About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

38 Comments

  1. Liberalism and its many manifestations has certainly had much to do with White racial decline in the last few decades, but it must be remembered who the chief proponents, ideologues, and supporters (especially financially) of liberalism are today: JEWS.

    Jews hijacked the idea of liberalism and have run amok with it (run in through the muck). Jews have been appropriating (i.e., stealing) good, sound, and healthy White ideas, White inventions, White political parties, White philosophies, White languages, White economies, etc for many centuries now and slowly ruining/corrupting them. Jews are not culture-creators and culture-maintainers as Whites are – history has clearly proven that Jews are culture-destroyers: they are ‘the ferment of decay’ in the cultures/nations they settle in, and once they surreptitiously manage to gain undue influence therein it’s all over for that nation unless an anti-Jewish revolution occurs as a counter-reaction. Once Jews manage to hijack a nation’s culture that nation begins to decay and inevitably collapses in due time.

  2. I have the utmost respect for Mr Braun as a thinker and writer. I will perhaps re-evaluate some of my views on the Jewish question after reading his latest thoughts, since in the past I have known that his views turn out to be right. Thanks for posting this

  3. After reading his posts, Mr. Braun is essentially saying that the Jewish question is a distraction from the liberalism question. Can this position be defended?

  4. You are in an interesting position Prozium. On one hand, you’ll never be accepted by the most extreme anti-semites who view any deviation from their line as heresy. On the other hand, you are still anti-semitic enough that most philosemites would not trust you.

    You and your friend really do walk the middle ground.

  5. “You and your friend really do walk the middle ground.”

    If he believes the Jewish tendency to subvert to dominate host societies is genetic, the logical conclusion of that is Jew-expulsion, some “middle ground.”

    I unashamedly support total Jew-expulsion.

  6. I agree with you, Captainchaos. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that Mr. Braun is a traitor to our cause. It’s a shame, I used to respect him. There can be NO compromise with the Jewish enemy. Anyone who says otherwise is either a philosemite or an Jewish/FBI infiltrator.

  7. The level of responsibility ascribed to Jews for our present existential crisis is immaterial if one agrees Jews are a genetically compelled implacable enemy. I do believe that. That Braun has gone from a committed National Socialist to an apologist for Jews and a proponent of cooperation with them is suggestive to say the least. The cancer must be cut out, at last.

  8. Linder and I are the two extremes, and Prozium/Braun are the Middle Ground. I’ve been influenced enough by my Marxist colleagues that I now blame materialism for the current situation and basically avoid the Jewish question completely as a red herring. I may criticize individual Jews or Jewish politics, but I’ll never care as much as you do or see it as the main issue. To me its like Jews are part of the system- so what?

  9. “Linder and I are the two extremes, and Prozium/Braun are the Middle Ground. I’ve been influenced enough by my Marxist colleagues that I now blame materialism for the current situation and basically avoid the Jewish question completely as a red herring. I may criticize individual Jews or Jewish politics, but I’ll never care as much as you do or see it as the main issue. To me its like Jews are part of the system- so what?”

    That’s a ridiculous statement to make. The pathologicalization of white group loyalty was primarily the result of Jewish influence. There are other factors that contribute to the crisis we face, mainly the greed of the rich and misguided altruism, but anyone who denies that Jews are a major factor in the crisis we face cannot be taken seriously.

  10. I’d also like to add that even though I am extremely anti-Jewish, I don’t believe in the “single Jewish cause” either. It’s just too irrational and doesn’t take in to account the many other factors that are leading to the dissolution of White societies as well as the slow swamping of Whites by non-Whites on Earth.

    That being said, Jews are definitely a huge problem and clearly need to be dealt with. However, to argue that all or nearly all of the problems of White societies can be blamed on Jews is a major fallacy.

    Even more insidious than the actual influence of many individual Jews and/or ‘organized international Jewry’ is the way in which so many White societies have been poisoned by Jewish ideas, Jewish mores, Jewish beliefs, etc – this has become so deep that many modern Whites have become very ‘Judaized’ in terms of their worldview, their spirit, their intellect, and so on. This is of course because Jews managed to gradually seize the primary levers of power in too many White societies, especially the mass-media, academia, and so on. This Jewish stranglehold is luckily starting to be broken because of the widening influence of the internet, which offers an alternative to the Jewish media-machine and will eventually lead to rising resistance against Jewish hegemony.

