Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Category: Jewish Supremacism

Is Criticism of Israel Already an Official Hate Crime in America?


By Philip Giraldi

One subject that congressmen and the mainstream media tend to avoid is the erosion of fundamental liberties in the United States as a consequence of the war on terror and American involvement in the Middle East. Some of America’s legislators apparently do not even understand that freedom of speech actually means that one can say things that others might find distasteful. The assault on freedom of speech has been accelerated through the invention of so-called “hate speech,” which has in turn morphed into “hate crimes” where punishments are increased if there is any suggestion that hatred of groups or individuals is involved. Some have rightly questioned the whole concept, pointing out that if you murder someone the result is the same whether you hate your victim or not.

Freedom of speech is particularly threatened in any situations having to do with Israel, a reflection of the power of that country’s lobby in the United States. At a recent town hall gathering, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) demonstrated how he and his colleagues run and hide whenever the issue of Israel is raised when he would not respond directly to a question over whether any criticism of Israel should or should not be protected under the First Amendment. Crenshaw is a Republican and generally reliably conservative, though he recently spoke out against the “For the People Act of 2019,” which he claimed “would limit free speech dramatically.”

A constituent specifically asked Crenshaw’s opinion about federal laws that require citizens in some states to sign a pledge that they will not boycott Israel if they wish to get government contracts or obtain a government job. The audience member also mentioned a law passed in Florida that bans anti-Semitism in public schools and universities, defining “anti-Semitism” as criticism of Israel. The constituent observed, “These laws are obviously flagrant and troubling violations of the First Amendment to free speech.”

“Will you honor your oath and denounce these laws here, now and forever?” Crenshaw was then asked. Crenshaw quickly fired back that the critic was “cloaking yourself in the First Amendment” to enable engaging in “vehement anti-Semitism.” Crenshaw then asserted that the questioner was “advocating the BDS movement,” a recent target of much of the legislation that the critic was addressing.

BDS refers to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which calls on people to protest Israel by pulling investments from and boycotting the country.

Israel is engaged in what might be described as a war with the objective of driving any and all criticism of the Jewish state out of polite discourse, making it illegal wherever and whenever possible. The Knesset has passed legislation criminalizing anyone who supports BDS and has set up a semiclandestine group called Kella Shlomo to counteract its message. The country’s education minister has called BDS supporters “enemy soldiers” and has compared them to Nazis. Netanyahu has also backed up the new law with a restriction on foreigners who support the BDS movement entering the country, including American Jewish dissidents, several of whom have been turned around at the airport and sent home.

Israel has been particularly successful at promoting its own preferred narrative, together with sanctions for those who do not concur, in the English language speaking world and also in France, which has the largest Jewish population in Europe. The U.S. government under Donald Trump is completely under the thumb of the Israeli prime minister’s office, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently saying “our major focus is stamping out anti-Semitism.”

Sanctions already in place in Europe consist of fines and even jail time. The legal penalties come into play for those criticizing Israel or questioning the accuracy of the accepted holocaust narrative, i.e., disputing that “6 million died.” Even attacking specific Israeli government policies, like its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza every Friday, can be found guilty of anti-Semitism, which is now considered a hate crime in Britain, France, Germany, and, most recently, the Czech Republic. In Britain, where the Jewish lobby is extremely strong, a law passed in December 2016 made the UK one of the first countries to use the definition of anti-Semitism agreed upon earlier in the year at a conference of the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

A statement from the British prime minister’s office at that time explained that the intention of the new definition was to “ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being anti-Semitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organizations or bodies have different interpretations of it.”

The British government’s own definition relies on guidance provided by the IHRA, which asserts that it is considered anti-Semitic to accuse Jews of being “more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.” In other words, even if many Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in and even though Israel is in fact intrinsically racist, it is now illegal to say so in Great Britain.

One should not be surprised, as the British government’s subservience to Jewish and Israeli interests is nearly as enthusiastic as is government in the United States, though it is driven by the same sorts of things – Jewish money and Jewish power, particularly in the media. A majority of Conservative Party members of parliament have joined Conservative Friends of Israel, and the Labour counterpart is also a major force to be reckoned with on the political left.

Here in the United States, the friends of Israel appear to believe that anyone who is unwilling to do business with Israel or even with the territories that it has illegally occupied should not be allowed to obtain any benefit from federal, state or even local governments. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association for every American are apparently not valid if one particular highly favored foreign country is involved, as the discussion with Crenshaw reveals.

Twenty-seven states now have laws sanctioning those who criticize or boycott Israel. And one particular pending piece of federal legislation that is regularly re-introduced into the Senate would far exceed what is happening at the state level and would set a new standard for deference to Israeli interests on the part of the national government. It would criminalize any U.S. citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about “requesting the furnishing of information” regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison.

