Jewish) of mega math hedge fund Rennaisance Technologies, founded by Jewish James “Jim” Simons, said he was closing his checkbook as well, for the same reasons.

October 18.  Jewish billionaire hedge fund manager Clifford Asness decides to “withdraw funding” due, in part, to a Palestinian writer’s conference at which a number of individuals presumably said “not nice” things about “all perfect” Israel.

October 18.  Jewish law professor at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, one of the nation’s leading law schools, Steven Solomon in a public letter urged that employers NOT hire his own students — that is, those that do not buy the “I love Israel” narrative.  By the way, has he called on Cravath Swine & Moore not to hire Jewish students who were calling for the support of Israel?  Of course not, because they, lucky for them, chose the “right” side.  Solomon should be fired immediately.  If Jewish law professors behave in this fashion, this will be a very good reason for Berkeley — a public school, bound explicitly by the first amendment as a government actor — may quietly decide to “dial down” on the number of Jewish professors given tenure from here on out.  How can you run a law school which advertises that its own professors will destroy your chances for a legal career if you have the wrong opinion on a shit-hole country in the Middle East?

October 18.  As if on cue, big law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell revoked offers to Harvard and Columbia students that had signed anti-Israel statements.  Ironically, it appears these students are in an exclusive “club” at Davis Polk.  It appears that Frank Lyon Polk himself, the co-founder of Davis Polk and the “Polk” in the name of that firm, would have his job offer revoked as well.  He was Undersecretary of State to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, under whom the State Department was firmly anti-Zionist and opposed to any U.S. approval of the Balfour Declaration.   On top of everything else, the complete ignorance of current Davis Polk partners of their antecedents is additional evidence of the complete rot at the heart of the governing class of the United States.

October 26.  Leon Cooperman, former Goldman Sachs investment strategist, now running his own billion-dollar hedge fund, Omega Partners, announced suspension of any funding of his alma mater Columbia University (Cooperman graduated from Columbia Business School in 1967).  Cooperman said, memorably:

“These kids at the colleges have shit for brains,” Cooperman told “The Claman Countdown” host Liz Claman on Wednesday (Emphasis added). (Sorry Lord Leon — actually they are probably a lot smarter than you are, since, in 1965 Columbia was almost open admissions compared to the admissions competitiveness today).  “We have one reliable ally in the Middle East. That’s Israel. We only have one democracy in the Middle East. That’s Israel. And we have one economy tolerant of different people, gays, lesbians, etc. That’s Israel. So they have no idea what these young kids are doing.”

“Now, the real shame is, I’ve given to Columbia probably about $50 million over many years,” he continued. “And I’m going to suspend my giving. I’ll give my giving to other organizations.”Billionaire Leon Cooperman pulling Columbia funding amid student protests: These kids have ‘s— for brains’ | Fox Business

So based on this amateurish diplomatic analysis, which would be contradicted firmly by at least one former Secretary of State (George Marshall) and Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal), he wants to shut down any speech critical of Israel?  Perhaps the one with “shit for brains” is not some 150 IQ Columbia student, but a past-his-sell-by-date Leon Cooperman.

November 2.  Steve Eisman, a senior portfolio manager at Neuberger Berman, of “Big Short” fame (see The Big Short by Michael Lewis), any student who “holds up a sign that says ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea should be expelled’” from the university !!! (Emphasis added.) (Steve Eisman tells UPenn to strip his name off scholarship amid Israel-Hamas war) So in a country whose most prominent statesmen, George Kennan, George Marshall, and Loy Henderson, each strongly urged that Israel not even be created, and which we now know was created due not only to death threats, but primarily to a bribe of $2 million (in 1948 money — maybe $30 million today) in cash delivered by Jewish supremacist Abe Feinberg to a deeply corrupt President Harry Truman (who we now know was busy stealing from his $200,000 (1948 dollars) expense fund) (see The Truman Show) we are now at a point where no person urging that that arguably mistaken formation be reversed— presumably including Kennan, Marshall, and Henderson were they still of college age — can be allowed to attend college?  Fuck you, Eisman.  And the horse you rode in on.

On October 31,  Bill Ackman — apparently after having received some “push back ”, perhaps by Larry Summers, the Jewish former President of Harvard, says he is “re-thinking” his position, and perhaps it would be better not to publicly “unmask” anti-Israel students.  Oddly enough, the new student rant he was discussing involved much worse (at least this author would think) than the original pro-Palestinian statement.  It involved an anonymous Harvard student that called, literally, for the death of all Jews “like Hitler.”  Apparently, Ackman was not sufficiently bothered by this to call for his unmasking (!!!!).  So maybe this guy will at some point be the pediatrician to Bill’s grandchildren, out of Harvard Medical School.  So as to Ackman’s thought (if you can call them that) processes, I just have to say, as Jose Luis Borges might have said: “yo no comprendo”.—Just a little later, Ackman said the pro-Palestinian students, rather than being doxed, should be forced into re-education programs that apparently — or so Ackman thinks — will convince them to reverse all their firmly held positions and volunteer in the IDF.  Good luck, bro.

Then Bill Ackman went full authoritarian, now saying that, rather than unmask students, Harvard et al. should simply be told that no investment bank, hedge fund, or public company will hire any Harvard graduates unless Harvard converts itself into a police state, harassing and chasing down — and presumably expelling — all students not taking the prescribed line on Israel.

Then — I guess the bedsore that is Bill Ackman will be a never-ending story. Ackman comes up with a new angle, this time regarding a large group of Harvard Palestinian supporters confronting a Jewish activist attempting to photograph and “dox” them.  Apparently in the group confronting the “doxer” was the fuzzy picture of a White student whom Ackman somehow has identified as a member of the editorial staff of the Harvard Law Review, possibly the most intellectually elite legal journal in the United States.  Ackman demands that the Law Review editor — who, like his other editors, are the most sought-after law students in the United States by Judges, law firms, and other potential employers — be “unmasked” and denied employment of any kind after graduation.

November 1.  Twenty-seven of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the United States issue letters to all the top law schools in the United States to the effect that, if each of them does not take unspecified “steps” to eliminate “anti-semitism,” none of these  law firms will hire any graduates of those Law Schools.  These include such formerly WASP bastions as Cravath Swaine & Moore, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk & Wardwell (see above), and Debevoise & Plimpton, as well as traditionally Catholic / WASP firms such as Wilkie Farr & Gallegher.  Presumably these firms either have been taken over completely by Jewish senior partners or have so many Jewish clients that they felt compelled to issue this mind-boggling statement. These law firms and banks are — apart from the hi-tech employers on the West Coast — the principal bastion of high paying jobs and influential careers in the United States.  If all but sycophants of the Jews are cut off from these firms, the result will be a collapsing disaster for the freedom and economic prospects of the rest of America.

If these threats are carried out, this is nothing short of a disaster for non-Jewish Americans.  This is, in a word, a direct frontal assault on every non-Jewish American.

If the best and brightest of non-Jews — whether they be White Christians, Blacks, middle eastern Muslims, Latin-American immigrant Catholics (note that except for diminutive Paraguay every country in the Western Hemisphere apart from the U.S. is calling for a cease-fire in Gaza), Chinese, Japanese, Indians, or Pakistani Muslims — cannot find future employment except at the sufferance of Jews, we will be entering a revolutionary stage where non-Jews have only the option of violent revolution to displace an increasingly oppressive Jewish tyranny.  Effectively, it is a non-violent version of Lenin’s recommendation.  He said that if you jailed, killed, or otherwise neutralized the top 10,000 of the bourgeoisie, you controlled the nation, because the remaining bourgeoisie would have no leadership.  If the Jews deprive non-Jewish Americans of their 10,000 per year leadership class (approximately the population of the Ivies), they cut off non-Jewish opposition at the head.

So this is an existential battle.

Well, what about Congress, you say?  It is “elected” and thus cannot be run by a mere 5 million Jews?  Wrong, or at least so it appears.

A deeply conservative new Speaker of the House has just stage managed a large aid package for our “dear friend, Israel,” with only two Republican dissenters. (Democrats opposed it because it was to be paid for by cutting funds for the IRS.)

Part of the problem was described by Trotsky in his book The Russian Revolution.  He pointed out that, in tranquil times, elected representatives tended to represent well the views of the people who elected them; if views of the electorate shifted, the shift would be gradual; this shift would then generally be reflected in the next election, resulting in a legislature back in tune with its electorate.  However, Trotsky pointed out, in revolutionary times, this is not the case.  The views of the people shift so dramatically and so quickly that, shortly after election, legislators are already out of tune with their electorate and remain so for an unendurably long time — until the next election, often years off.

When one also factors in the ossifying and overwhelming effect of Jewish-money and Jewish-controlled media in political campaigns, we have a legislature that responds only to its donors and to media pressure, not to its electorate.  In such cases, both parties put up candidates taking the “pro-Jewish” view, so who cares who wins?

We are in revolutionary times with an ossified Congress, bound in by Jewish money and Jewish media, unable to take actions necessary to protect 350 million Americans from a predatory Jewish financial elite that now appears to be determined to crush out the last glimmering dissent to total Jewish supremacy.

It is astounding that 350 million non-Jewish Americans are dominated by 5 million Jews in a supposedly “democratic” republic.  See Why Are Jews So Influential?   But that’s where we are.

In an actual democratic republic, our legislators would quickly enact legislation under the commerce clause prohibiting any company engaged in interstate commerce (a very broad designation) from conditioning or denying employment based on the political views of the applicants, enforced by heavy criminal penalties, including significant jail time.  This should of course be coupled with similar restrictions on “denial of service’ by banks, financial institutions, and internet accounts such as Youtube, X, and Facebook.  We could call these a “Freedom to Work Act” and a “Freedom to Think Act”.  But fat chance either of these would ever get through our Jewish-dominated legislature.

We quoted Lenin before.  So let’s quote him again.  Lenin famously asked, “what is to be done?”  Well, what is to be done?  That is the signal issue of our times.

Here are some suggestions.  Not a lot, but more than nothing:

(1) Activism directed not against Israel, but against American Jews, specifically those like Dershowitz and Ackman who seek to deprive non-Jewish Americans of their free speech.  Instead of a million-man march on Park Avenue or in London, have a million-man march around their homes, perhaps on a “flash mob” basis.

(2) Activism at their places of business.  Have a million-man swarm around 125 Broad Street (Sullivan & Cromwell) and 450 Lexington Avenue (Davis Polk).  And the offices of all the other Firms.

(3) Activism at the homes and vacation homes of the controlling partners of these firms.  Have million man “flash mobs” outside the homes of H. Rodgin Cohen and Joseph Shenker, the two most powerful partners at Sullivan & Cromwell these days, both Jews, and undoubtedly part of the S&C group behind S&C’s signing of the group “fuck you” letter to American law schools.

(4) Similar activism at the homes of the members of the executive or management committees at each of the other firms on the list as well (don’t want to be discriminatory here), whether such members are Jews or just pathetic Shabbos goyim.

(5) Similar activism — flash marches — at the elite private schools attended by any children or grandchildren of these “big shot” lawyers.  Since what is good for the goose is good for the gander, make sure the signs at these demonstrations — like the ones at Harvard — contain the photographs and names of each of those children, perhaps coupled with “Shame!” or “grandson of bloody murderers” or some such.

(6) Petitions to state pension funds to demand they cease yielding over billions of investment capital to any hedge fund manager involved in these anti-free speech campaigns.  None of the “hedgies” would have more than the net worth of a New Jersey dentist if not for the “carry” on massive amount of state pension fund money.

(7) Ditto (6) for all college endowments and private pension plans.

(8) Until when and if “Freedom to Work” and “Freedom to Live” acts are passed into law by Congress, similar demonstrations at the offices and homes of the members of the labor committees and communications committees of the U.S. Senate and House.

In a word, since we cannot appear to control these thugs through proper legislation by the Congress, make the lives of the thugs carrying out this campaign a living hell unitl something — anything — breaks.