  11. Jews ally with the already-existing forces of degenerateness and wrongness and make those forces strong enough to prevail. With Jews subtracted from the picture those forces would still be with us — they’ll always be with us — but would not be strong enough to prevail. Pizarro with his two hundred Spaniards didn’t conquer the Incas alone. He had thousands of Indian allies who were sick and tired of Inca domination, taxation, and abuse. (Same with Cortes and the Aztecs: Cortes had thousands of Indian allies who jumped at the chance to overthrow the Aztec tyrants and no longer be taxed into poverty and culled periodically by the Aztecs for human sacrifices.) Together they conquered. Apart, neither could.

  12. Also with women’s suffrage subtracted from the picture they would not be strong enough to prevail.

  13. I favor women’s suffrage. But with protections in place in regard to what can be voted on, so women, in voting, can’t destroy civilization and race — which is exactly what they’ll do in the absence of protections (exactly what they’ll do? exactly what they’ve done).

  14. A constitution and a Bill of Rights are in part simply the removal of certain things from the collection of all those things that can be voted on the ordinary way.

  15. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written with white-race, property-holding men-voters in mind. When the time came to extend the franchise beyond that limited group for which those documents were written, certain constitutional protections and Bill of Rights protections should have been added, including protections that were sheltered from amendment through the Constitutional amendment process (ones that couldn’t be changed through any peaceful means, in other words). They weren’t added. The result is what we see around us today.

  16. It makes sense to start talking about what’s wrong, Alfred Aiken. If talking about what’s wrong isn’t your cup of tea, stay out of the conversation.

  17. All the stuff about “liberal” this and that is a lot of meaningless blather and a distraction from the only real problem: Jews dominate all the major institutions of the United States, and thereby of the West in general. It’s very, very simple: THEY are in control, and WE are not. That’s all there is to it. Whether or not we WOULD have other problems (with “liberal” this and that) IF whites had any real control over anything is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL at this stage.

    Let’s see, how about an example. Would white people, under the influence of “liberal” something or other, have got up and passed the 1965 immigration act, which has been flooding America with non-whites for the past 40+ years, if the entire Jewish community hadn’t pushed for it? Well, I guess we don’t know with 100% certainty, do we, but somehow I think the answer to that is emphatically NO, they would not have.

    The same goes for every other damn thing you can think of… would the mass media be as anti-white as it is if it weren’t controlled by Jews? Again, it’s purely hypothetical since white people do not run the mass media in the United States and we really have no clue of what the mass media would look like if whites ran it. Do you get that, fundamentally, white people in the United States DO NOT HAVE A MASS MEDIA? We DO NOT HAVE A FILM INDUSTRY. We DO NOT HAVE TELEVISION STATIONS. We DO NOT HAVE NEWSPAPERS. Jews have these things, but we don’t. Do you understand this? If you understand this, then how is it even at all remotely reasonable to assume that some nebulous “liberal” ideology among white people that arose out of nowhere is causing the problems when white people are not even in control of anything?

    Yes, it is all as simple as a “single Jewish cause”. The problems we have are not the result of some vague “liberalism”. It is merely an ethnic conflict between whites and Jews, which the Jews have been winning for the better part of a century. Yes, the anti-white ideologies that the Jews have propagated do have some momentum of their own at this point, but they would quickly crumble without constant reinforcement and support from the Jews. Remove the Jewish parasites from the societal control panels and sanity will rapidly reassert itself among white Americans.

  18. Your post raises several questions.

    1.) Why are Whites such losers?
    2.) How did Jews come to dominate so many important institutions?
    3.) Why didn’t the Founding Fathers just exclude Jews from America?

  19. The comment posted by “Reader” corresponds to my view, give or take a few details. That the Jews are doing it is no more in doubt than that the Jews control of U.S. policy in support of Israel. We’re not supporting Israel to the extent we are because Americans got together and said, Hey let’s support Israel. We’re doing it because the Jews see to it. Well, they see to other things as well, open borders and subordination of whites to non-whites being two (whites meaning Eurochristians, non-whites non-Eurochristians — in Jewish eyes Jews are classed with the non-whites: in their incessant attacks on whites, Jews aren’t attacking Jews, only Eurochristians whom they see as their enemy, so these non-stop attacks aren’t out of liberalism but out of Jewish nationalism; the big Jewish attackers know this and most ordinary Jews sense it, so aren’t alarmed; a portion of ordinary Jews don’t sense it, don’t sense that Jews aren’t among the “whites” targeted for Jewish attack, and are alarmed at what’s going on).

    As for why whites aren’t resisting, and the other questions Proze lists there, they can be debated. But that Jews are doing it seems to me beyond debate.

  20. The only reason why whites support Israel is because Jews are pulling the strings of our politicians, who face political ruin if they refuse to support that apartheid state. There’s no use mincing words over the Jewish question any more. I’ll be quite frank with you: Hitler’s greatest mistake was that he did not commit the Holocaust.