Israel, and its friends like Crenshaw, are particularly fearful of the BDS movement because its non-violence is attractive to college students, including many young Jews, who would not otherwise get involved on the issue. The Israeli government clearly understands, correctly, that BDS can do more damage than any number of terrorist attacks, as it represents a serious critique of the behavior of the Jewish state while also challenging the actual legitimacy of the Israeli government and its colonizing activity in Palestine. Much of the current hate crime legislation in places like Germany and the Czech Republic directly targets BDS, stating specifically that it is “inherently” anti-Semitic. In late July, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed its own resolution condemning BDS explicitly in a 398-to-17 vote.

Going hand-in-hand with the condemnation of BDS is a drive to maintain the exclusivity of Jewish suffering. In June, when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-N.Y.) called border detention centers holding asylum seekers “concentration camps,” she was inundated with protests from Jewish groups that claimed she was denigrating the holocaust and “insulting victims of genocide.” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum even published a statement objecting to comparisons between “the holocaust and other events.”

It is important for Americans to realize that Israel not only spies on the U.S., digs its paws deep into our Treasury, and perverts Washington’s Middle East policy, it is also attempting to dictate what we the people can and cannot say. And Congress and much of the media are fully on board, which is the real tragedy.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

This article was originally published on American free press, found via American Herald Tribune.

Barbara Spectre Is Back

Replacement activist and former head of Paideia, Barbara Spectre resurface in Israel for a conference called “Our Common Destiny” together with Jacob Rothschild and Israel’s president, in an effort to “achieve a unified vision for global Jewry”. What exactly is this event about and why do they invite a hateful individual like Barbara Spectre?


The leadership of the organization:

YouTube Purge: Over 100K Videos, 17K Channels, and 500M Comments Removed in 3 Months


Our opponents are getting desperate. Since they cannot debate us on an open forum, as they would lose, they have taken to extreme Soviet-style censorship on all major platforms.

YouTube, which was once a great platform for the average person to get their content out to a wide audience, has now become a place where only the most inane, idiotic, and philo-semitic videos are allowed. No honest opponents of jewish supremacy and their White genocide agenda are allowed on the platform, regardless of whether or not they try to stay within the new rules. If an “edgy” YouTube channel still exists, it’s because the jewish supremacists want them to be there, likely because they serve as controlled opposition.

Just in case you were unaware, the CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, is jewish. YouTube is owned by Google, which was co-founded by two jews, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. While the ADL is now embedded within YouTube (along with all of the major tech companies in Silicon Valley), they have actually been partnered with YouTube since 2008.

ADL Admits jewish Supremacists Behind Youtube Censorship

I knew it was a matter of time, as our jewish overlords will not allow anyone actually telling the truth about them to have any kind of platform on their services.

Google Deploys ADL Censorship Police on Youtube

In addition to merely removing or hiding content it deems offensive, Google’s Youtube is now demonetizing the accounts of said “offenders”.

So let’s see how much YouTube has ramped up its jewish censorship campaign.

From The Hill, “YouTube says it has removed more than 100K videos under new hate speech rules”:

YouTube said Tuesday that it has removed more than 100,000 videos marked as hate speech under the platform’s new policy against bigoted and supremacist content. The video-sharing giant said it removed more than 17,000 channels and 100,000 videos for violating its hate speech policy between April and June – the month in which the policy was instituted – a five-time increase in the number of removals in the first three months of the year. Google-owned YouTube also said it has removed more than 500 million comments for hate speech, double the amount of removals in the first quarter of the year. “The spikes in removal numbers are in part due to the removal of older comments, videos and channels that were previously permitted,” YouTube wrote in the post.

YouTube needed to change their own rules because truth was still getting out to the masses. They needed to ensure that anything even remotely critical of their power and their agendas (White genocide, hoax shootings, LGBTQ, pedophilia, etc.)

A new protected class by @YouTube: those now immune from criticism due to their “immigration status.” In other words, @YouTube is banning speech critical of illegal immigration.

– Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) June 5, 2019

The way they framed their policy, anyone talking about the important issues of today could be flagged for promoting “hatred” against any of the protected groups, as hatred is never clearly defined, leaving it up for (((interpretation))).

YouTube will eventually go down the tubes as people stop uploading and watching the stupid videos that are allowed there. Unfortunately, alternative like Bitchute are filled with degeneracy, out of control woman-hatred, and softcore anime porn. Nevertheless, that is where I will be sourcing the majority of the videos featured on Renegade Tribune, since nearly all of the old YouTube videos I embedded over the years no longer exist.

Of course this problem of censorship is not just with Youtube, but with every major technology outlet.

Jew Subverters of Internet and Technology

Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. systematically censor or hide information about the Jews’ international crime network.

ADL Sanhedrin Demands Internet Censorship

The modern learned elders of Zion want to know why the freedom of speech will not die in an otherwise moribund, enervated USSA.