1/  In many of those law firms, Jewish partners displaced the old WASP partners in the late 1970’s to 80’s, a development that seemed anodyne at the time but with ominous consequences that are now becoming fully visible.  Moreover, the important clients of these firms became more Jewish.  As late as 1985, half of all M&A transactions were processed through traditionalist WASP Morgan Stanley & Co, Incorporated, the most elite investment bank in the U.S. with very few Jewish partners.  Morgan Stanley and its sister commercial bank, J.P. Morgan, were the two principal clients of Davis Polk in those years.  In addition, there were a number of other WASP investment banks — though with some Jewish partners — with very high prestige:  First Boston, Kidder Peabody, Paine Webber, etc.  Those non-Jewish investment banks — together with the Jewish Goldman Sachs — plus firmly “all American” firms like Exxon, were the principal clients of Sullivan Cromwell.  Cravath, generally more on the issuer side than the investment banking side, had principal clients such as non-Jewish IBM, General Electric, and such like.   No more.  Morgan is still a big player but for many years was overshadowed by the much more famous Goldman Sachs, and the other WASP firms have all vanished in bankruptcies or sell-outs.  So not only are the most powerful partners of these law firms principally Jewish, their clients are too.  For instance, one of the signatories, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett arguably has become slightly less Jewish-dominated than it was in the mid 1980’s, being headed by non-Jewish Richard Beattie and a number of non-Jewish administrative partners.  However, Beattie’s principal clients are Jewish-owned KKR and Blackstone.  In addition, many of the most prominent clients today are small, but incredibly lucrative hedge funds, probably more than half of which are run by their original founding entrepreneurial Jews, such as Apollo (Leon Black of Drexel fame), KKR (mentioned above), Blackstone (Steve Schwarzman), and a host of others, last but not least including Pershing Capital, owned and run by infamous Bill Ackman.

 

 

A 2000-Year-Old Rabbinical Psyop: Did Jews Invent Christianity to Deceive Gentiles?

/81 Comments/in /by

Anyone reading White Nationalist literature is bound to come across articles hostile to Christianity. The foremost claim appears to be that Christianity itself was invented by Jews (whether by Saint Paul or some unknown rabbinical cabal) for the purpose of deceiving gentiles. Christianity was devised by Jews, then, as a way of conditioning gentiles to be sympathetic to Jews and Jewish causes and take down the Roman Empire with its radically different ethics. It was a means of influencing them from the beginning to oppose Rome, its power, and its paganism.

By portraying Christianity’s greatest hero as a humble Jewish carpenter turned Messiah, along with his Jewish apostles and, particularly, by “rabbi” Paul as its foremost theologian who shaped what Christians were to believe, gentiles would unknowingly turn out to be great proponents of all things Jewish.

Thomas Dalton expresses well this viewpoint:

The likeliest conclusion to this mess is that the Jew Paul and the anonymous Jewish gospel writers made it all up: that there was no miracle-working Son of God, no virgin birth, and no resurrection. They did so, not for fame or money, but because they believed that promulgating a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman theology would aid the Jewish cause. (Pro-Jewish, because the Christians are to worship the Jewish God, the Jewish rabbi Jesus, and the Jewish ‘virgin’ Mary; anti-Roman, because “the worldly powers” of Rome are a manifestation of Satan and must be defeated.) And in the end, it did. Judeo-Christianity flourished, ideologically defeated Rome, and then took up residence in Rome itself. (‘Jesus the Jew,’ The Occidental Observer, 5/22/2023).

This position has, essentially, been promoted over the years by such respected White racialists as the late Oliver P. Revilo and William L. Pierce. Each of these men have made great contributions to understanding the Jewish Question, and the need for Whites to pursue their own racial and cultural interests over that of the interests of outside groups. Interestingly, the greater number of White racialists in prior generations have not been nearly as antagonistic to Christianity as Oliver, Pierce, Dalton, and other pro-White advocates (e.g., George Lincoln Rockwell).

It seems to me, however, that when addressing Christianity and the problems of Jewish cultural subversion, these esteemed writers have over-reached in their criticisms. Their zeal to vanquish Christianity has not always been grounded on a true knowledge of Christian theology and history. They have often appealed to outdated liberal higher-critical arguments against Christianity’s origins (e.g., the theory of pagan derivation, including notions that the gospels were composed decades or even hundreds of years after the death of Christ) with almost no awareness of how conservative biblical scholars have rebutted such polemics. Almost all of it is an overreaction to the lunacy and slobbering obsession that far too many Christians today have of Jews and Israel. Much of it is also the result of their animosity toward Jews who have been at the forefront in orchestrating and funding Jewish organizations that promote Third-World immigration into the West. Anything connected to the Jewish people, Israel, or the Torah is viewed as fundamentally hostile to White racialism. There are no exceptions to this, and there are no “good Jews” either although some might make rare exceptions for Jews such as Gerard Menuhin, Benjamin H. Freedman, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Ron Unz, and a few others.

Since Christianity has obvious Jewish origins — including its founder, Jesus, who was a descendant of David and of Abraham (Matthew 1:1) and who also was an observant Jew, as well as Saint Paul who claimed that he was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the Law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5) — it’s reasoned that no White person should be associated with Christianity because it was merely invented to fool non-Jews and to weaken every bit of European racial identity.

But is any of this true? Was Christianity ‘invented’ by Paul or by some secret faction of Jews for the express purpose of deceiving the Goyim? And when gentiles come to faith in the person of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament, is that just ‘part of the plan’? How does any of this help Jews when so much of Christianity is diametrically opposed to Talmudic Judaism?

The apostle Paul

There are a host of reasons why we should seriously question this theory. It seems to me that this entire notion appeals to those who have such a deeply entrenched animosity toward Jews that they are unable to see straight when it comes to these matters. They are so opposed to Jewish cultural subversion (rightly so) that they haven’t bothered to think carefully through their own theory that Christianity was ‘invented’ by Jews to deceive gentiles and, thereby, grant the Jewish people supremacy over the world. It may sound persuasive to some at first hearing, but without a thorough investigation of the matter, one cannot be certain of its truth.

It should be noted that the purpose of this article is not to defend Christianity as the ‘true religion’ per se. My intention, instead, is to challenge this idea of Christianity as a Jewish psyop, to show that some of the most glaring and fundamental problems with it are either never or rarely addressed by those promoting it. They have failed to think carefully through the implications of their own theory. And it isn’t long before the assiduous student runs into an array of problems when he or she tries to maintain that Christianity is just a Jewish invented trap to deceive gentiles.

Let’s consider a few of these problems.

1.Whatever one may think of Christianity, there can be no reasonable denial that Christianity from its inception has been fundamentally opposed to Talmudic or Pharisaical Judaism. Jesus openly condemned the religious leaders of his day in no uncertain terms: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” . . . “Blind guides” . . . “You fools and blind men!” . . . “Full of robbery and self-indulgence” . . . “White-washed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but on the inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” . . . “Full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” . . . “Sons of those who murdered the prophets” . . . “Serpents and brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:1-33). And that’s just from one chapter in the New Testament!

The entire rabbinical system, then, is condemned by Jesus not merely because it deviated from the express teachings and spirit of the Torah, but because the rabbis placed so many additional laws on the Jewish people that religious observance became a burdensome yoke (see Acts 15:10). Rather than freeing their own people, the rabbis only enslaved them.

Yet, we must ask ourselves: How could such hostile denunciations by Jesus in any way endear gentiles to Jews, especially toward their religious leaders? If the person of Jesus was invented by a secret cabal of Jews, what benefit would it serve them to portray him as one continually condemning rabbinical hypocrisy? Why would they portray Jesus as someone always getting the best of them? How does an ‘invented’ Jesus who time after time refutes the rabbis and publicly maligns their integrity and spirituality serve to benefit ‘the plan’? Wouldn’t this be obviously detrimental to their purpose? Does any of this comport with what we know about Jews — namely, their hubris and self-applauding nature? One would think that if Jews were to ‘invent’ a religion to both attract and deceive the gentiles, they would at least portray themselves in the best possible light, as victors in every theological dispute, right? Yet this is never what we find.

  1. The New Testament contains numerous passages that portray the Jewish people in a less than flattering light. For instance, in Matthew 27 when Pilate is reluctant to have Jesus killed, the Jews began to cry out all the more: “Crucify him!” They even asked for Barabbas, a robber and a thief, to be released rather than Jesus. The Jews were so determined to have Jesus crucified that they cried out, “His blood shall be on us and our children!” Well, it seems like they got their wish.

In another passage, Paul describes unbelieving Jews and their leaders as those “who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15). Why would pro-Jewish schemers think that such broad denunciations would create a sympathetic view of them among non-Jews? A fair reading of the New Testament, if anything, leads one to an exalted view of Jesus and his disciples and a very low opinion of Jews in general. Seriously, why would any Jew let alone a caucus of Jews allow this sort of thing into a religious document they intend to deceive gentiles with? The nature of the Jew, generally, is to portray himself in the most exalted fashion, superior in intelligence, and able always to outwit the dull-minded Goyim who are no different than the beasts of the field.

In Revelation 3:9, the apostle John records the prophetic words of Jesus: “Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie — I will make them come and bow down at your feet and make them know that I have loved you.” Oops, looks like the secret committee of Goyim-deceiving Jews forgot to take that passage out of the New Testament! How does a text like this fit into the great Jewish ‘scheme’ to dupe all gentiles?  The proponents of this fanciful theory never really tell us.

  1. Some have argued that even many Jews recognize the beneficial service of Christianity in spreading knowledge of Yahweh and of the Jewish people throughout the entire world. In this narrow sense, they argue that the spread of Christianity has benefitted Jews. There’s an element of truth in this, but it’s not the whole truth. Never forget that Jews often falsely claim ownership and as having ‘invented’ this or that as a means of promoting their supremacy over non-Jews. As a result, much of the world is deceived into believing that Jews possess skills, intelligence, and an intellectual prowess far above gentiles.

Thus, knowledge of the Jewish people and that of the Hebrew God may have indirectly been spread throughout the world because of Christianity, but that knowledge is still connected to one that is not particularly favorable to them. Somehow, boastful Jews neglect to mention this important bit of truth.

One doesn’t come away from reading the New Testament with notions of how wonderful Jews are. Instead, it portrays them as deceived and foolish enough to crucify their own long-awaited Messiah. They are depicted as legalistic distorters of the Mosaic law, blinded by their own false traditions, defiant against the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted centuries earlier (see Jeremiah 31), and as persecutors of the early Christians — something they have continued for centuries in doing. If there’s any doubt about it, you can watch a host of videos on YouTube which documents just how vile Jews are in their treatment of Christians in the so-called ‘Holy Land.’

Because of such unfavorable passages, Jews describe the New Testament as “anti-Semitic.” But, again, we’ve got to ask ourselves why Jews would ‘create’ or ‘invent’ a Christianity that’s so “anti-Semitic”? How would this benefit them? We’re never really told. We’re just assured by the ‘Christianity-is-a-Jewish-deception’ crowd that it’s all ‘part of the plan.’

Interestingly, if Jews are to condemn the New Testament because of its blatant “anti-Semitism,” then they should surely condemn the Old Testament just as equally. Have you read how Yahweh describes his own people — a people so obstinate that he declares to Moses that his anger will burn against them and utterly destroy them (Exodus 32:9)? Have you read how Moses describes the Israelites — a rebellious and stubborn people (Deuteronomy 31:27)? Have you read the many descriptive and overtly offensive words the prophets used to denounce the Israelites? It’s not pretty. Yet if these same expressions were employed in the New Testament (and some of them are), the Jews in typical knee-jerk reaction would describe it as “anti-Semitic.” If so, maybe they should just concede that the entire Bible is replete with “anti-Semitism”?

Jews are much too self-absorbed to realize that if they make everything they don’t like “anti-Semitic,” then they’ll certainly end up condemning their own Hebrew Bible. It’s almost impossible to discern such a simple truth when one is convinced that their people are history’s ‘eternal victims’ and that “anti-Semitism’ is solely the result of ‘jealousy’ and ‘hate.’