  21. FS: “As for why whites aren’t resisting, and the other questions Proze lists there, they can be debated.”

    Fred Scrooby, I think a main reason why so few Whites are resisting Jewish hegemony is a good explanation of yours I vaguely remember reading a while back on MR.

    I don’t remember all of the exact details, but it involved something to the effect of American Whites (like the many other Whites in Europe who were exploited by Jewry in centuries past) being “fully or partially ‘paralyzed’ by a Jewish ‘neurotoxin’ that has been injected by the Jewish parasite who managed to latch on to American Whites; they injected this ‘Jewish neurotoxin’ in order to make its (White) host less resistant to the Jewish takeover, Jewish exploitation, Jewish parasitism in general.” Do you remember writing something to that effect a few months ago on MR? I think it’s a very good explanation of the reason why Whites don’t offer more resistance – because of the social fog/confusion caused by the injected ‘Jewish neurotoxin,’ which causes all kinds of horrible social symptoms like rabid liberalism, multiracialism/White race-replacement, Judeofeminism, organized Judeoplutocratic capitalism [in the modern USA] and organized Judeoplutocratic communism [in the former USSR], Jew-produced and distributed mass-media filth/brainwashing/lies, academia/the legal-system/medical system/federal government largely hijacked by hyperethnocentric Jews who maintain almost total lockdown control/monopolization of these important sectors through intense Jewish ethnic-networking, slow seizure of a country’s ‘high culture’ by degenerate urban Jews who then commence to drag the native cultural ideals through the gutter, etc. You also have organized Jewry incessantly ripping off and pauperizing many millions of American Whites (as well as a lot of American non-Whites) economically and this is of course leading to the progressive weakening of many Whites and especially White families which of course inhibits their inability to resist the Jewish infection.

    Similarly, Prozium seemed to have mentioned the ‘Jewish neurotoxin’ theory in today’s Auster post when he wrote: “Parasites can modify the behavior of their hosts, induce non-adaptive behavior in their hosts, reduce the fitness of their hosts in all sorts of ways. A good example of this is the lancet fluke which commandeers the brains of ants and gets them to commit suicide by climbing up blades of grass where they can be eaten by cows or sheep. No benefit accrues to the ants from this. It goes exclusively to the lancet flukes and their progeny.”

    I regret to say that I share the opinion of Hitler who wrote: “Hence the result of Jewish domination is always the ruin of all culture and finally the madness of the Jew himself. For he is a parasite of nations and his victory signifies his own end as much as the death of his victim.” – http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc5.html

    Unfortunately, it looks like the ‘American body’ is going to have to enter ‘critical condition’ (collapse, run a very high fever, and almost perish from the endemic ‘Jewish infection’) before its immune system can finally begin to kick back in to high gear enough that the body will start repairing itself so that it can again become strong enough to resist and fight back against the Jewish infection that has utterly ravaged the body of the nation.

  22. Your post raises several questions.

    1.) Why are Whites such losers?
    2.) How did Jews come to dominate so many important institutions?
    3.) Why didn’t the Founding Fathers just exclude Jews from America?

    These are good questions. Obviously I don’t have complete answers and even if I did, they would require more than a blog comment to answer. #2 is particularly important, and warrants a lot more attention than it has received. There was a lot of racialist sentiment in the US in the 1920s yet the Jews still managed to take over. I think a lot of it just comes down to whites in the US just not having a lot of experience with dealing with Jews, so our cultural immune system just didn’t possess the right antibodies. The threat of Jews taking over just didn’t occur to them. It had gone on for a long time in Eastern Europe, but that must have just seemed like another planet to American whites in the early 20th century.

    As far as why whites allow this stuff to go on (i.e. why they are such losers)… again, another good question that warrants a lot of serious attention. Personally, I think the mass media, particularly television, explains a lot. There is just nothing like television in the natural world, so human beings have no psychological defenses toward it. It’s also relatively new, so we haven’t developed much in the way of a cultural defense against it the same way we have with, say, drug use. Humans have developed a lot of mechanisms to avoid being cheated in most social situations but people will believe pretty much anything they see on TV. Also, the nature of publishing and telecommunications technology from 1945-1995 just naturally concentrated the control of information in a few hands, just as the current trend (i.e. the internet) has a natural tendency to decentralize the flow of information (a tendency which favors us, as is often commented upon).