How Zionists Divide and Conquer

by Dr. David Duke

This is a fresh look at why the same powerful Jews who support Israel as a “Jewish State” do everything they can to create a fractured society in nations they live in outside of Israel.

Why Zionists preach one thing for Jews and the direct opposite for Gentiles. Mass immigration, multiculturalism and diversity makes any society vulnerable to the most organized, aggressive, ethnic people on earth. Their leaders know that that their team effort gives a huge advantage over a fractured, atomized society. Diversity is a weapon.

In this video, I give direct evidence of the Zionist technique for dominating a society.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

by Dr. William Pierce
10 October 1998

Last week I mentioned a recent attack on me by a Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. I gave this as an example of the way the Jews are able to use the mass media in America to serve their purposes. The specific point I made was that it is not necessary for all of the newspaper owners and editors and all of the local television station owners to be Jews in order for all of them to slavishly follow the Anti-Defamation League’s party line. This is a very important point, a point essential for us to understand if we want to have a free society, and I’ll elaborate on it now.

I mentioned last week that when the Anti-Defamation League – or ADL for short – handed out press releases on September 24 to newspapers and other media in which they said that the organization I head, the National Alliance, is „the single most dangerous organized hate group in America,“ and that we are „linked“ to bank robberies, bombings, and murders all over the country, virtually all of the media simply printed these wild charges without checking them for accuracy. Of all the hundreds of newspapers which printed the ADL’s charges, only one – West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette – even bothered to call me first and ask for my comments. Some of the newspapers, in paraphrasing the ADL’s press release, even managed to exaggerate the ADL’s lies. For example, the Tampa Tribune began its news story on September 25 with the line: „A domestic terrorist group with a following in Tampa poses an ongoing threat of violence, the Anti-Defamation League said in a report issued Thursday.“ The ADL’s words „most dangerous organized hate group“ have been transformed by the Tampa Tribune into „domestic terrorist group.“ That’s a significant change. „Hate group“ is an ill-defined term which you can apply to any organization with whose policies or doctrines you disagree. Groups opposed to abortion, for example, have been called „hate groups“ by feminists and their supporters. „Terrorist group,“ on the other hand, really suggests a group which actually engages in terrorist activity, such as bombings, assassinations, and the like.

Then there’s the Los Angeles Times, which in its September 25 story based on the ADL’s press release stated: „The group’s activities [that is the National Alliance’s activities] – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings – have been uncovered in at least 26 states.“ I’ll repeat that: „the group’s activities – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ The Los Angeles Times certainly makes it sound as if I’m the head of an organization which actually commits violent crimes such as robberies and bombings as a matter of course, doesn’t it? That was the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.“ What the ADL’s list actually suggests is that the perpetrators of various bombings and murders may be „linked“ to the National Alliance by having read a book or a pamphlet published by the National Alliance or perhaps by having listened to one of my broadcasts. For example, one of the „incidents“ in the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance“ reads: „December 1995, Fayetteville, North Carolina: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.“ As I pointed out last week, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of James Burmeister before he shot a convicted Black drug dealer and the dealer’s girlfriend to death in Fayetteville in December 1995. But it certainly is possible that Burmeister listened to an American Dissident Voices broadcast or read some publication of the National Alliance. There are a lot of our publications in circulation. Burmeister also may have read Reader’s Digest or the Bible or Newsweek magazine, for all I know; there’s certainly a lot of criminal activity described in those publications. Anyway, the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s claim that the National Alliance is linked through its publications to various criminal acts is that we did it: we committed the criminal acts ourselves. The paper said flatly that our activities include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ And nobody from the Los Angeles Times even bothered to check with me first!

So what am I supposed to do: hire a bunch of lawyers and sue all of these newspapers and perhaps the ADL too? Perhaps I will – but I doubt that anyone who has actually been involved in a libel suit would suggest such a course. The civil litigation system in the United States has been designed for the sole purpose of enriching lawyers, and because of that the system gives an overwhelming advantage to the litigant who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Perhaps some experienced civil-litigation lawyer who believes this is a worthy cause will contact me and offer his services.

But while I’m waiting for that, let me draw a few conclusions from this nasty business. First, I’ll mention that I’m not especially peeved at the ADL about this new report labeling me as the most dangerous man in America. That doesn’t mean I won’t sue them, but at least I know where they’re coming from. The ADL is a professional hate organization. They are hate merchants. That’s the way they earn their living: selling hate. Along with a handful of other Jewish organizations – the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center, for example – the ADL makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabee Jews around the country that they are in great danger from people like me – but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect these Jews and wannabees from me. And so the ADL – and these other hate merchants – put out deliberately scary press releases to drum up donations. If the newspapers exaggerate things a bit, why so much the better. That’s why the press releases tend to be a little deceptive, why they are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation.