  1. Gentile Christians in the New Testament are described as a people on par with Jewish believers. Together, both Jews and Greeks (gentiles) are described as one in Christ. Thus, rather than exalting Jews as superior over gentiles, the New Testament repeatedly places both groups on equal footing (see Galatians 3:28-29). The Jewish privileges of circumcision, one’s Jewish ancestry, and possession of the Mosaic Law means relatively nothing in the writings of Peter, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and in the Book of Acts. These are nothing for Jews to boast about as is common among Jews. Why would Jews bent on deceiving gentiles allow such concepts to be believed if they are seeking to control them?

The New Testament, in fact, employs the same exalted expressions once used of the ancient Israelites to gentile Christians! Writing to gentile believers, Saint Peter describes them as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession (1 Peter 2:9). Earlier in the epistle, Peter tells these same gentile Christians that they too are privileged to do what only the ancient Levitical priests were allowed to do in the temple — namely, “offer up spiritual sacrifices” because they are a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5).

Why would a cabal of Jews intent on creating a Christianity to deceive dumb Goyim portray them as just as equally privileged and special as themselves? How does this comport with a grand ‘plan’ to bring about worldwide Jewish supremacy?

In Galatians 6:16, Paul refers to gentile Christians as “the Israel of God.” In his epistle to the Romans, he also defines for his readers who is a true Jew: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Romans 2:28-29). In his letter to the Philippians, he warns gentile Christians to “beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision” (3:2-3).

The point in referencing all these passages together is to show how absurd the notion that ethno-centered and self-serving Jews would somehow ‘invent’ a religion that would place the despised gentiles on equal standing with themselves.

Again, is this how Jews are known to think and behave? Have you ever known Jews to give preferential status and position to non-Jews over themselves? The very notion is preposterous! It defies everything we know about the Jewish people.

  1. Historically, and particularly in modern times, Jews have worked feverishly to undermine and ultimately destroy Christianity. Even when they can’t fully nullify the Christian faith, they try to dilute its central message of redemption. By means of numerous federal court decisions, Jews have sought to vanquish every bit of religious influence that Christianity might afford in the public square (e.g., school prayer, Christian symbols on federal or state properties, pro-life efforts). Yet, why would they do this if Christianity comports with their grand ‘plan’ to deceive and ultimately control the gentiles? Wouldn’t they want Christianity’s influence to spread if it was in fact designed to snare the Goyim? How come Jewish activist organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC seem to be unaware of this great conspiracy to dupe White people by means of Christianity? Even the notion of America as a ‘Christian nation’ has large numbers of Jews up in arms. But why? Wouldn’t this align with ‘the plan’? How would opposition to all things Christian serve to benefit ‘the plan’ of clever Jews who allegedly ‘invented’ Christianity to deceive gentiles?
  2. While it’s true that individual Christians and European Christian nations over the centuries have given the Jewish people a certain amount of sympathy and refuge from their enemies, some important considerations need to be kept in mind before succumbing to the ‘Christianity is a Jewish deception’ viewpoint.

The first is that while Jews at times were given refuge by Christian nations, these same nations also ejected them when Jews had taken advantage of the natives. When Christians had had enough of their monetary scheming, usury, vice industries, their unwillingness to assimilate, and their parasitical ways, Jews got the collective boot. It has happened to them over a hundred times in fact.

The second thing to note is that European Christians did not allow their ‘anti-Semitic’ feelings about the Jews to be squashed because the Founder of their religion was Jewish. They had no such guilt because they understood the duplicitous nature of Jews. It has only become a recent phenomenon among modern-day Christians to feel guilty about everything connected to the ‘Holocaust,’ slavery, and race because we have been constantly bombarded by Jewish propaganda for the past 60 years telling us how evil we are for just being White.

  1. Advocates of the theory that Christianity is merely a ‘Jewish scheme to entrap gullible gentiles’ have failed to grasp just how deeply opposed Christian theology is to Jewish legalism, to the Mosaic Law itself. The New Testament writers, for instance, view the Law as belonging to an old era that has passed away with the coming of Christ (Romans 7:4-6; 1 Corinthians 9:20-21; Galatians 3:24-26; 5:1). The starting point of Christian obedience, then, is what Jesus said and not what Moses declared on Mount Sinai (Matthew 17:1-8; John 1:17; Hebrews 3:1-6). The Law itself was “only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things” (Hebrews 10:1). The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant and is even described as a “better covenant” that has been enacted on “better promises” (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6-13). The entire Levitical system with its animal sacrifices, its priests, its temple, and even the ancient land promises have been done away with in Christ (Hebrews 7:12; 9:1-24; 11:8-16). Christians seek a “better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Hebrews 11:16), and not a dry and dusty plot of land in Palestine.

Considering this, does it really make sense to think that conniving Jews would write such condemnatory things about their own religious system, its laws, and the very covenant between them and Yahweh in some bizarre attempt to make gentiles sympathetic to their plight against the Roman empire? If anything, it would seem to have the opposite effect since it would provoke non-Jews to realize that Jewish religious beliefs have been jettisoned by even their own God! It would tend to paint observant Jews who still cling to their religious traditions as doing so in vain. How is such blatant anti-Judaism going to win over ‘gentile dogs’ when the Christianity Jews supposedly ‘invented’ condemns all their religious creeds and ancient institutions? How could any of this be viewed as “pro-Jewish”? The entire theory is a bit too clever for its own good.

  1. Some anti-Christian White racialists have argued that the widespread popularity of ‘Christian Zionism’ in the U.S. serves as ‘proof’ of how Jews have deceived the gentile masses through the ‘trick’ of Christianity. These same ‘Christian Zionists,’ admittedly, support every conceivable Jewish cause. They also fund millions annually to Israeli-organized charities and Jewish political organizations.

Yet what’s not often pointed out is how comparably recent the ‘Christian Zionist’ movement in America is. Yes, there are influential Christian pastors like John Hagee who do almost nothing other than urge Christians to ‘stand with Israel.’ There’s also no doubt that the 1909 Schofield Bible has had an overtly pro-Israel emphasis for the past the century and has done much to spread the insidious beliefs of Dispensationalism. It was funded and promoted by a Jew, Felix Untermeyer.

C.H. Schofield

But this has not been the historic position of most Protestant churches nor of the Catholic Church. Reformed Protestant Christians, in fact, have been at the forefront in publishing books critical of ‘Christian Zionism’ and Dispensational theology. Centuries prior to the publication of the Schofield Bible, then, Christians were not so pro-Jewish as some imagine. The Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, had no crisis of conscience when he authored his scathing work, The Jews and Their Lies (1543). Apparently, the grand scheme among cunning Jews of concocting a “pro-Jewish” Christianity hasn’t worked out as well as they thought for most of church history.

  1. Finally, we must address the question of whether Saint Paul the “rabbi” invented Christianity. This is a common objection raised by liberal theologians, including those who are anti-Christian White racialists. Space won’t permit a detailed examination of this issue, but a couple of notable points may help the reader to recognize that this theory of the origin of Christianity hardly does justice to the evidence when it’s weighed fairly.

Paul, no doubt, played a leading role in formulating much of Christian theology, but that’s not quite the same as having ‘founded’ the Christian faith. While some may argue that Paul’s letters were constituted to serve as “anti-Roman” diatribes, this seems less than convincing when one considers that he instructed the early Christians in Romans 13 to “Submit to the governing authorities, “to not resist them because they have been established by God,” to “pray for them,” “to pay their taxes,” and to “give honor to whom honor is due” (vv.1-7). Saint Peter, likewise, commands his readers to “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers” (vv.13-14). If that’s not clear enough, he further urges them to “honor the king” (v.17).

We are compelled to ask: Why would a group of “pro-Jewish” writers say such things especially when their primary purpose is to deceive gentiles so that they become just as “anti-Roman” as themselves? How is any of this promulgating an anti-Roman theology?

In fairness, I can’t ‘prove’ my position, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction. The best I could do is provide reasons, including some internal evidence within the New Testament writings itself, why the notion of Paul being the founder of Christianity is not plausible. For instance, Paul was concerned about preserving a body of traditions that he had received from the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). He, in turn, urges Christians to hold firm to such traditions. Appealing to a core set of beliefs and traditions already in circulation and well-known among the larger Christian communities makes little sense if Paul is some maverick or inventor of new teachings previously unheard of.

Paul was careful to distinguish between his own words or opinions and that of Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:12). It indicates his unwillingness to attribute to Jesus words that were merely his own. This sort of thing doesn’t comport with someone eager to fashion a Jesus or create new doctrines out of thin air.

There is also no compelling evidence that the Gospel writers got their ideas from Paul as if he were the unchallenged source for what they were supposed to say and write. In fact, the interesting thing is how none of the theological controversies addressed in Paul’s epistles are found in the Gospels. One would think that if they were making it all up, they would find a way to insert a saying of Jesus that would clear up any matters of theological dispute. But this never occurs even once.

The reason that Paul did not always appeal to sayings or events in the Gospels (though at times he does) is because his letters were ad hoc in nature, meaning they were intended to address immediate issues and controversies present in the churches he had planted. These were matters of concern to the Christians he was writing to. Thus, the Gospels present the foundation of who Christians have believed in while the later epistles of Paul and Peter serve as instructional and practical for the Christian life — namely, how it is to be lived out now that they have come to faith in Jesus.

Finally, although one may claim that Paul was a deceiver and allege that he “made it all up,” this is not the kind of character we find depicted in his epistles. Instead, we find a person who seems devoted to truth, willing to suffer abuse and rejection for the sake of the Gospel, willing to live in poverty rather than gain riches at the expense of others, willing to be ridiculed rather than destroy his personal testimony, and all the while strongly urging individual Christians and church leaders to live circumspectly, holy, and honorably in all that they do (see Acts 20:33-35).

Even Peter speaks affectionately of Paul and refers to “the wisdom given to him” by God (2 Peter 3:15-16). None of this is suggestive of a duplicitous nature on his part or of manipulating people and events to concoct a religion to overthrow Rome.

Conclusion

The entire notion that Christianity was merely invented by Jews to deceive gentiles and, thereby, make them anti-Roman and pro-Jewish falls short at every point. It cannot account for the many explicit anti-Pharisaical statements found in the New Testament. It cannot logically account for why these pro-Jewish writers would place the despised gentiles on the same footing as themselves. Everything about it runs counter to what we know historically and experientially about Jewish people in terms of their ethno-centrism, hubris, and self-glorifying natures.

A fair reading of the Book of Acts, including that of Paul and Peter’s letters, portrays the early Christians as not particularly anti-Roman. This doesn’t mean they didn’t view Rome as morally corrupt and polytheistic, but only that this was not their primary concern. In fact, there are far more passages condemning false religious traditions among the rabbis, including warnings against false Jewish teachers, than that of vilifying the Roman empire (see Philippians 3:1-9).

The theory of a deceptive, manipulative theology created and promoted by Jews fails because its proponents never or rarely bother to follow through with the logical outcome or implications of it. Why, for instance, would a series of documents (New Testament) written by “pro-Jewish” authors repeatedly paint the Jewish people in the worst possible light, attacking not only their ancient Abrahamic pedigrees which they trusted in, but exposing the entire rabbinical system of that period as a sham? In what way would this urge gentiles to be “pro-Jewish”? Why would these same authors urge followers of Jesus to submit to the Roman government and other pagan rulers if their efforts were motivated by an “anti-Roman theology”?

None of it makes a bit of sense because the theory is reactionary and emotional in nature. It’s cultivated and spread by those who know little to nothing about Christianity, its history and theology. It sounds persuasive only to those who lack the acumen to dig deeper and ask serious some serious questions about it.

Christian Zionist, Pastor John Hagee

 

 

Nightmare on Martha’s Vineyard

/7 Comments/in /by

Nightmare on Martha’s Vineyard

Based on MSNBC’s recent special, “Martha’s Vineyard v. DeSantis,” even award-winning documentarians cannot produce a propaganda film about Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “political stunt” of sending illegals to this wealthy liberal redoubt without the residents coming across as clueless, entitled douchebags.