    Control over the mass media is important in a lot of ways, but one that is often overlooked or under-emphasized is the role it plays in defining which sorts of thoughts and behaviors are considered high status and which are considered low status. That power alone is enormous. Human beings are intensely concerned about acquiring high status and will do anything to get it. E.g., most people who make a lot of money (and sacrifice enormous amounts of time and energy to obtain that money) spend most of that money on fancy clothes, nice cars, enormous houses, etc. – all stuff that is essentially useless except for displaying high status. Similarly, for most people political beliefs are simply another way of displaying social status, and relatively unconnected with how these beliefs might affect society at large. Since Jews have connected “racism” and “anti-Semitism” with extremely low status in the minds of most people, people will reflexively do everything they can do distance themselves from these beliefs and adopt fashionable, multiculturalist and pro-Zionist attitudes. This is particularly important when considering the behavior of elites, who have a lot of resources to allocate. Rich white elites like Bill Gates display their status by donating huge amounts of money to give scholarships to non-whites and things of that nature. Contrast with rich Jews, who compete with other rich Jews by donating as much money as they can to pro-Israel political orgs, or to Holocaust education programs, or to other things that benefit Jews. Control over status allocation is critical.

  23. 1.) Why are Whites such losers?

    They aren’t losers – evidenced by their creation of science and conquest of the globe – but they are gullible. They listen to bad people because they have trouble gauging ill intentions (because the Aryan is inherently honest but makes the mistake of projecting that honesty onto “others”). They’ve allowed the jews to completely usurp their land and power because they trusted the jews – something they should never have done. Also we must blame the shabbos goyim whose desire for personal enrichment causes them to betray their racial kin (and get damn self-righteous about doing so!).

    2.) How did Jews come to dominate so many important institutions?

    See the whole story of the jewish rise to power here (and the deposition of the aristocracy of Europe in favor of democratic principles):

    To understand the French Revolution, we must first understand 1688’s Glorious Revolution in England. (“Glorious” in the eyes of the jews, just like the French Revolution was known as the “Great French Revolution” because it had established jewish hegemony.)

    Antonio Lopez Suasso, the enormously wealthy jew banker living in The Hague who had already been made a baron by King Charles II of Spain in 1676, advanced 2,000,000 gulden without interest to William III* in order for him to invade England, establish a constitutional monarchy, set up a central bank (Bank of England AKA Bank of Jew), and enslave the British people.
    *http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…=1145&letter=S

    In 1714 Antonio Lopez Suasso’s son married a daughter of Moses Mendes da Costa, another enormously wealthy jew banker and governor of the Bank of England. Wikipedia denies that da Costa was ever on the board of the Bank of England (
    Moses_da_Costa
    ), but the much more credible Jewish Encyclopedia ascertains this twice (here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…&search=suasso and here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…s%20da%20Costa)

    Whatever the truth may be, the point is that jew bankers owned England by the end of the 17th century because they had successfully established a constitutional monarchy and a central bank.

    In a constitutional monarchy the King is subservient to the bankers. Jacques Necker, Louis XVI’s chief finance minister on whom I will speak later, said:
    Quote:
    The English system was a dictatorship of finance cleverly disguised as a crowned republic. This oligarchy … controlled money; it controlled the Press; it controlled the funds of both the great political parties. Thus it was in command of the whole patronage of the Crown on the one hand, and of the whole body of political patronage on the other. (The Mind of Napoleon, R. McNair Wilson).
    And the London banker oligarchy was comprised of the jew families Suasso, Mocatta, Goldsmid, da Costa and Montifiore.

    Alvarez Lopez Suasso, for example, is described as:
    Quote:
    Resident of London; one of the wealthiest men of his time. In 1725 he was a member of the board of directors of the Spanish-Portuguese community of London; and seven years later he received permission from the English government to send settlers to the colony of Georgia.
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…=1145&letter=S

    As the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
    Quote:
    Meanwhile … Nathan Mayer Roths-child (born at Frankfort Sept. 16, 1777), had settled in England … and in 1805 went to London … He married shortly afterward a sister-in-law of Moses Montefiore, thus coming into association with the heads of the Sephardic community, then ruling the financial world of London through their connection with Amsterdam.
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…rch=rothschild
    England was already clearly in the hands of jews before the Rothschilds ever set foot there.

    Anyone who thinks that the Rothschilds came out of nowhere to rule the world is simply misinformed. The Rothschilds didn’t come out of nowhere. They were not a “front”. They were clever, emerging jew bankers aided by other very powerful jew bankers in the quest for world domination.

    But let’s get back to the narrative.

    Having established a central bank and national (people’s) debt system, there was nothing the jews now wanted more than wars because wars naturally equal dead goyim, skyrocketing national debt and conquest.