The ADL is the oldest and most powerful of these Jewish hate groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913, after a Jewish factory owner in Atlanta, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. The killer was sentenced to death by the court, and there was a great deal of publicity about the case at the time. Powerful Jewish organizations came to Frank’s defense, and in behind-the-scenes maneuvering they were able to persuade Georgia’s governor to commute Frank’s death sentence. This blatantly corrupt act by the governor working in cahoots with his rich Jewish supporters so enraged the populace that a vigilante group of citizens took Frank out of jail and hanged him themselves. The Jews, realizing that they had bungled the Frank affair, organized the ADL for the purpose of handling such matters more skillfully in the future. In the past 85 years the ADL has grown to become the most powerful Jewish pressure group and lobbying organization in America.

Recent ADL lobbying projects have been the promotion of gun control laws and of state laws banning military-style training by patriotic groups. The ADL’s biggest project for this decade, however, has been so-called „hate crime“ legislation. Hate crime laws attempt to punish a person for what he was thinking before or during the commission of an offense against a member or a group of members of an officially favored minority. For example, if you set fire to a synagogue because you don’t like Jews, you’re liable for a much more severe punishment than you would be if you were hired by the rabbi to set fire to a synagogue so the congregation could collect the insurance. Arson is no longer simply arson. Now there’s arson, and there’s „hate arson.“ And to decide which it is, the government may look into your personal taste in reading material, check into the type of music you listen to, investigate your political and religious affiliations, ask your friends about any expressions of Politically Incorrect opinions you may have made – and then present all of this information in court as evidence against you. The whole concept of „hate crime“ is Orwellian. It turns traditional American concepts of law and individual freedom on their heads. But because the noisiest group of people pushing for „hate crime“ legislation are Jews, no politician dares speak against it. Bill Clinton is the Jews’ current point man on Federal „hate crime“ legislation.

One category of „hate crime“ is „hate speech.“ In fact, the outlawing of what the ADL people call „hate speech“ is their ultimate aim. „Hate speech,“ of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. I find a lot of the films coming out of Hollywood these days offensive, and a lot of television programming, but you can be sure that’s not what the ADL has in mind when it campaigns for laws against „hate speech.“ The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet.

Lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn’t the ADL’s only activity. They’re also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America. They have their spies in every community in America where there are Jews or wannabees. Reports go from their regional offices around the country to massive data banks in New York and in Israel, where the ADL maintains dossiers on hundreds of thousands of Americans. For example, if a state legislator somewhere in America makes a speech which a Jewish listener considers unfriendly to Israel, a report goes into the ADL data bank. If a businessman at a Chamber of Commerce meeting makes a joke which might indicate a less-than-worshipful attitude toward Jews, and a wannabee informs the ADL of the joke, that businessman will henceforth have a dossier in the ADL’s files. Then if that state legislator or that businessman ever runs for Congress, say, the ADL will search its files for his name, find his record, and launch a campaign against him as an „enemy of Israel“ or as an „anti-Semite.“

And the ADL has not hesitated to break the law in its spying activity. In April 1993 police obtained search warrants and raided the offices of the ADL in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they found hundreds of stolen confidential police files. Some of these police files were on anti-apartheid activists in the United States, and the ADL had passed copies on to the South African government in return for South African police files on pro-Palestinian groups in South Africa. This caused a stink even in liberal circles, which ordinarily are pro-ADL. And this business of the ADL’s stolen police files is still in the courts in California.

So as I said, I understand where the ADL is coming from. I’m not surprised that they consider my broadcasts dangerous. I’m not surprised that they want to shut me up and are trying to do that with their current smear campaign, claiming that I am „linked“ to bombings and murders. I expect that sort of behavior – I expect lies of that sort – from the ADL. What’s really disappointing is the enthusiastic collaboration the ADL receives from the politicians and the media. The two newspapers I cited a minute ago, the Tampa Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, for example, are essentially Gentile newspapers, as far as I have been able to determine. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the editors and publishers of these two newspapers are not Jews. So why do they go out of their way to exaggerate the ADL’s lies about me? Why does the Tampa Tribune call the National Alliance a „domestic terrorist group“? Why does the Los Angeles Times say that the activities of the National Alliance include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings“? Why did neither of these newspapers contact someone in my office and ask about the ADL’s claims before printing them? Why didn’t any of the newspapers which carried the ADL’s attack on me mention the ADL’s history of illegal activity?