The documentary is the celluloid equivalent of stepping on a rake and having the rake hit you in the face.

I will dispense with correcting the usual immigration lies scattered throughout the documentary. (No, the Venezuelans did not enter our country “legally”; and no, Venezuela’s economic disaster isn’t something that happened to them — they did it to themselves. Can’t wait to have these Aristotles voting here.)

I’m more interested in the prodigious entitlement of the Martha’s Vineyarders.

The documentary begins with a bunch of New Englanders bustling around a dock, and a ruddy-faced woman holding up a fish for a picture (the closest liberals ever get to the working class). She is then introduced as Lisa Belcastro, director, Harbor Homes Shelter.

Belcastro: “So I get a call at around 4 o’clock and I was like ‘What? We have about 50 Venezuelans in the parking lot? And I … why? What do you mean?’”

Her befuddlement was echoed by Geany Rolanti of Martha’s Vineyard Community Services, who said, “I saw them walking across from the high school to the bus stop. I was confused. I was confused. Because, I was like, how did you get here?”

Wouldn’t it be great to live in a place where the sight of unkempt Third Worlders is confusing? Not too long ago, that was America. But by now, there aren’t many towns left where it would be considered unusual.

I envy their utter obliviousness to what’s happening in the rest of the country.

The Biden administration has dumped nearly 4 million illegals on the U.S. in the past three years alone. Martha’s Vineyard — which voted 80% for Biden — got 49 of ‘em and immediately called the police. Within 36 hours, the National Guard had removed the unsightly newcomers.

Could we put Martha’s Vineyard in charge of border security?

Venezuelan illegal: “They didn’t know what to do with us. We arrived unexpectedly.”

Unexpectedly! Whereas the hundreds of thousands of illegals showing up in other people’s towns were totally expected!

No, I’m sorry. That’s incorrect. Biden has been furtively sending planeloads of illegals on late-night “ghost flights” to U.S. airports with absolutely no advance warning, no resources and no right of refusal. Even in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, the Department of Homeland Security redacts the names of the luckless cities. Martha’s Vineyard: 80% for Biden.

The Democratic sheriff in San Antonio, Texas, Javier Salazar, perhaps hoping for an invitation to the Vineyard someday, is all over the documentary, making hilariously obtuse comments based on his expertise of having the 49 Venezuelans pass through his town first.

“If I want to make a point by inconveniencing not just the people I’m dumping, but inconveniencing the people I’m going to dump them on, that’s a perfect place to do it.”

Imagine the cheek of DeSantis inconveniencing Martha’s Vineyard! Salazar should be the keynote speaker at the next Democratic National Convention to elaborate on this point: Do NOT inconvenience the rich!

How did this nitwit get elected anywhere, much less in Texas? Oh, I see: San Antonio: 67% Hispanic, who vote about 70% for “D,” no matter what. (You’re definitely going to win the Hispanic vote, Republicans. Just keep trying!)

Most bizarrely, Salazar demanded to know, “What business is it, quite frankly, of the governor of Florida or anybody in Florida, what’s going on in my county?” The sheriff seems sublimely unaware that illegal immigration is affecting the whole country, not just his county.

Weirdly, Salazar — so proprietary about “what’s going on in [his] county” — flew to Massachusetts to oversee the illegals’ new accommodations after they got booted off the island.

Singing their praises, he talked about what great housekeepers they were. “They cleaned the barracks from top to bottom.”

Any engineers or surgeons in there, or are the rich still clamoring for more maids?

In a total coup, the documentary producers somehow got a living, walking, hectoring exemplar of “Karen” to participate in the documentary! Rachel Self, Martha’s Vineyard resident and immigration lawyer, keeps popping up, screeching about “crimes,” “victims,” “survivors,” “grooming” (isn’t that word a hate crime?), and people being “kidnapped.” I said, salad dressing on the SIDE!

Her immediate response to 49 illegals on the Vineyard was to call the chief of police to report a kidnapping.

— A governor sending 49 illegals to Martha’s Vineyard: KIDNAPPING.

— Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas dumping millions of illegals on towns throughout America (not Martha’s Vineyard): a Democratic hero!

— Ms. Self loading illegals onto a bus and personally ushering them off the island: Good Samaritan … and I’d like to speak to the manager!

Perhaps realizing that their blind hysteria about 49 illegals sounded a little Trumpy, the Vineyardites kept making excuses for their rush to get the illegals off the island.

First, they bragged about how wildly “diverse” Martha’s Vineyard is. Did you know the year-round population is one-quarter Brazilian?

That’s not true, at least according to any liberal’s definition of “diverse.” Only 0.19% of the population moved from abroad. Eighty-six percent of the year-rounders are American-born U.S. citizens. The median household income (off-season) is $74,000 — and $1 billion during summer — compared to $57,000 in Florida and $68,000 in Texas.

Next, the put-upon residents kept insisting that they bent over backward to help their beloved Venezuelans — “my 49 people,” as Self put it.

Massachusetts State Rep. Dylan Fernandes: “I hopped in and started blowing up air mattresses.”

You’re right, Dylan. No one could have done more.

Belcastro: “People wanted to help. People wanted to give. People wanted to donate.”

Yeah — donate to the buses to get them the hell off the island.

Rolanti: “They got hugs, they got kisses, they got clothing, they got food, we did everything we could, but unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of resources. … We have a lot of people who need food, who need shelter.”

Luckily, no one else in the entire country needs food or shelter. Only Martha’s Vineyard.

Fernandes: “It’s a very small island.”

Yes, small, but somehow big enough accommodate an extra 180,000 people during the summer — unlike the hundreds of towns and cities in less well-connected parts of the country that have been compelled to accommodate 4 million illegals just in the last three years.

I’ll let Karen write the epitaph to this column, as she seems so eager to do for the country.

“Martha’s Vineyard,” Self said, “has a year-round population of 17,000 people total, so 49 people for us being dropped here was the equivalent of 24,000 people being dropped in downtown Manhattan. That is not my America.”

See? Clueless. In the last year, more than 113,000 illegals have been “dropped” on New York City, with no end in sight.

That’s not our America, either.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

Why Are Jews So Influential?

/40 Comments/in , /by

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and likely have been under genetic selection in Ashkenazi Jewish groups: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness, and finally mention the Jewish guru phenomenon.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, along with strong charismatic leadership result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the post-Enlightenment world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, even before the Enlightenment Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers.

It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.[1] Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”[2]

Nineteenth-century critics of Jews typically complained about Jewish influence in the media and Jewish wealth that often made traditional Western aristocratic elites subservient to them, and, like Richard Wagner, they complained about Jewish influence on culture.[3] Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union and willing participants of horrendous mass murders of its early decades, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until well after World War II.[4] They were a central focus of National Socialism in Germany, in part because of the Jewish role in Bolshevism, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and multicultural/multiethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-White immigration to countries of European origin.[5] In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed neoconservative Jews in the Bush administration and the media had a critical role in fomenting wars that benefit Israel, and now neocon Jews in the Biden administration have established the all-out support for Ukraine against Russia and  Israel against Hamas. Right now the ADL is leading the campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, particularly on X (Twitter), and Jewish billionaires are blacklisting students and withholding funds from universities if they don’t express enthusiastic support for Israel.[6] Indeed, I would say that we are once again witnessing an incredible display of Jewish power in the U.S.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? I will not discuss the role of Western individualism in facilitating Jewish influence.[7] We tend to see people as individuals, as in the ideology of colorblind meritocracy so common among mainstream conservatives.

Jews are Ethnocentric

Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish ethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins.[8] Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males.[9] These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies.

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries, and moral particularism represented by the phrase “Is it good for the Jews.” In Jewish religious writings, non-Jews had no moral standing and could be exploited at will as long as doing so didn’t harm the entire group. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups.[10] Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon:

There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion.[11]

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward collectivism and ethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish ethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism—perhaps most notably ethnic networking that was so important to The Culture of Critique—and have argued in several places that Jewish ethnocentrism is biologically based.[12]

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.[13] Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in the Kabbala—the Jewish mystical tradition. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Kabbalistic literature by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Kabbala has a universalist message. The actual texts say salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”[14]

The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:

We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.[15]

These people and secular ethono-nationalists who have basically the same ideas are firmly in charge in Israel, leading to a long series of protests by liberal Jews in Israel and the US. There are a million more examples but in the interests of brevity I’ll leave it at that. Even a prominent Israel apologist like Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes recently wrote that the present government as a “far-right coalition of Jewish supremacists and ultra-Orthodox Jews.” But AIPAC still dominates Congress and the Executive branch, so there won’t be any changes soon.

From Mondoweiss:

When Rep. Jayapal called Israel a racist state in July, Democrats and Republicans leaped on her in a political feeding frenzy. They fell over each other to cash in on the defense of Israel, a state whose racism is not just obvious but a point of pride for many in its government. They immediately and overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating that “the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state.” Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.  Jayapal, of course, voted with the majority. The nine who voted against were all progressives who are atop the list of AIPAC’s most hated. It breezed through the Senate by unanimous consent.

Similar overwhelming support for Israel in the Gaza war passed the House of Representatives and it was unanimous in the Senate. Republicans and conservatives generally are especially supportive of Israel.

Same with conservative media. I am not sure why this is. Part of it is probably because a significant portion of their audiences are evangelicals who think Israel’s success will inaugurate the Second Coming of Jesus and the end times. It may also be their desire to gain legitimacy in a cultural environment that is completely dominated by the left which accuses anyone to the right of Mitt Romney of being a raving Nazi.

Ethnocentrism is responsive to particular environmental triggers, what evolutionists term “facultative mechanisms,” that is, mechanisms that can be triggered by external circumstances such as perceived threat. The phenomenon of a siege mentality has been mentality noted by many authors as typical of Jewish culture throughout history (see A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7, pp. 218–219).

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982)[17] note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage–with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153)[18] note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.” 

A good example is how American Jews reacted to the 1967 war. Silberman notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was.”[19] Silberman comments that “This was the response, not of some newcomer to Judaism or casual devotee but of the man whom many, myself included, consider the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of our time.” Many others made the same surprising discovery about themselves: Arthur Hertzberg wrote that “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else.”[20]

The current war in Gaza is no exception. Haredim, who usually avoid military service in order to devote their lives to study, are enlisting in the IDF and J Street, the liberal Zionist lobby is issuing context-free condemnations of Hamas. It’s the same with the Jewish faculty at my former university — liberals all and oblivious to the role of Israeli behavior in producing Palestinian hatred, but horrified that someone would tear down a poster of a Jewish hostage posted in a university building and trumpeting calls for free speech. (Where have they been in condemning the ADL’s pivotal role in censoring free speech on social media? Somehow I don’t think it’s an accident that I and a couple of my brothers-in-arms have been banned from X after Musk took over and is doing his best to avoid the wrath of the powers that be.)  There are still voices like Jewish Voice of Peace and Mondoweiss that have long condemned Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, but they are definitely do not represent the vast majority of the power and money of the Jewish community in America.

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification—for example, the messages of ever-increasing threat of anti-Semitism promulgated by the ADL — accompanied by pleas for donations.

Bar-Tal et al. (1992) note that 

not surprisingly, Siege Mentality is related to Ethnocentrism. The belief that the world has negative intentions towards the group indicates its evil, malice, and aggressiveness. In this context, the group not only feels victimized and self-righteous, but also superior to the out-group.[21]

Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy)

The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with an average IQ of approximately 111 with a particular strength in verbal IQ. Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary societies, it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Intelligence, as well as the other traits discussed here, were likely under genetic selection in traditional Ashkenazi societies because scholars were given marriages to the daughters of wealthy Jews and good business opportunities. Wealth and reproductive success were strongly linked at least prior to the nineteenth century.

Nevertheless, because of the demographic differences between Jews and White Americans, there are many more White Americans at any level of IQ required for upward mobility and leadership positions in American society. For example, at IQ of 140, there are five times as many White Americans as Jews. IQ is thus an insufficient explanation for Jewish influence.