    And, of course, now that they had ensnared England, they also wanted to ensnare the world’s second great power, France.

    So they set to bankrupting France first by way of The Seven Years’ War, which had Prussia and Britain fighting Austria, France, Russia, Sweden and Saxony.

    The war was instigated by Frederick the Great of Prussia when he invaded Saxony. Daniel Itzig and Veitel Ephraim, both jew bankers, funded Frederick the Great of Prussia:
    Quote:
    Daniel Itzig: German banker; head of the Jewish communities of Prussia (1764-99); born 1722; died at Berlin May 21, 1799. Itzig was a member of the wealthy banking firm of Itzig, Ephraim & Son, whose financial operations greatly assisted Frederick the Great in his wars. He was also the owner of the large lead-factories at Sorge as well as of the oil-mill at Berlin, being one of the few Jews permitted to engage in such enterprises. In 1756 Itzig was appointed “Münzjude” (mint-master) by Frederick the Great, and again in 1758, together with his partner Ephraim.
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…I&search=itzig
    Quote:
    Veitel-Heine Ephraim: German financier; died at Berlin in 1775. The name means “Veitel, the son of Heine [German for “?ayyim”], the son of Ephraim.” He was jeweler to the Prussian court and mint-master under Frederick William I. and Frederick the Great, by whom he was held in high esteem. By his financial operations he assisted this king in his wars, and when afterward charges of defalcation were brought against him, the king would not permit an investigation.http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…search=Ephraim
    The Seven Years’ War was followed by the American Revolutionary War, which completely bankrupted France.

    R McNair Wilson in his “Napoleon: The Portrait of a King” explains:
    Quote:
    The country was experiencing bitter poverty, especially in the towns where there were large numbers of unemployed workmen. He saw many of these unhappy men hanging about the aprroaches to towns and villages, and was told [by judeo-agitpropists] that their evil plight was due to the trade treaty with England which the King had been compelled to sign at the close of the American War of Independence.

    This treaty opened French markets to English manufactured goods which were being offered at prices below those of the home-produced goods. [WTO and NAFTA in the 18th century] In consequence the townspeople had lost their jobs, become destitute, and ceased to buy the farmers’ products, thus spreading the ruin into the country districts also.

    …he concluded that the treaty with England had been a betrayal of French interests, seeing that, as a country predominantly agricultural, France was self-sufficient. The suspicion entered his mind that the rulers at Versailles had done very well out of the bargain.

    It was an unjust suspicion. What had actually happened was that the growing power of London as the world’s financial centre had broken down French resistance at a moment when French power, whether financial, political, or military, was at a low ebb. France was a borrower from London, even though the presence of many intermediaries obscured the fact. The creditor was in position to dictate to the debtor. Indeed, London possessed so large a part of the world’s stock of gold and silver that the whole Continent of Europe was falling under the necessity of borrowing from her.”
    http://books.google.com/books?id=mHdZlwcy9SIC&dq

    He goes on to explain (and this is important, as it clearly demonstrates how the Jew had changed finance in Europe to cripple and destroy the Bourbons and eventually enslave all of European folk):
    Quote:
    Had Rousseau possessed any understanding [alas, Rousseau was either a shabbas goy or a naive goy–we’ll never know now] of this fact he might have revised his view about the wickedness of human nature. For what he had in mind, clearly, was the wickedness of the guides and rulers of men, the priests and the kings. In fact, authority was bankrupt, literally; and possessed as its chief concern the need of obtaining the means whereby industry and agriculture might be carried on.

    Nor was this state of affairs the fault of authority. [not the fault of the Bourbon monarchy!] A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure of Europe, whereby the basis of that economic structure had ceased to be wealth and become debt. In the old Europe wealth had been measured in land and in the prodcuts of land, crops and herds and minerals; but a new standard had now been introduced–namely, a form of money which the title “credit” had been given.
    Sir Walter Scott in his “Life of Napoleon Buonaparte” writes:
    Quote:
    Louis XVI, with the plain well-meaning honesty which marked his character, restored the parliaments to their constitutional powers immediately on his accession to the throne… In the meanwhile, the revenue of the kingdom had fallen into a most disastrous condition. The continued and renewed expense of unsuccessful wars… had occasioned large deficits upon the public income of each successive year. The ministers… put off the evil day [of inevitable collapse] by borrowing money at heavy interest…

    On their part, these financiers used the government as bankrupt prodigals are treated by usurious money-brokers, who, feeding their extravagance with the one hand, with the other wring out of their ruined fortunes the most unreasonable recompense for their advances.