Let me tell you what I think about that. I believe that in general there are two factors at work here. I’ll call them the corruption factor and the lemming factor. Let’s look at the corruption factor first. It’s the factor which motivates virtually all of the non-Jewish politicians, but also many non-Jews in the media. It’s the factor which has led Bill Clinton to pack his cabinet with Jews and to promote every Jewish policy they have presented him with. It’s the factor which has led New York’s Senator Alphonse D’Amato to serve as front man for the Jews’ huge extortion effort against the Swiss. These politicians don’t work for the Jews because they love Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They do it because they’re corrupt, because they’re willing to sacrifice the interests of their own people in order to serve the Jews if they believe that they can advance their careers by doing that. And many businessmen are just as corrupt as the politicians. They will do whatever they think is good for their business, whatever will give them the biggest profit. And some businessmen are in the media business. They understand that Jews buy more advertising than any other group. They understand that Jews own a bigger chunk of the media than any other group. They understand which side their bread is buttered on.

And so when the ADL attacks me these media businessmen are ready to fall on me like a pack of starved Dobermans in order to curry favor with the Jews. But you know, the interesting thing about these corrupt people, whether they’re in politics or in the media business, as soon as they believe that the balance of power is shifting, they’ll jump. They’d as soon tear apart the Jews as they would the enemies of the Jews. That’s something to keep in mind as our struggle proceeds.

Now, the lemmings in the media are more interesting than the corrupt businessmen. I’ve dealt with a lot of media people over the years, and one of the observations I’ve made is that they are the trendiest single occupational group in our society – even trendier than people in police work. I don’t think I’ve ever met a journalist who had an original idea or who didn’t follow the Jewish party line with a truly religious devotion. They all march in ideological lockstep.

I think it wasn’t always this way. Back before the Second World War there were a few journalists in America who could think for themselves. H.L. Mencken is one who comes to mind. Nowadays, of course, the party-line journalists shrink in horror and embarrassment from the mention of Mencken’s name. Mencken – gasp! – didn’t like Jews and occasionally said so.

I can’t say that I really understand why journalists today are such lemmings, but I am sure that it’s more than the fact that Jews are so powerful in the media: I’m sure that it’s more than corruption, as in the case of the politicians and businessmen. I suspect that today’s journalists are people who have been more intensely socialized than most of the rest of the population. They are people who have been subjected to stronger group pressures to conform and have been selected according to how well they adapted to these pressures. Perhaps the journalism departments at our universities don’t accept students who don’t fit the lemming mold. Anyway, journalists certainly do have a very strong tendency to stick close to the herd and to regard with suspicion and hostility anyone who has strayed very far from the herd.

Now, this is an oversimplification, but I believe that the reason so many media people fell in love with Bill Clinton as soon as he appeared on the political scene back in 1991 or so is that they saw him as one of their crowd, their herd. „Bill marched with us for the Viet Cong,“ they thought. „Bill partied and smoked dope with us. He’s one of us.“

And they look at me and they think: „This guy Pierce is from the other side of the tracks. Instead of helping us trash the dean’s office, he joined the John Birch Society. He doesn’t belong to our crowd, so let’s trash him too.“ Anyway, I believe that there’s an element of that sort of thinking in the average journalist’s mentality.

Now, the bright side of this picture is that people who think like lemmings and have been conditioned by group pressure to have certain views can very easily be conditioned to have quite different views by the simple application of group pressure in a new direction. You won’t be able to change an independent thinker’s opinions this way, but if you put 100,000 typical journalists in a labor re-education camp and then select out 1,000 of them with leadership potential, straighten out the thinking of this 1,000 with two-by-fours, then put them in charge of the others, and put all except the 1,000 reoriented commissars on a diet of 300 calories a day, in a year every journalist in the camp will be reoriented: skinny, but sincerely reoriented. You can turn them loose with complete confidence that they’ll follow the new party line just as slavishly as they followed the old party line, even after they’ve regained their former weight. That’s the way lemmings are.

There’s one other aspect of the ADL’s operation which merits scrutiny, and that is its program of corrupting police departments around the country. At the press conferences they held in their regional offices last month when they promoted me to „most dangerous man“ they had a number of local police officials with them. The appearance of these police officials on the platform along with the ADL’s Jews tended to give the press conferences a sort of quasi-official or quasi-governmental atmosphere, and that undoubtedly encouraged the reporters present to accept the ADL’s lies without question.

Some of the police officials were there because they have political ambitions. They’re planning on running for the state legislature some day, and they want the Jews’ backing. Others were there because the ADL has assiduously been cultivating its relationships with police agencies for many years. The ADL offers „anti-terrorist“ seminars to police departments and indoctrinates policemen with its hate propaganda under the guise of teaching them how to recognize and combat „domestic terrorists“ – such as William Pierce. The ADL gets away with this despite its own record of criminal activity. The ADL has been able to persuade the cops to overlook its having been caught with stolen police files. That’s a little frightening. If we had a government with integrity, the ADL would be dangerous enough. But with a government like we have in the United States today, every decent citizen must regard with horror the subversion of our police agencies by the ADL.