Intelligence and ethnic networking are important for academic success, and in Chapters two and five of The Culture of Critique I showed that Jews and Jewish organizations led the intellectual effort to deny the importance of racial and ethnic differences in human affairs and to pathologize any sense of White identity or White interests. The Jewish role in creating the intellectual context of the 1965 immigration law relied on the success of the Boasian movement in anthropology in shaping academic views on race by dominating the American Anthropological Association since the 1920s. For example, historian of anthropology Gelya Frank noted “in message and purpose, [Boas’s anthropology] was an explicitly antiracist science.” This subverted the strong sense of race and racial interests that were prominent trends in academia and the mainstream media. Science is that lingua franca of the West, so the prestige of the Boasians was critical for their success.

Intelligence is also linked to wealth. Based on past results, Jews are probably around 35% of the wealthiest Americans, and that translates into a well-funded infrastructure of Jewish causes, from neocon think tanks to AIPAC to the ADL and political campaigns where the Democrat Party is basically funded by wealthy Jews and the Republican Jewish Coalition probably provides 40% of GOP donations aimed at supporting Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues. ADL Assets in 2021 were listed at $238,000,000; $62,000,000 in contributions. The national ADL, like the ACLU, the SPLC, the NAACP, and other so-called civil rights groups, is now merely a tax-exempt cadre of the Democratic Party and has gone all in on anti-White critical race theory, gender insanity, and opposition to any talk about the Great Replacement, claiming that the very idea is racist and anti-Semitic (while stating that Israel must retain its Jewish majority by controlling immigration and preventing Palestinians on the West Bank from voting). The ADL is a very prominent player in the censorship regime that pervades the left in the West. Right now the ADL is leading an aggressive campaign to expunge social media of ideas they don’t like, most famously on X (Twitter) so that Elon Musk is routinely labeled an anti-Semite in Jewish media and any mention of George Soros’s influence or calling out globalism is anti-Semitic. Because of their elite connections they have been able to pressure advertisers on Twitter, so that ad revenue is down 40% from pre-Musk days.

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jews and Jewish organizations organized, led, funded, and performed most of the work of the most important anti-restrictionist organizations active from 1945–1965 and are still prominently involved. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well-funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. Intelligence and organization are also apparent in Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel. Over thirty years ago US Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond.”[22] At the time there was concern that the State Department remained a bastion of old school WASPs. Not a problem any longer, with neocons Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, and Wendy Sherman firmly in charge of State.

Conscientiousness and Emotional Intensity

In Chapter 7 of my 1994 book on Judaism, I highlighted two personality traits of Jews, conscientiousness and emotional intensity. Both are heritable and quite likely under selection in traditional Jewish communities. Conscientiousness, which involves attention to detail, neatness, orderliness, striving for achievement, persistence toward goals in the face of difficulty, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification is, along with IQ, linked to upward mobility. Social conscientiousness appears to be a sort of “don’t let down the group” trait, originally proposed by Darwin (1871) as the basis of group allegiance. Individuals high on this trait would be expected to feel intense guilt for having failed to fulfill their obligations to the group. Moreover, given the importance of conformity to group norms for Judaism, it would be expected that individuals who were low on this trait would be disproportionately inclined to abandon Judaism, while successful Jews who were the pillars of the community and thus epitomized the group ethic of Judaism would be disproportionately likely to be high on group conformity—and also likely to be reproductively successful in traditional societies. The result is that there would be strong selection pressures toward high levels of social conscientiousness within the Jewish community.

Conscientiousness was strongly emphasized in Jewish socialization. Thus, a child reared in a traditional Jewish home would have been socialized to continually monitor his/her behavior to ensure compliance with a vast number of restrictions—the vast number of commandments of the Ashkenazi religious writing. These are exactly the sorts of environmental influences expected to strengthen the conscientiousness system, what I call “system-specific environmental influences.”

Jews also tend to be high on the personality trait of affect intensity; i.e., they are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions.[23] Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. They are prone to fast and frequent mood changes and lead varied and variable emotional lives. Clinically, affect intensity is related to cyclothymia (i. e., alternate periods of elation and depression), bipolar affective disorder (i.e., manic‑depressive psychosis), neurotic symptoms, and somatic complaints (nervousness, feeling uneasy, shortness of breath).

The common perception of Jewish and gentile psychiatric workers from the late nineteenth century until at least the end of the 1920s was that compared to gentiles, Ashkenazi Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic‑depression, and neurasthenia (Gershon & Liebowitz 1975; Gilman 1993 92ff) and depression (men only). Gershon and Liebowitz note that 45 percent of 22 patients had bipolar affective disorder—about the same as in an Iraqi population—compared to 19 percent in a study of northern European populations. Within Israel, they cite an Israeli study (in Hebrew) that found that affective disorders were “much more prevalent” among Ashkenazi Jews than Sephardic Jews.[24] And a “preliminary” study found significantly more patients with affective psychoses and fewer with schizophrenia than among the non-Jews.[25] A study from 2000 found that in a sample of Israelis with bipolar disorder, the manic phase was “much more common in Israeli bipolar patients” than European and American populations (55 percent of the patients have illnesses characterized primarily by manias, 28 percent have approximately equal numbers of manias and depressions, and 17% suffer predominantly from depressions, but with no difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations).[26]

I emphasize here that affect intensity is also linked to creativity and the manic phase of bipolar affective disorder which seems to be more common among Jews.[27] During episodes of mania the person has a grandiose self-image (“I am brilliant and can save the world if only people would listen to me”), goal-directed activity like obsessively working on a project all night, excessive involvement in pleasurable activity like buying sprees and sexual gratification, and racing thoughts which of course the manic person thinks are brilliant. The depressive part is just the opposite. But a lot of people may be high on emotionality but not meet the criteria for psychopathology. It’s easy to see that people moderately high on positive emotionality—hypomanic or normal but close to the manic range—would be high achievers; they would work persistently toward goals, and they would be very self-confident and with high self-esteem. Such people gravitate to leadership positions in whatever organization they are in. And it’s easy to see that they would become gurus, establishing a devoted following, like charismatic rabbis in traditional Jewish communities—Jewish gurus like Freud, Boas, Trotsky, etc. discussed in Culture of Critique.

For example, Albert Lindemann notes that many of Trotsky’s personality traits are stereotypically Jewish:

 If one accepts that anti-Semitism was most potently driven by anxiety and fear, as distinguished from contempt, then the extent to which Trotsky became a source of preoccupation for anti-Semites is significant. Here, too, Johnson’s [i.e., Paul John, author of A History of the Jews] words are suggestive: He writes of Trotsky’s “demonic power”—the same term, revealingly, used repeatedly by others in referring to Zinoviev’s oratory or Uritsky’s ruthlessness [Zinoviev and Uritsky were two other prominent early Bolsheviks]. Trotsky’s boundless self-confidence, his notorious arrogance, and sense of superiority were other traits often associated with Jews. Fantasies there were about Trotsky and other Bolsheviks, but there were also realities around which the fantasies grew. (Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge University Press, 1997, 448)

The Trotskyist movement was a heavily Jewish milieu and much loved by my radical Jewish acquaintances in college. A prominent Trotskyist Max Shachtman

attracted young Jewish disciples—the familiar rabbi-disciple model of Jewish intellectual movements (here, p. 17–18): “Youngsters around Shachtman made little effort to hide their New York background or intellectual skills and tastes. Years later they could still hear Shachtman’s voice in one another’s speeches.”[28] To a much greater extent than the Communist Party U.S.A, which was much larger and was committed to following the Soviet line, the Trotskyists survived as a small group centered around charismatic leaders like Shachtman, who paid homage to the famous Trotsky. In the Jewish milieu of the movement, Shachtman was much admired as a speaker because of his ability in debate and in polemics. He became the quintessential Hasidic guru—the leader of a close, psychologically intense group: “He would hug and kiss [his followers]. He would pinch both their cheeks, hard, in a habit that some felt blended sadism and affection.”[29]

Another example is Leo Strauss, a cult figure for neocons and the quintessential rabbinical guru, with devoted disciples such as Allan Bloom. Gertrude Himmelfarb (1974, 61) noted: “There are many excellent teachers. They have students. Strauss had disciples.”[30] And Levine: “This group has the trappings of a cult. After all, there is a secret teaching and the extreme seriousness of those who are ‘initiates.’”[31] Strauss relished his role as a guru to worshiping disciples, once writing of “the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn.”[32]

The psychoanalyst Fritz Wittels noted long ago: “The faithful disciples [of Freud] regard one another’s books as of no account. They recognize no authority but Freud’s; they rarely read or quote one another. When they quote it is from the Master, that they may give the pure milk of the word.”[33]

Affect intensity influences the tone and intensity of Jewish activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.

In my 1994 book I noted the historical pattern of a paranoid, siege mentality and desire for revenge that pervaded traditional Jewish communities. Interviews with New Left Jewish radicals revealed that many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors”[34] combined with the belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order—clearly indicating high self-confidence and self-esteem. The trend is towards low self-criticism and what amounts to psychopathic levels of high self-esteem.

Jews Are Aggressive

Much of the previous is also about Jewish aggressiveness. Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect of Jewish personality, but Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality and Phil Rushton’s inspiration on race differences, claims that Jews are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know them well.

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades poor Jews attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”

The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other [Jewish lightening]. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”

Albert Lindemann in his Esau’s Tears noted the same about Jewish perjury in Czarist Russia.

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”[1]

[1] Yaffe 1968, 73. Yaffe embeds this comment in a discussion of self-hating Jews—implying that Jews are simply accepting stereotypes that are the fantasies of bigoted non-Jews.

Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture. From the perspective of Henry Ford’s The International Jew, the United States had imported around 3.5 million mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely ethnocentric Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period and long prior to achieving anything like the power they obtained after World War II and the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, Jews had had enormous effect on American society, particularly in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights. Ford’s outlet, the Dearborn Independent stated “The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the US is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.”

A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the US. As noted in Culture of Critique:

In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.

The epitome of Jewish aggression is their long crusade as a tiny minority to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. in order to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, but the most recent one I have found is from  Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired and blacklisted from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. Paul Findley noted over 30 years ago that there are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas”[35]—a phenomenon that, as noted above, is ongoing.

Conclusion

The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel since the 1967 war despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an apartheid occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation and degradation of the Palestinians. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the US, and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of double standards in the aboveground media.

The American Jewish community is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests. One of the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. Massive changes in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3.

[2] Ibid, Ch. 4.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “Historical Writing on Judaism and Anti-Semitism; Review of Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, 1850–1945, edited by Thomas Dalton,” The Occidental Quarterly 23, no, 2 (Spring, 2023): 85–112.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR. Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century.  Princeton University Press. The Occidental Quarterly, 5(3), 65-100.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.

[6] https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/10/29/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-all-about-the-benjamins/

[7] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.

[8] A People that Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; The Culture of Critique, Preface.

[9] Burton et al. 1996.

[10] E.g., Coon 1958, 153; Eickelman 1981, 157–74.

[11] Coon 1958, 153.

[12] A People That Shall Dwell Alone, ch. 8; Separation and its Discontents, ch. 1.

[13] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999.

[14] Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 58.

[15] In Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 59–60.

[16]

[17] Herz, F. M., & E. J. Rosen (1982). Jewish families. In Ethnicity and Family Therapy, ed. M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano. New York: The Guilford Press.

[18] Zborowski, M., & E. Herzog (1952). Life Is with People: The Jewish Little-Town of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.

[19] In Charles Silberman (1985). A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books, 184; emphasis in original.

[20] Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America. New York: Schocken Books, 210.

[21] Daniel Bar-Tal, Dikla Antebi, “Beliefs about Negative Intentions of the World: A Study of the Israeli Siege Mentality,” Political Psychology, 13, no. 4 (December, 1992), 633–645, 643.

[22] Kevin MacDonald, “Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Summer 2003(, 5–38.

[23] Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25–59.

[24] Kalman, G., Maoz, B., & Yaffe, R. (1970). Demographic survey of an open psychiatric hospital. Briut Ziburi (Public Health), Jerusalem 13, 67, 1970 (in Hebrew).