    Quote:
    By a long succession of these ruinous loans, and the various rights granted to guarantee them, the whole finances of France appear to have fallen in total confusion, and presented an inextricable chaos to those who endeavoured to bring them into order [sounds like our $150 trillion judeo-derivatives market].” Page #19
    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text…rameset;seq=42
    Scott goes on to explain how Louis XVI, contrary to the agitprop preached by France’s Judenpresse at the time, tried to accommodate the situation:
    Quote:
    Louis XVI, fully sensible of the disastrous state of the public revenue, did all he could to contrive a remedy. He limited his personal expenses, and those of his household, with a rigour which approached to parsimony, and dimmed the necessary splendour of the throne. He abolished many pensions…

    Lastly, he dismissed a very large proportion of his household troops and body-guards… destroying with his own hand a force devotedly attached to the royal person, and which, in the hour of popular fury [revolution], would have been a barrier of inappreciable value. Thus, it was the misfortune of this well-meaning prince, only to weaken his own cause and endanger his safety, by those sacrifices, intended to relieve the burdens of the people, and supply the wants of the state. [too late, the Jew was out to destroy him no matter what. The Judenpresse was smearing the King 24/7, the kikes had a monopoly on grain so they were starving the French people–King Louis had to go, like Charles I before him, like Nicholas II after]” Pages #19-20
    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text…rameset;seq=42

    This brings us back to Jacques Necker, Louis XVI’s chief finance minister who was responsible for France’s huge debts.

    Who exactly was Jacques Necker? He was supposedly a Protestant born in Switzerland. In 1747, he was sent to Paris to work in the bank of Isaac Vernet, a friend of his father. By 1765 he had become incredibly wealthy through suspiciously successful speculations. He then became a partner of another banker, Peter Isaac Thellusson.

    He “cooked the books” and completely ruined France financially.

    R McNair Wilson writes:
    Quote:
    Necker, as has been said, had forced his way into the King’s Treasury as a representative of the debt system, owing allegiance only to that system. It had been his business, before he became a minister, to prevent the King from getting out of debt… To that end he had founded, in Paris, a number of newspapers in which, side by side, were presented accounts of the profligacy of the Court at Versailles and of the poverty and wretchedness of France.
    So who really was this Necker? It’s very strange that he worked for two wealthy bankers both named “Isaac”. If he wasn’t a crypto-Jew, then he was a mason serving the Jew. As I’ve already stated earlier, France’s chief creditor during this whole time was England, meaning the jews of England!

    Necker evidently had the full support of the Judenpresse because the French rabble loved him. They loved him so much, in fact, that they spared his life even though he had ruined France financially. Louis XVI’s other finance minister, the noble Malesherbes, was not spared. He was guillotined at the age of 72, but not before his entire family had been guillotined before his very eyes.

    Now that I’ve covered the judeo-financial angle, demonstrating how France was completely crippled financially and indebted to jew bankers in London in the century leading up to the French Revolution, I’ll go on to talk about the judeo-intellectual/propagandist angle.

    In 1798, John Robison, famous Scottish physicist, wrote in his book “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governemnts of Europe”:
    Quote:
    Nothing can more convincingly demonstrate the early intentions of a party, and this a great party, in France to overturn the constitution completely, and plant a democracy or oligarchy on its ruins. The Illuminati had no other object. They accounted all Princes usurpers and tyrants, and all privileged orders as their abettors. They intended to establish a government of Morality, as they called it (Sittenregiment) where talents and character (to be estimated by their own scale, and by themselves) should alone lead to preferment. They meant to abolish the laws which protected property accumulated by long continued and successful industry, and to prevent for the future any such accumulation. They intended to establish universal Liberty and Equality, the imprescriptible Rights of Man (at least they pretended all this to those who were neither Magi nor Regentes.) And, as necessary preparations for all this, they intended to root out all religion and ordinary morality, and even to break the bonds of domestic life, by destroying the veneration for marriage-vows, and by taking the education of children out of the hands of the parents. This was all that the Illuminati could teach, and THIS WAS PRECISELY WHAT FRANCE HAS DONE [emphasis added by author]. Page #215-216
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/pc/index.htm

    Was Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, a jew? For some reason, well-connected and powerful jew (on his mother’s side, as exposed by Moshe Kohn in the Jerusalem Post) shabbas goy Winston Churchill had reason to think so:
    Quote:
    This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.
    http://www.white-history.com/hwr61ii.htm
    Were there jews surrounding Weishaupt? Bernard Lazare, jew writer, confirms that there were in his “Antisemitism, Its History and Causes” published in 1894:
    Quote:
    It is true, of course, that there were Jews connected with Free Masonry from its birth, students of the Kabbala, as is shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable, too, that in the years preceding the outbreak of the French Revolution, they entered in greater numbers than ever, into the councils of the secret societies, becoming, indeed, themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt, and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of illuminati in France and gathered a large number of disciples…
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/lazare-anti.html

    What about the genuine Frenchmen revolutionaries?