ZOG Versus JOG


By Eric Thomson (2000)

Dr. Goebbels taught that good propaganda is able to sum up a major concept in a few words. Red groups never seemed to learn this lesson, and they usually called their groups things like: ‘Ad Hoc Committee for the Suppression of Rightwing Deviationism’, etc. Then they’d call their enemies such names as “running-dog lackeys of Yankee paper-tiger imperialism”, etc. In the blightwing we saw such memorable terms as “La Cesspool Grande”, used in reference to The District of Corruption. The blightwing loves to use terms which can only be understood by the unconverted with difficulty. This is one more reason why the blightwing has failed to move the existing masses of White people, which stems from basic blightwing confusion and inability to communicate very well, if at all, to those whom we would like to see on the pro-White side. The blightwing slogan of “For God, Race and Nation” would have disgusted the good doctor, as it did me, for it split our loyalties 3 ways. Strong propaganda unites; it does not divide. Hence, I coined the slogan, OUR RACE IS OUR NATION!

To achieve any objective, one must concentrate one’s forces and pursue the goal without dithering and deviating. Imagine the results if the Blitzkriegers had been confused about their routes and had paused along the way to pick posies. Rather than blow my own horn in regard to political correctness, I quote from an enemy publication, AMERICAN HERITAGE, of September 1995. In an article entitled “Home-Grown Terror”, the author who writes under the pen-name, “Philip Jenkins”, states: “The acronym ZOG has entered the vocabulary of the far right … and has helped shape extremists’ concepts of their enemy. Though the term ZOG was unknown to the Coughlinites, it exactly catches their world-view.”

“JOG” is not only confusing. It is erroneous. Here’s why: one blightwinger said that “Zionist” is a political term, not a racial term; therefore racists should not use it. He then defines “jew” as “a physical member of any race”, so “jew” becomes a political term, also. So much for blightwing confusion. “Jew” is a racial term. Anyone who doubts this needs to do some research. I suggest “The Genetics of the Jews” by A.E. Mourant et al. This is a series of articles prepared by jew hematologists, which appeared in the official British medical magazine, The Lancet, and was published by Oxford University Press in 1978. Anyone can change his religion and his politics, but no one can change his race. “Jew” is not a political term, and we should not be sloppy in using it, just when we dislike someone.

Not all jews are Zionists. I have known anti-Zionist jews such as Josef Ginsburg, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Benjamin Freedman, Jack Bernstein (author of “An American Jew in Racist-Marxist Israel) and a group of religious jews in New York City who publish newspaper ads comparing the tenets of Zionism with those of Judaism. I object to Zionism because it aims at the destruction of my race and the enslavement of all races. Any White person who supports Zionism is a race-traitor and therefore is my enemy. Any non-White who resists Zionism is a potential ally, but he is not and can never be my kinsman. Zionism is the political and the religious expression of jews who intend to destroy the White Race, using White frontmen, just as the evil aliens of THEY LIVE used sold-out Earth people to destroy humanity. Non-Whites can also serve the ZOG against the interests of their own people . In fact, anti-Zionist jews believe that Zionism is a satanic reincarnation of The Golden Calf, which captured the allegiance of Old Testament jews.

To act straight, one must think straight. Down with the ZOG!


I no longer capitalize the word, “jew”, which merely means “mongrel” at the high end of the scale. On the low end of the scale of value, “jew” means mongrel-parasite.

A Jewish International Takes Shape


By Douglas Reed

From The Controversy of Zion (1952)

This autonomous Talmudic government was called the Kahal. In its own territory the Kahal was a fully-empowered government, under Polish suzerainty. It had independent authority of taxation in the ghettoes and communities, being responsible for payment of a global sum to the Polish government. It passed laws regulating every action and transaction between man and man and had power to try, judge, convict or acquit.

This power only nominally stopped short of capital punishment: Professor Salo Baron says,

In Poland, where the Jewish court had no right to inflict capital punishment, lynching, as an extra-legal preventive, was encouraged by rabbinical authorities such as Solomon Luria”.

(This quotation reveals the inner meaning of Dr. Kastein’s frequent, but cautious, allusions to “iron discipline”, “inexorable discipline”, “discipline rigid to the point of deadliness”, and the like).

In effect, a Jewish state, Talmud-ruled, was recreated on the soil of Poland.

As Dr. Kastein says,

Such was the constitution of the Jewish state, planted on foreign soil, hemmed in by a wall of foreign laws, with a structure partly self-chosen and partly forced upon it … It had its own Jewish law, its own priesthood, its own schools, and its own social institutions, and its own representatives in the Polish government … in fact, it possessed all the elements which go to form a state”.

The achievement of this status was due “in no small measure to the co-operation of the Polish Government”.

Then, in 1772, Poland was partitioned and this great community of “Eastern Jews”, organized as a state-within-the-state, was divided by national boundaries, most of it coming under Russian rule. At that point, for the first time in more than 2500 years and less than two hundred years before our own day, the “centre” of Jewish government disappears from sight. Up to 1772 there had always been one: in Poland, Spain, Babylonia, Galilee, Judea, Babylon and Judah.