[25] Cooklin, R., Ravindran, A., & Carney, M. (1983). The patterns of mental disorder in Jewish and non-Jewish admissions to a district general hospital psychiatric unit: Is manic-depressive illness a typically Jewish disorder? Psychological Medicine, 13(1), 209-212. doi:10.1017/S0033291700050236

[26] Y. Osher, Y. Yaroslavsky, R. El-Rom, & R. H. Belmaker, (2000). Predominant Polarity of Bipolar Patients in Israel. Biological Psychiatry 1, 187–189, 187.

[27] Tucker, D. M., K. Vanatta, & J. Rothlind (1990). Arousal and activation systems and primitive adaptive controls on cognitive priming. In Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, ed. S. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[28] Drucker, P. (1994). Max Shachtman and His Left: A Socialist’s Odyssey through the “American Century” (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International), 43.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Himmelfarb, M. (1974). On Leo Strauss, Commentary 58 (August), 60–66.

[31] Levine, D. L. (1994). “Without malice but with forethought,” in Kenneth L. Deutsch & Walter Nicgorski (eds.), Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 354.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Wittels, F. (1924). Sigmund Freud: His Personality, His Teaching, & His School, trans. E. and C. Paul. (London: George Allen & Unwin), 143.

[34] Cohen, P. S. (1980). Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews. London: Academic Press, 1980, 208).

[35] Findley, P. 1989. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 2nd ed. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 296.

Precious Jews, Worthless Whites: How Murder, Torture, and Rape Only Matter in Far-Off Israel

/20 Comments/in /by

Here are two stories from modern London. A pair of Blacks are found guilty of torturing and murdering an elderly White woman, who was almost certainly raped by one of the Blacks before the murder. At the same time, a pair of Blacks are filmed ripping down posters of kidnapped Jews. Can you guess which pair of Blacks have generated more anguished commentary and hand-wringing about the moral degradation of 21st-century Britain?

Compare pairs: Torturers and murderers versus poster-rippers

Well, you won’t need to guess: it was the poster-rippers, of course, not the murderers and torturers. In fact, the murderers and torturers have generated no anguished commentary and hand-wringing at all. Why should they? The vibrant Caribbean couple Xyaire Howard and Chelsea Grant committed their horrendous crimes against a White. No respectable person cares about non-Whites committing horrendous crimes against Whites. Torture? Murder? Rape? Yawn. But ripping down posters of kidnapped Jews? Now that’s serious. So is sticking an image of a paraglider to one’s clothing while attending a pro-Palestine rally. The pair of non-Whites who did that have also generated copious commentary and handwringing in the British media.

White victim of Black depravity

They were celebrating Hamas terrorism, you see. During the Hamas attacks against Israel, some terrorists descended on a music festival in paragliders to torture, murder, and rape Jews. And those are very serious crimes when they’re committed against Jews in far-off Israel. But not when they’re committed against an elderly White woman right here in Britain:

Susan Hawkey, yet another White victim of Black depravity

Sickening CCTV footage shows how a depraved murderer and his girlfriend went on a shopping spree with bank cards stolen from a wealthy pensioner that he had tied up and killed in her own home. Xyaire Howard, 23, and his girlfriend Chelsea Grant, 28, had robbed Susan Hawkey, 71, in the street and then continued to prey on her in her own home. Howard bound Mrs Hawkey with tape and his shoelaces and forced her to reveal her PIN number.

Mrs Hawkey was then strangled to death with another shoelace. Howard left the body to rot under a duvet on her living room floor and the couple spent the next three weeks emptying £13,000 from her bank account.

Ms Hawkey lived alone and was often seen shuffling to the shops near her home in Aylesbury Road, Neasden, in her red duffel coat and Ugg boots, often pulling her shopping trolley behind her. … Ms Hawkey’s body was discovered on September 26 when a concerned neighbour noticed she had not put her bins out.

Police found Ms Hawkey lying on a sofa underneath a duvet. She had been bound, blindfolded with tape and still had a shoelace around her neck. “All of her lower clothing, that is her trousers and underwear had been removed – all she was wearing was a top and that top had been cut down the front,” said [the prosecutor Annabel Darlow]. …

“A used condom was found which contained Mr Howard’s semen and cellular material from Ms Grant – and that was found in the same room as her body together with an opened condom wrapper which bore Mr Howard’s finger prints. The ligature around Ms Hawkey’s neck had been tightened with sufficient force to break one of the bones in her neck. She was strangled by one of these defendants in an attack motivated purely by greed and self interest.” … The couple had been living in various addresses and were often thrown out for not paying the rent before they moved into a flat at Pit House, in Press Road in Neasden, two minutes away from where Ms Hawkey lived.

After seeing her in the street on her way to the convenience store they realised she would be “an ideal victim.” Grant first mugged her on July 27 last year, wrenching her bag from her shoulder. A few weeks later on August 22 the couple knocked her to the ground near her home. On both occasions Ms Hawkey’s bank card was taken and Howard was able find out her balance because after the second mugging he bragged to a contact on Instagram: “Yo I copped a card bro. 16k is on this ting.”

A used condom containing traces of Howard’s semen and DNA from both Grant and the victim was found next to the body. Grant claimed her DNA was on the condom because they had sex regularly and her boyfriend never showered. Ms Hawkey’s body was found with her trousers and underwear removed. It was suggested during the trial that cannabis addict Howard may have had sex with Ms Hawkey before he strangled her to death. Howard admitted tying her up with tape but claimed he left her alive and well. His barrister suggested flies settling on the corpse may have transferred Ms Hawkey’s DNA to the condom. … (Sickening CCTV shows murderer and his girlfriend on shopping spree with bank cards stolen from pensioner, 71, he had tied up and killed in her own home, The Daily Mail, 24th October 2023)

That is a truly horrible story, but the Daily Mail was being euphemistic about the full horror. When it said “Howard may have had sex with Ms Hawkey,” it meant “Howard almost certainly raped Ms Hawkey.” How else do you explain her DNA on the condom and the way she was found naked from the waist down? Well, Howard’s barrister had an explanation for the DNA: “flies settling on the corpse may have transferred Ms Hawkey’s DNA to the condom.” That is at once the most ridiculous and most repulsive legal argument I’ve ever seen. The Daily Mail was also euphemistic when it said that Howard “forced [Susan Hawkey] to reveal her PIN number.” It means that Howard tortured or terrorized her into revealing her PIN.

Ugly, stupid, and depraved

As you’d expect, the BBC did not mention the used condom or the “fly defense” in its fleeting coverage of the murder. It also referred to Howard as a “Neasden robber.” In fact, he and his girlfriend are from the island of St Vincent in the Caribbean. They’re prime exemplars of how Blacks excel at committing crimes that are both exceptionally depraved and exceptionally stupid. The police didn’t need the skills of Sherlock Holmes to crack this case. What was Howard thinking when he left a used condom at the scene of the murder he’d just committed? Well, to look at his exceptionally ugly and stupid-looking punim, I doubt that he was thinking at all. Like countless other Black criminals, he was just impulsively following his depraved instincts.

Ugly, stupid, and depraved: the Black murderer Xyaire Howard

But no-one in the mainstream media will point that out. In fact, leftists think it’s far worse for Whites to speak the truth about Black criminality than it is for Blacks to commit horrendous crimes against Whites. All orthodox leftists will be far more disgusted by a race-realist like me than by a Black criminal like Xyaire Howard. In fact, they won’t be disgusted by Black criminals like Howard at all. Howard didn’t commit his crimes against anyone who matters, so leftists simply don’t care. But no-one in the mainstream will condemn them for it. Indifference to White suffering is no offense.

Silence about similarity

But what about leftist indifference to Jewish suffering? That’s regarded as a very serious offence by many in the mainstream. For example, the hamster-wheels at Spiked Online have been humming furiously as Furedi’s fanatical freedom-fighters vie with each other to express “outrage at the sight of pro-Hamas demonstrations on the streets of European and American cities.” Yes, the devoted followers of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi might have abandoned overt Trotskyism, but their Trotskyist love of self-righteous posturing is as strong as ever. For example, this is Tom Slater, the Spiked editor, condemning the “disgusting bigotry of the poster-rippers”:

When you see a poster about a missing person, do you feel an overwhelming urge to tear it down? When you are confronted with the victims of a racist pogrom, do you think to yourself ‘ah, stop going on about it already’, and start telling everyone nearby to stop their blubbing?

Of course you don’t. Because you’re not a monster. But on the streets of London over the past two weeks an alarming number of people have been carrying on exactly like this, in response to a poster campaign aimed at highlighting the plight of the 200 predominantly Jewish Israelis who have been kidnapped by Hamas.

Jewish and Israeli activists have been putting posters up across central London and other cities. Each one bears the name and photo of an innocent man, woman or child who was taken by the anti-Semitic terrorists of Hamas two Saturdays ago. The aim seems to be to ensure that the world doesn’t forget about these missing civilians, whose devastated families currently fear the worst.

A humanistic, heartfelt initiative, you might think. Not according to the string of people who have been filmed ripping the posters off walls, defacing them and lecturing the Jewish activists who put them up about the supposed evils of Israel, in a series of sickeningly similar encounters that have now gone viral on social media. (The disgusting bigotry of the poster-rippers, Spiked Online, 20th October 2023)

“Sickeningly similar,” says Slater. He doesn’t, of course, mention one highly significant similarity in the poster-rippers: that almost all of these “disgusting bigots” have been non-White. Slater stayed quiet about that because he doesn’t want to face the truth: that Spiked and other friends of Israel are wailing about problems created by their own thoroughly Jewish ideology. Decade after decade, they and their Jewish friends have supported and celebrated Third-World migration into the West. Now they’re complaining about the inevitable consequences. Back in 2015, Brendan O’Neill, another of Furedi’s fanatical freedom-fighters, was talking like this about the same kind of people as he is now condemning:

Let them in: We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (Let Them In, Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

Well, large numbers of those admirably guileful and persevering migrants are certainly realising their potential now. They’re attending “pro-Hamas demonstrations” and ripping down posters of kidnapped Jews. Does Brendan still admire them for it? Alas, he doesn’t. Like Tom Slater, he’s written copiously in condemnation of the demonstrations and poster-ripping. But he hasn’t written a word about the torture and murder of Susan Hawkey by two depraved Blacks. The message from the pro-Israel mainstream is clear: Britain must protect its precious Jews and continue to ignore its worthless Whites.

Kiev Will Be Taken in Just Two More Weeks. … This Time For Sure!

/12 Comments/in /by
Time for yet another Slavlands Civil War recap
My last major recap was in March of this year.

Many events have occurred since then, but the overall situation has not changed much. Kiev + Washington continue to dictate the pace of this war and Moscow continues losing slowly and with as much face-saving grace as possible given the circumstances. Even saying this though is enough to provoke cries of consternation from both sides of the shill divide. This is because both sides have active, well-paid propagandists on the payroll who work around the clock to distort the truth of this war on account of the unflattering picture it paints of the political leadership of all parties concerned.

I liken this situation to both the USSR and the USSA’s insistence on promoting more-or-less the same narrative about the causes of and the conduct of the losing side during WWII. Perhaps a less controversial observation to make is the similarity of both countries’ recent responses to COVID — both Russia and the West did forced lockdowns, forced vaxes, and brutally shut down or even arrested opposition to the WEF agenda.

So, with all that in mind, we have the same situation unfolding with the ongoing “Two Week Special Policing Action Against Nazis in Brotherly Socialist Ukraine.” Both sides are lying and seem content to only combat the other side’s lies within a pre-arranged framework. Both sides refuse to disclose the truth behind the reasons for the war, how it is being conducted and what the inevitable outcome will look like. The reason for this is simple: both “sides” are conning and killing the peasants that they lord over. They are nothing more than rival gangs, not serious ideological or even geopolitical opponents.

Despite this, slowly but surely, people are gradually starting to realize that they’ve been lied to in some way.