    The top players were all killed after they had served their purpose:

    Louis Phillipe II, brother of Louis XVI, Freemason, vehemently supported the revolution, financed copious amounts of propaganda, and even voted in favour of murdering his brother! His Palais Royal became a hotbed for revolutionaries. When he had served his purpose he was guillotined!

    Robespierre – guillotined.

    Danton – guillotined.

    Marat – assassinated.

    Mirabeau – heavily influenced by Moses Mendelssohn, wrote “Moses Mendelssohn and the political reform of the Jews”, fought for jewish equality. Considered too moderate, he was poisoned.

    Brissot – guillotined.

    Desmoulines – guillotined.

    And the list goes on and on. Basically all of the lead goyim who posed a threat to jewish hegemony in France were guillotined.

    The above history details what happened before and during the French Revolution. My earlier expose on the Rothschilds details what happened during the 19th century.

    What were the results of the French Revolution, the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic wars? The British people went from being 244 million pounds in debt in 1790 to being 838 million pounds in debt in 1821 (“Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834” Page #131). The debt got so out of control, in fact, that the first ever income tax in British history had to be “temporarily” introduced, but it never did go away, much like America’s “temporary” WWI income tax.

    Furthermore, the “petit” jews attained equal rights, the Bank of France was established, the Bourbon hegemony was destroyed, European nations were financially crippled, there was terrible bloodshed, constitutional monarchies were put in place, judeo-socialist-democratic ideas came to the fore, and, last but not least, the jew bankers of Europe became the wealthiest in all the world.

    Since we have the benefit of hindsight, it should be our duty to always ask ourselves: Cui bono?

    3.) Why didn’t the Founding Fathers just exclude Jews from America?

    Because the Founding Fathers did business with the jews. Jewish financiers, both local and in France and the Netherlands, funded our war efforts and other early American endeavors. They did not care to exclude jews from America because from their perspective the jews were a lucrative crew to keep around. Not to mention that by that time, as indicated in the above article, the jews had massive influence in France and England who were of vital economic interest to the fledgling US so any ‘anti-Semitism’ could have been detrimental to our early development as a nation.

    The jews were enough of a force by the time of the American Revolution that they already had the ear of all Western European and American leaders.

  24. Here are the answers …

    1.) Whites are unable to see Jews. They don’t have any sense of racial consciousness. Whites are highly individualistic and competitive with each other. They refuse to draw group inferences and prefer to treat every non-white as an individual.

    Note: WNs don’t have this problem because they are ethnocentric collectivists.

    2.) The answer is liberalism. Jews were welcomed to America and ceded all the rights and liberties that came with citizenship. The whole constellation of liberal beliefs is what allowed the eventual takeover to happen.

    – Every man should be treated as an individual.
    – Every man should be treated equally before the law.
    – Every man has a natural right to liberty.
    – We should have a capitalist economy.
    – We should tolerate other religions and differences of opinion.
    – The government should be limited.

    Note: WNs don’t this problem because they have jettisoned the liberal beliefs of their ancestors.

    3.) The Founding Fathers didn’t exclude the Jews from America because of their ideological commitment to fashionable liberal-republicanism.

    Note: If the Founding Fathers had been WNs, excluding Jews from America would have been the first order of business.

  25. From Naturalization Act of 1790:
    “that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States….”

  26. 3.) Why didn’t the Founding Fathers just exclude Jews from America?

    it seems that the British Colonial authorities did on the whole try to exclude Jews from gaining citizenship in the original American colonies and thus prevent them from gaining too much wealth/power; for instance, the successful Jewish merchant/shipper Aaron Lopez (who was also a major African slave trader in Newport, RI) was denied citizenship multiple times: “In 1761, Lopez applied to the Rhode Island Superior Court to become a naturalized citizen. Under the British Naturalization Act of 1740, anyone who had resided in the colony for seven years could become a British citizen, regardless of religion. Although he met the conditions set by law, Lopez’s request was denied. Another qualified Jew, Isaac Elizer, was also denied citizenship. … Determined to become a citizen, Lopez made inquiries to learn whether he could become naturalized in another colony. In April 1762 he moved temporarily to Swansea, Massachusetts. On October 15, 1762, Lopez became a citizen of Massachusetts and then returned to Newport. Historians believe Lopez was the first Jew to become a naturalized citizen of Massachusetts.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Lopez

    Also, one of the main reasons Jews flocked to the colony/state of South Carolina is that it explicitly offered citizenship to Jews while the other colonies/states denied it’ “The charter of the Carolina Colony, drawn up by John Locke in 1669, granted liberty of conscience to all settlers, expressly mentioning ‘Jews, heathens, and dissenters.'” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Charleston,_South_Carolina – The colony of Georgia also allowed some Jews to settle there.