Dr. Kastein says that “the centre ceased to exist”. The suggestion is that the centralized control of Jewry at that moment ended, but the length and strength of its earlier survival, and the significant events of the ensuing century, confute that. In a later passage Dr. Kastein himself reveals the truth, when he jubilantly records that in the Nineteenth Century “a Jewish international took shape”.

Clearly “the centre” continued, but from 1772 in secret. The reason for the withdrawal into concealment may be deduced from the shape of later events. The century which followed was that of the revolutionary conspiracy, Communist and Zionist, culminating in the open appearance of these two movements, which have dominated the present century.

The Talmudic “centre” was also the centre of this conspiracy. Had it remained in the open the source of conspiracy would have been visible, and the identification of the Talmudic, Eastern Jews with it obvious.

In the event this only became clear when the revolution of 1917 produced an almost all-Jewish government in Russia; and by that time power over governments in the West was so great that the nature of this new regime was little discussed, a virtual law of heresy having come into force there.

Had the visible institution continued, the masses of the West would in time have become aware that the Talmudic government of Jewry, though it led the clamour for “emancipation”, was also organizing a revolution to destroy all that the peoples might gain from this emancipation.

The Russians, among whom this largest single community of Jews at that time dwelt, knew what had happened. Dr. Kastein says,

The Russians wondered what could possibly be the reason why the Jews did not amalgamate with the rest of the population, and came to the conclusion that in their secret Kahals they possessed a strong reserve, and that a ‘World Kahal’ existed”.

Dr. Kastein later confirms what the Russians believed, by his own allusion to the “Jewish international” of the Nineteenth Century.

In other words, the “government” continued, but in concealment, and probably in the different form suggested by Dr. Kastein’s word “international”.

The strong presumption is that the “centre” today is not located in any one country and that, although its main seat of power is evidently in the United States, it now takes the form of a directorate distributed among the nations and working in unison, over the heads of governments and peoples.

The Russians, who at the time of the disappearance of “the centre” from public view were better informed than any others about this matter, have been proved right.

The manner in which this international directorate gains and wields its power over Gentile governments is no longer quite mysterious; enough authentic, published information has come out of these last fifty years to explain that, as this book will later show.

The mystery of its agelong hold over “Jews” is more difficult to penetrate. How has a sect been able to keep people, distributed around the globe, in the clutch of a primitive tribalism during twenty-five centuries?

The US Senate Just Quietly Advanced A Free Speech Busting Anti-BDS Bill


By Whitney Webb

WASHINGTON – In an evening vote that garnered essentially no national media coverage, the U.S. Senate voted last night to advance the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019” – sometimes called the “anti-BDS bill” for its component that would allow state and local governments to punish companies or individuals who support the non-violent Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement aimed at promoting Palestinian rights and ending Israeli apartheid and military occupation of the West Bank. The bill was, notably, numbered S.1 – the Senate’s first legislative act of its 2019-20 session.

Numerous rights groups, politicians and civil rights advocates have accused this measure of violating freedom of speech and setting a dangerous precedent for the private political activism of American citizens, all on behalf of a foreign country.

The bill was adopted by the Senate in a vote of 74 in favor to 19 against, with seven abstentions. The bill had previously been blocked by Senate Democrats by a 56-44 vote as part of their objection to acting on legislation during the government shutdown. However, many of those Democratic senators who had previously blocked the bill ultimately voted in support of the measure. In order to become law, the measure would still need to pass the Democrat-run House of Representatives. However, given the amount of support for the measure among Democrats and the power of the Israel lobby, the bill stands a considerable chance of passing the House.

Some commentators have paid particular attention to how Democratic senators considered to be 2020 hopefuls voted on the bill. Several confirmed and likely contenders for the upcoming Democratic nomination voted “No” – including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). However, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), whose private courting of the Israel lobby was the subject of a recent MintPress News report, abstained from voting. Another notable abstention was Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who had previously threatened to filibuster a key component of the bill last year, preventing its passage during the previous Congress.

Punishing organized dissent

The bill includes several measures that were promoted by the Israel lobby last year but did not make it through the previous Congress. These include the “Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2019” which would give a record-breaking $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years, and which ultimately failed to pass after Sen. Paul threatened a filibuster against it. That bill also requires Congress to give at least $3.8 billion to Israel every subsequent year after the initial 10 years.

Other measures in the bill include the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019” – which imposes more sanctions on Syria and has been described as a “rebuttal” to President Trump’s proposed Syria troop withdrawal, which Israel also opposes – and the “The United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Extension Act,” which would also give money to Israel. Some analysts have long asserted that U.S. security assistance to Jordan and other regional countries such as Egypt is aimed at securing regional support for Israeli and American geopolitical objectives in the Middle East.