The average person believes that finding the truth is a simple matter of choosing one side to listen to and believe in. Usually, they use ideology as a shorthand for deciding what side to believe in. So, if they are invested in the Human Rights Freedom Love Democracy agenda, they side with Ukraine out of ideological solidarity. If they are Christians, they side with Russia because they believe that Yahweh will punish the West for the sin of sodomy. Nationalists are largely split because, on the one hand, Ukraine pays lip-service to nationalism but clearly serves the interests of ZOG, while on the other hand, Russia claims to be at war with the concept of nationalism even though they rely heavily on Russian nationalists to fight this war, of course. Regardless, having picked a team, it is then a simple matter of uncritically repeating the pre-chewed narratives provided by the state media of that side while accusing the other side of being “Nazis” in the generic postmodern sense by which the word has come to signify “people I don’t like” and nothing more.

Among Western audiences and commentators, the war has become a classic squabble issue, with both Conservatives and Liberals projecting their own domestic debates onto Russian and Ukraine respectively. This makes any kind of sober debate absolutely impossible. Furthermore, the commentators and bloggers have no reason to encourage a sober view of the situation when they are making so much money selling hysteria of one kind or another to their captive, infantile audiences. One side claims that this is a war against Theocratic-Authoritarian-Fascism and the other side claims that it is a war against Globalist-Satanic-Nazism. Neither side will accurately characterize their enemies and what they stand for, but that is to be expected, of course. However, neither side is even willing to accurately characterize their own sides’ position on politics or ideology or even state their goals with this war, at least, clearly and honestly. This strikes me as unprecedented, frankly, at least in the sheer scale of the obfuscation.

To their credit, many Western dissidents do indeed understand the nature of their own occupation governments at the very least. Numerous bloggers and populist internet-activists have spent the last 10 years (or more) intensively sharing information about the Trotskyist/Zionist/Neocon takeover of the West. I’ve done my small part in this effort and have served a tour in the info-trenches as well, so I have nothing but respect for the bravery of people who have risked it all to speak the truth to power and to waken as many of their countrymen’s eyes to the truth as possible. However, few Westerners understand the nature of the Russian government or the other governments of the FSU, and this applies to the thought-leaders in the dissident sphere as well. By and large, Westerners simply know that their own Western governments are up to no good at home and want to destroy Russia for some reason abroad. They then fill in the blanks using the “enemy-of-my-enemy is-my-friend” heuristic and, helped along by pre-prepared propaganda narratives, they come to believe that the Kremlin is everything that their own occupation governments are not. That means that, by necessity, the Kremlin must be patriotic, Christian, conservative, fair, just, prosperous and so on — all thanks to Putin’s brilliant judo-chess statesmanship and the divine guidance of Jesus Christ, of course.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the case.

To understand the United States though, one needs to understand at least the last century of political developments and gradual Zionist takeover. There are entire websites dedicated to unearthing the true political history of the USSA and yet the vast majority of people still don’t “get it”. To understand who rules Russia and to what end, a similar in-depth analysis is necessary, of course, but nowadays, when we need it most, this is drowned out by bellicose idiots beating the war drums and declaring that the Kremlin simply stands for everything good against everything bad and that nuance is a form of treachery and sabotage. All the old truisms and axioms like, “truth is the first casualty in war” and “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” and “war is a racket” or, the best and truest one by far, “war is the Jews’ harvest” have been totally forgotten in the excitement.

As we approach the two year mark of the Special Military Operation to de-militarize and de-nazify the Ukraine, more and more peasants are waking up to the fact that they have been conned into another hoax, yet again.

The So-Called Neo-Nazi Government in Kiev

If we take the Ukrainian side, we find that a) there is hardly a single Ukrainian in the so-called Ukrainian government, which makes it almost impossible to believe that this is a war for Ukrainian self-identity. How is it that this self-identity is so strong that it demands a war be fought for it’s self-assertion against the Russian occupation and yet, at the same time, so weak that no one notices that Ukraine is not ruled by Ukrainians? Furthermore b) Ukraine does not recognize the democratic will of large swathes of the population and routinely arrests and shuts down opposition to the ruling spook- + oligarch-run state. Actually, come to think of it, this makes Ukraine not all that different from the West, which does seem to buttress Kiev’s pretensions to claiming membership as a part of the modern Western political project. Finally, c) Ukraine doesn’t give a damn about territorial integrity as evidenced by the fact that Poroshenko offered Donbass to Moscow 8 years ago and also by the fact that Ukraine’s Western allies spend huge amounts of resources lecturing Westerners about how borders are an antiquated, out-dated and racist institution that ought to be outlawed.

The contradictions at the heart of the Ukrainian political project are so self-evident and so glaring that it almost feels like it is unnecessary to harp on and on about them at this point.

But the major Z-personalities studiously refuse to notice or point out the very Jewish nature of the ruling elite. No, instead, they focus in on the former prison gangs and soccer hoodlums and gangsters-for-hire being used as cannon fodder by Kiev in the East. With this method, they can label Kiev as “Nazi” even though no Nazis or nationalists or Ukrainians have any power in Ukraine and the same rootless cosmopolitans who rule the West are the ones sending tens of thousands of Slavic peasants to their deaths. Moscow keeps mum about the true nature of the Kiev government as well. Simple-minded partisans do not understand that the Kremlin, by keeping silent about it and instead blaming the Ukrainian people for the regime, is not only exacerbating the division among the Slavic peoples, but also actively covering up the identity of the perpetrators of this horrendous civil war.

As an aside, as I have written about extensively before, most of the Azovites are Russian-speakers and the movement used to be pan-Slavist and based in Khakov (Kharkiv), a Russian-speaking eastern city of Ukraine on the border of Russia.

But this is all pointless at this point, frankly.

I am fairly convinced that most Liberals, i.e., believers in the dominant narrative of our times, are not pathological altruists or bleeding heart ideologues, but actually brutal Nietzschean power-maximizers who side with the globalist political project exactly because it has the most money, the most guns, and the most power at its disposal. It is a philosophical point, I suppose, but because I assume that promoters and believers of political orthodoxy only ever listen to the establishment narrative, I don’t think there is any point in trying to convince them to think outside of the box on this. Furthermore, I haven’t seen any results from the standard Con Inc. approach of whining about the Liberals’ various hypocrisies and the logical fallacies at the heart of their confusing and contradictory, but consistently destructive, political platform.

The So-Called Army of Christ in Moscow

Surprisingly, the Russian MFA and members of the Presidential Administration often fall back on this same approach. Hardly a day goes by without the Kremlin whining about how the West is being hypocritical or not playing fair. When it comes time to justify the Kremlin’s numerous failures among neighboring states — the recent uncontested surrender of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and the provocative killing of Russian officers comes to mind — Putin starts whining that he was duped by his esteemed Western colleagues, as if on cue. Either that, or Peskov or Zakharova sniff and declare that they are too moral to pursue Russia’s best interests and would rather lose gracefully than cede the moral high ground to the Satano-Nazis. It is little wonder then that so many Christian, conservative Republican voters sympathize with the Kremlin! Just think, they hear the exact same rhetoric from their own party and wear their political, cultural, economic and theological dhimmitude as a badge of pride!

If anything, it is the right that is the altruistic, moralizing, losing side — naively believing that debate and peaceful exchange of ideas (and goods and services) between implacable ideological enemies can solve all of society’s problems. Unless of course the topic of Israel comes up — their problems can only be solved by genociding the Jews’ racial enemies, of course. With all this in mind — including the total lack of curiosity or intellectual integrity or perhaps emotional maturity in the body politic — it is hardly a surprise that so few are capable of accurately describing the events occurring on the battlefield.

The Bizarre Battlefield in Ukraine

At last we come to it: the battlefield analysis. I think I included such a long preamble because there is so little to say about the actual war being fought in the trenches right now. Internet bloggers used to draw huge attack vector arrows on maps of Ukraine like the much-anticipated Operation Trident Storm which was supposed to be a decapitation strike on Kiev launched by Wagner from Belarus and cleverly masked by a fake mutiny. Remember that? Sadly, the great bloggers have been reduced to providing cutting-edge analysis on hills in and around Avdiivka, an rusted out village/town in Donbass’ rustbelt or have given up entirely and copied the example of their esteemed NAFO colleagues and switched to providing commentary on Palestine instead.

The executive summary: Russia has essentially been fighting to hold on to whatever gains they were able to take in the initial weeks of the war since last fall. The battle lines haven’t budged since the last successful UAF counter-offensive took Kherson without a fight.

Back in February, I predicted that it would be Kiev going on the offensive next and in a big way. I was not surprised to see that the ZAnon analysts continued to promote the narrative that Russia was on the cusp of a push to take back Kiev, but I was surprised that so many people were still falling for the disinfo. It seemed so obvious that Moscow has adopted a defensive military strategy and was desperately seeking some sort of diplomatic solution with NATO. With all this in mind, it was clear that there would be no more large Russian offensives anywhere. To do that would require new armies, more equipment and a new group of political leaders. Barring this, there was no way that Russia would go on the offensive again when they were so obviously outnumbered and outspent by NATO + Kiev. Lo and behold, the great Russian spring offensive to de-nazify Ukraine once and for all failed to materialize. So too did the great Russian summer offensive. And so too will the great Russian fall and winter offensives.

It is Kiev that dictates the pacing of this war and has so since last summer.

This summer, we had a large UAF offensive kick off just as many “doomer” analysts on the Russian side correctly predicted. Many, including myself, were surprised that Russia chose to stay and fight, and the counter-offensive fizzled out only several weeks into the attack. The previous two retreats seemed to be a blueprint used by Shoigu and the plan of the MoD up to that point had been to seemingly give Kiev every single advantage possible to make things as hard as possible for the Russian troops. But this time, despite the hasty defenses and the fact that the UAF vastly outnumbered the Russians, the soldiers held, with the offensive foundering before a single breakthrough occurred or any reserves were even committed.

Long story short: the behavior of the UAF was baffling and still has yet to be adequately explained by the most vocal “analysts” on either side.

For their part, American intelligence reached out to the Western media to vent soon after it was clear that no great breakthrough would occur to complain about how unruly the UAF was and how unwilling the officers were to accept NATO’s brilliant tactics and direction. The truth of the failed offensive is almost certainly more complicated and possibly far more sinister than this non-explanation. The Russian side eagerly lapped it up though, because they got to poke fun at the Ukrainians on account of their American allies calling them brainless savages.

But let us examine some of the bizarre tactics used by the UAF for ourselves.

Tanks thrown at minefields despite adequate minesweeper vehicles being provided by NATO countries expressly for this purpose and areas where there were no minefields open to attack that would have surely been revealed by American SIGINT as on previous occasions. The lack of air defense rendered massed tank and carrier columns sitting ducks for Russian aviation, which had hitherto been largely ineffective in the war. Finally, we had a very bizarre and timely dam explosion that effectively rendered the southern push impossible on account of the flooding that ensued. Zelensky blamed Putin and Putin said it was an accident and we are left asking, “who benefits” and forced to narrow it down to either a NATO black ops (reason unknown) or Russia preventing the southern push that would have probably overrun their overstretched, undermanned lines.

Even the fact that the counter-offensive was launched when it made little sense from a strategic perspective and, in retrospect even less sense now. Time has always been on Kiev’s side since the clock started ticking following the launch of the disastrous initial SMO. Kiev’s entire strategy up to that point had been to trade lives and ground for time to prepare and arm and to secure more NATO support. This is not even debated at this point; it is taken for granted by the people who claimed that Ukraine would never get NATO tanks, or all that money, or long-range missiles or F-16s or whatever else is in the cards next. So, why did Kiev rush into the counter-offensive when they weren’t ready yet? If anything, we can see that the UAF’s top general, Zaluzhny, who proved himself to be several orders of magnitude more competent than the fake generals of the Russian military, did all he could to pump the brakes on the counter-offensive. He was initially joined in this effort by Zelensky himself. With each passing week, Ukraine trained more and more men and received more and more weapons and supplies. Russia, in contrast, was refusing to mobilize more men and was already running low on shells and tanks as the last of the Soviet stockpiles ran low, and they continued to throw away men and equipment away in suicidal, catastrophic attacks like the ill-fated assault on Ugledar.