    Jews in Charleston, SC played a HUGE role in the trans-Atlantic African slave trade – in fact, they were likely the main promoters and profiteers from it, working in concert with their Jewish co-ethnics in England/Holland as well as North Africa in what is now called the “Triangular Trade.” In the first few decades of the 1800s, more Jews lived in Charleston and SC than any other American state, and many Jews in South Carolina owned huge plantations that used African slave labor (just as they did on some Caribbean islands). Thus even early on we see Jews promoting radical forms of multiracialism, just as they are still doing today.

  27. I might write an essay explaining my shift, and it is a shift. I have concluded that what should only matter is our survival as a distinct people…or our ethnic genetic interests and nothing else. What is the best way to secure those ultimate interests? Revisionism, Third Reich nostalgia, Nordicism, and J.Q. are irrelevant juvenile side-shows and harmful to my objective. I have also began studying Geert Wilders’s strategy and I’ve come away impressed by his genius. If I were to enter politics I’d chose his approach as my model. What counts in this game are results. Additionally, I am now writing an essay on the Enlightenment and the French Revolution as a major source of our modern sickness (together with guilt-feeling about the Shoah, slavery, and colonization). I don’t know where I’m going to post it.

  28. I don’t know where I’m going to post it. ( — FB)

    If it’s philosophical, submit it to GW for consideration for posting at MR.com — he might accept it, you never know — he’s very interested in philosophical approaches to analysing what’s gone wrong (something I’m nil at and have nil interest in by the way).

  29. “I might write an essay explaining my shift, and it is a shift. ”

    I would be very interested in reading an essay about your ‘shift’ F.B.!

    You mention Geert Wilders, but also one would like to maybe hear your opinion on Nick Griffin as well, indeed if I may be so bold an assessment of Griffin may be more timely given the BNP recent electoral gains so it is something I would certainly read.

  30. ”[Guessedworker is] very interested in philosophical approaches to analysing what’s gone wrong (something I’m nil at and have nil interest in by the way).” ( — from my comment)

    That came out wrong – sounds as if I’m saying I’ll have nil interest in reading FB’s essay if it contains philosophy. Quite the contrary, I’ll be extremely interested in reading it. What made me phrase it that way is my general puzzlement at GW’s call (and Prof. Paul Gottfried’s call a while back over at Taki’s, and now Friedrich’s call in the linked VNN thread) for development of a philosophical foundation for our side, the side Prof. Gottfried calls “white nationalists” and I call “normal people” (I reject the “white nationalist” label on grounds normalness needs no special name, only abnormalness does: let the other side, the race-replacers, name itself with some special name; we on this side need no special name, being simply normal folk). I’m puzzled by that call for “philosophy” because those who’ve done this cataclysm to us, namely the Jews and rich Bush and Gates type Eurogoys teaming up with non-whites against the Euro-race middle and working classes, didn’t do it on the basis of any new philosophy, the fucking bastards did it just because they wanted to, pulling it off by buying, coercing, and propagandizing the political process. That’s all. That’s the only reason it was done, they didn’t advance any “new philosophy” which we, in order to combat them, supposedly have to now find the “philosophical antidote” for (which is how I see GW’s call for “a new philosophy” – I could be wrong). I don’t get this call, GW’s call and now FB’s call, for “a new philosophy for our side.” But I’ve never been a philosophy type, so that’s likely just me. In college I avoided higher philosophy courses except for what is called “logical positivism” because as a math major with a strong interest in a branch of math called symbolic logic I was attracted to this particular facet of “philosphy” but no other – Rudolph Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Alonzo Church, Willard van Orman Quine, lots of others (I hope I’m getting these names right, it’s been many years since I’ve thought about that stuff). So no, I didn’t mean I wouldn’t be interested in reading FB’s piece, only that I’m puzzled by this call by some on our side for “a new philosophy” and I don’t see the need for it. But I have an open mind and I’m eager to learn new things.

  31. The more simplistic answer is that the founding fathers, right or wrongly, saw the Jews as white.

  32. At the time of America’s founding, Jews had not caused trouble in the English speaking world in so many centuries that people had forgot how dangerous they were.

Comments are closed.