Stranger still, the Teixeira leaks informed us that American intelligence knew that Ukrainian air defense would become depleted by May. The attack was then launched without air defense in June and for once, Russian air power came into play and punished the UAF accordingly. Why did Washington insist on this attack without at least sending more Patriot missile systems first? ZAnon analysts claim that Washington didn’t send Patriots over because Patriots don’t work at all, which frankly seems like more frothing, fist-pumping propaganda. Finally, why not just wait for the inevitable approval of F-16s to Ukraine and the pilots being trained in secret to be deployed? Crickets!

And yet, despite the accuracy of the leaks, both sides denied their authenticity immediately and stuck to the story despite the subsequent developments.

For the Western side, the reasoning behind their denial is clear. But why is Moscow working with Washington again to promote yet another easily debunked lie about the inauthenticity of the documents? If they were fake, why was the young soldier arrested by what looked to be a SWAT team at his father’s home? Well, it could be related to the fact that American intelligence revealed that Washington knew ahead of time where Shoigu’s MoD would fire its missiles. Instead of addressing the new information and taking steps to rectify it, nothing was done at all. It is not even a secret at this point that Shoigu’s strikes on FSB-designated targets always miss. At the time of this writing, Shoigu fired off a few more salvoes that hit nobody of any note, again. Sure, they can hit the transformers, or burn down the Neo-Nazi grain silos in Odessa that are cutting into Patrushev Jrs grain deal profits, but no one of any senior rank has ever died from these punitive strikes.

They are done as part of a PR strategy, not for any military reason!

They are done to make it seem like the Kremlin is serious and enforces its red lines when they really roll over every single time and spend more time and resources convincing their own supporters that they didn’t! Even the Russian propaganda claims that General Zaluzhny had been decapitated turned out to be blatant disinformation, although the goal of this psy-op remains muddled to this day; to discredit the Russian cause, no doubt, which is what all of this ham-fisted, reality-denying lying does, eventually. Once again, we don’t know whether or not this is simply incompetence, or a competent counter-intelligence operation, or a professional courtesy extended from Russia’s spook community to their once esteemed Western colleagues.

But the reason for why strikes on Kiev’s leadership are non-existent could be as simple as because Putin promised Tel-Aviv that Zelensky would be off-limits and no doubt his team of Jews had that protection extended to them as well. After all, Zelensky’s cabinet and administration is now slightly more Jewish than Putins’ and almost as Jewish as Bidens’. I mean, have you seen the new Ukrainian Defense Minister? He claims that he is “Crimean”! But what do your lying eyes tell you?

It would be tempting to see the failed UAF counter-offensive as a turning point and a clear policy turnaround from the previous year and a half of mismanagement. But, sadly, the same mysterious behavior of Shoigu’s MoD reasserted itself as soon as the initial danger passed. Allow me to list a few examples of what I mean. As I have written about before, Shoigu continues to leave Russian aircraft unprotected and in the open so that American intelligence can spot them and so that then Ukrainian drones can disable them. This has been widely discussed and ridiculed within patriot circles in Russia. I brought it up with my last interview guest and he was even more pessimistic than I was that this problem would be addressed. Another example is the military’s stalwart refusal to destroy UAF tanks disabled in the field. It is standard military procedure to destroy vehicles once they have been disabled to ensure that they cannot be repaired and reused by the enemy. Despite this, Shoigu’s MoD doesn’t touch these tanks with their much-vaunted artillery superpower. There are videos of tanks lost in the spring muds being recovered by the UAF in the heat of the steppe summer. The result is that they have undamaged tanks that can then be redeployed against Russia.

I ask you again: at what point does gross incompetence become sabotage?

Luckily for the Russian war effort, the UAF is almost as grossly corrupt and incompetent as they themselves are. Still, it is much easier to make out what Moscow’s plan or lack thereof entails than Kiev’s. The sequence of events that brought us to the current disaster is roughly as follows:

  1. Zelensky and his team shut down Putin’s oligarch friend Medvedchuk, which convinced the Kremlin to prepare a regime-change and rescue operation.
  2. The Kremlin was given the green light to launch its SMO by their esteemed partners at Langley and given assurances that NATO would not intervene.
  3. Unsurprisingly, they blundered into a trap and have been trying to extricate themselves from it ever since.
  4. To that end, they retreated from Kiev out of “goodwill” after signing a secret peace deal that was promptly discarded.
  5. They have committed to fighting this war “humanely,” i.e., minimizing the damage to oligarchs’ profits by continuing to ship raw materials into and out of and through Ukraine and making secret deals to export products to the Third World in exchange for surrendering territory (like Snake Island).
  6. They have refused to pull out of any international organizations like the WTO or WHO or the SDG Green agenda and instead insist that Russia will be globalism-compliant — if they are just given a second chance!
  7. They only fight on pre-agreed on terms for inconsequential territory (Bakhmut) almost as if the goal was to get as many people on both sides killed as possible.

I’ve mapped out every major step leading into and through this SMO exhaustively on my blog for those who might be interested in following along.

The Wagner Mutiny in Retrospect

Apart from the emergency mobilization last fall to make up for the steep losses in the initial SMO, Russia has continued to fight this war like an LLC. Prominent oligarchs, government officials/spooks and regional government leaders have all created their own private armies. Evgeniy Prigozhin’s personal mercenary force, Wagner, simply stole the headlines with his grueling Bakhmut offensive, his media slug-fest with the Ministry of Defense and then the attempted half-mutiny followed by his subsequent assassination at the hands of Kremlin assassins via bomb on his plane.

Prigozhin’s mutiny actually revealed a lot about the power structure of the Kremlin.

We discovered just how weak Putin’s government really was and why the West’s plans to overthrow the Russian government are based on a sound understanding of the internal power status quo in Moscow. Furthermore, we learned that the elite in Russia is too fractious and short-sighted and greedy to be able to deal with problems in a timely manner. The Prigozhin drama was spiraling out of control for half a year at that point. But because Shoigu kept licking his far-eastern chops and salivating over dismembering Wagner, Russia’s battlefield success was diminished and then, eventually, their best battle-capable organization dismantled. No one in the Russian elite stepped in to stop this except for Belarus’s Lukashenko, who tried to broker a cease-fire because Putin and his buddies were too untrustworthy. This suspicion was confirmed when the Kremlin had Prigozhin and some of Russia’s best battlefield commanders assassinated.

Since the plane crashed, we’ve stopped hearing about secret offensives on Kiev and Wagner chess games in Africa. People are starting to understand that there won’t be a grand victory over NATO. The Kremlin simply won’t allow it.

A Looming Peace/Surrender Deal?

We have had numerous sources both anonymous and highly-placed hinting at the possibility of planned formal negotiations being held before the end of this year. Off the top of my head, we have had Lukashenko, Erdogan, Orban, Burns, Kissinger and many anonymous sources leaking this information. However, I find myself largely unconvinced, but not for the same reasons that the ZAnon community or NAFO might be misled. A self-styled pro-Russia analyst who doesn’t speak Russian, hasn’t lived in Russia, and doesn’t understand anything about who rules Russia might reject the news about planned negotiation on the grounds that Moscow is winning this war handily.

However, anyone still capable of objective analysis and not infected by cult-style wishful thinking can see that Putin has been led into a disastrous trap by his handlers esteemed Western colleagues in the intelligence community.

As a result of this SMO, the Russian army has been shown to be a rusted-out wreck, its generals compromised and incompetent, the Russian political elite divided and treacherous, Russia’s allies actually nothing more than fair-weather friends — the Kremlin tool of either naive fools or vicious retards and that isn’t even the half of it. Ukraine is lost to Russia for the next century now. Its territories have never been more militarized and anti-Russian, which was supposedly the situation that the SMO was supposed to rectify. The EU has since divested from Russian natural energy, its political elites caving to Washington’s pressure and forced to buy LNG at a mark-up instead. That is not to say that all trade with Russia has stopped. All manner of natural resources continue to flow across the territory of Ukraine from Russia to the markets of the Satano-Nazis that the Kremlin is supposedly in a fight to the death against, so that’s some good news, at least.

I could go on listing the catastrophes inflicted on Russia as a result of Putin’s “mistakes,” but suffice it to say that someone backed into the corner as thoroughly as the Kremlin is doesn’t have much to negotiate over. What cards does Russia have left to play? Syria is teetering on collapse, again. The UAF is bigger, better, and more motivated than the amalgamation of warlords and mercenary captains fighting for Moscow in Donbass. Kazakhstan has turned against Russia. Armenia turned against Russia, lost Nagorno-Karabakh, and turned even more on Russia. The Azeris kill Russian with impunity abroad and within Russia. China has not lifted a finger to help Russia in any way … but there I go again listing facts and boring my audience.

My point is that the Kremlin has nothing to negotiate with, except perhaps the much-vaunted hypersonics, which no one has independently verified the existence of or seen used anywhere.

So, any “peace” negotiations would actually resemble surrender negotiations.

As bad as I think the Kremlin leadership is, I don’t think they’re quite ready to surrender just yet. And on the other side, we have Senators like Lindsey Graham gloating about how many Russians they killed and about what a bargain the United States government got for their dead Russians. Washington is fighting this war without even breaking the budget, he says. I agree with Graham on this and so we should all be wondering what NATO stands to gain by letting up on the war when it’s clearly going so well for them and they’re not even using up their own troops to prosecute it.

I suppose the only sliver of possible hope that NATO will pick up their toys and go home is the Palestine crisis and the looming holy war brewing there. Many Russian patriots have already weighed in on that crisis, with the prevailing sentiment being that Russia should do all that it can to stay out of the conflict and adopt an isolationist stance.

A Few Last Words on the Info-Wars

More and more people in the West are suspicious of the Western narrative and so have rejected the mainstream Western media out of hand. On some level, this is understandable, but the blind acceptance of mainstream Russian media and alternative media sources that have declared Russia’s victory a foregone conclusion is a mistake as well. The divorce from reality is as strong as ever among mainstream media sources in both the East and the West and in the alternative media, which has proven itself to be just as unreliable if not more than the mainstream media.

As a blogger and an analyst, it has been eye-opening to discover for myself that the vast majority of people are unable to differentiate between cheer-leading and serious analysis. In other words, if an analyst declares that country A is winning and country B is losing, what they are really saying is that they simply support Country A. The concept of supporting a losing country or being neutral is too much for the vast majority of people to grasp. This is because winning is considered a direct consequence of morality. In other words, the country that is winning is the better country because they are winning. It is impossible for people to fathom the possibility that the “good guys” are losing a war. This explains so much about he current political, cultural and moral paradigm that we find ourselves in now. For years I found myself wondering why the vast majority of people were so emotionally tied up with the moral narratives of the winner countries of previous wars.

Belatedly, I came to realize that this war is being evaluated through a religious lens.

Many ostensibly Christian allies of Russia in the West are actually motivated by the Gog v Magog prophecy and excited about the prospect of the world coming to an end because of WWIII and not out of solidarity with the Russian people. The corollary to that insight is that all politics is fundamentally a religious affair for most people. In other words, the idea that a “good country” might have lost or is losing a war currently, is difficult to conceive. For most people, the war is a referendum on God’s favor for one country or civilizational project or another, even if they may not formally be a member of a traditional Abrahamic religious organization that gleans these truths from their big fat book of pious lies. So, because the West is onboard with SJWism, they are supposed to be losing the war on account of losing God’s favor, the logic goes. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is not how wars work. In theory, one could be sympathetic to Russia and the cause of Slavic reunification, but also suspicious of Moscow’s intentions and critical of their methods. In practice though, such a position appears to be largely untenable because it violates pre-programmed religious conditioning.

The truth of the matter is that Moscow is losing this war to NATO and that Russians in both Ukraine and Russia are suffering for it. There will be no Russian breakthroughs and the creation of a large, armed, and hostile “Israel” on Russia’s borders is now a reality. Unless something changes drastically, Putin will either be forced to surrender or his elites will stage another mutiny to try and hand his head over to Washington on a platter and thereby end the conflict that way.

Consider yourself forewarned.