Yet, the most controversial part of the bill by far is the “Combating BDS Act of 2019,” which would authorize state and local governments to retaliate commercially against entities that support BDS, such as by halting business with or refusing to contract or hire companies or individual citizens who either actively participate in or support the movement. A previous version of the bill included possible jail time as punishment for supporting a boycott of Israel or Israeli settlements, their violation of international law notwithstanding.

Some have asserted that the current text of the bill would mean that these same retaliatory measures would apply to boycotts targeting any country considered an “ally” by the U.S. government – Saudi Arabia, for example – if that boycott was not explicitly sanctioned by Washington. Others, such as Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Kathleen Ruane, have asserted that the bill “sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government.” The ACLU also argued via Twitter that “states don’t have the ‘right’ to punish individuals for participating in political boycotts the government doesn’t agree with, which this bill encourages them to do.”

Such concerns over similar laws enacted at the state level led two federal courts to rule that “anti-BDS” laws were unconstitutional for their restriction on the right to free speech. However, the bill the Senate just advanced both ignores and nullifies those court rulings by attempting to shield anti-BDS legislation at the state level from future legal challenges. However, as a recent MintPress report noted, the effort to protect anti-BDS state legislation through the passage of national legislation is unlikely to work.

A frighteningly slippery slope

The fact that the Senate just voted in favor of a bill to nullify the right of American citizens to engage in political speech that is opposed by the U.S. government should be headline news across the country. However, mention of the vote has been notably absent from American mainstream news outlets Tuesday morning. One would think that left-leaning news networks, ever eager to criticize the Republican Party, would be quick to cover how the Republican-controlled Senate just voted to restrict American political speech if it deviates from the government’s own position. Yet the fact that the bill itself has several co-sponsors from the Democratic Party, and is strongly supported by the powerful Israel lobby, has apparently helped to earn their silence.

While the bill’s relation to the BDS movement – and, by extension, the Israel/Palestine conflict – makes it a polarizing and largely partisan issue, all Americans, regardless of political affiliation or their views on Israel/Palestine, should be gravely concerned about not just the bill itself but the precedent it would set should it become law. By encouraging retaliation by the State against American citizens for making decisions about what to buy and what not to buy in their private lives, a dangerous and chilling precedent has been approved by 74 U.S. Senators in order to shield a foreign country from criticism and the consequences of grassroots activism. Under the guise of preventing “anti-Semitism,” this bill represents a fraught, Orwellian overreach by Congress into the private lives of all Americans and their right to make politically-motivated decisions.

If passed, it will not take much for the U.S. government to use this precedent to silence Americans’ political speech when it comes to domestic matters. Consider how the government would react if conservatives chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from abortion? What if anti-war activists chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from our wars abroad? This slope is as slippery as they come and the fact that a sizeable majority in the Senate has chosen to target a certain political movement should sound alarm bells for all Americans who care about free speech, regardless of their views on Israel/Palestine or their position on the political spectrum.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Jewish Racism and Intolerance


By Savitri Devi (1976)

Jewish “racism” has been much discussed. And the doctrine of the “chosen people” is often regarded as an expression of this “racism.” Yet in reality the Jews of Antiquity (I mean, of course, orthodox Jews) believed that membership in their race, that is, in the “family of Abraham,” had value only if it were combined with exclusive service to the “jealous God” Jehovah, Israel’s exclusive protector. According to the Bible, Moabites and Ammonites, though enemies of Israel, were closely connected racially to the Jews. Did not the former descend from Moab, son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot and his youngest daughter? (Genesis 19.36-38) Now, Lot, son of Haran, was the nephew of Abraham (Genesis 11.27). Evidently genealogical kinship did not facilitate relations between these peoples and the children of Israel. If blood joined them together, their respective cults nevertheless separated them. Chemosh, god of Moabites, and Milcom, god of the Ammonites, were in the eyes of the Jews “abominations” – as were all the gods of the earth, save their own God – and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated.

Jewish racism, independent of religion – the attitude which consists in accepting as a Jew and treating accordingly anyone born Jewish, whatever his religious beliefs might be – is apparently a much more recent phenomenon, dating at the earliest from the eighteenth or the seventeenth century, that is, from the time when masonic lodges of Israelite inspiration began to play a role in determining the politics of Western nations. It was perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews – in spite of themselves. It found its most striking expression at the end of the nineteenth century and during the twentieth in Zionism, which could be called an innovative, avant-garde Jewish nationalism. The Zionist movement does respect, certainly, the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without in any way being identified with it. Its political faith is “national,” but could not be compared with that of modern Greece, since the latter is so inseparable from the official state religion. But I shall call Zionism a nationalism rather than a “racism,” because it implies the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without any enthusiastic consciousness of a blood solidarity uniting all the various desert peoples customarily called “Semitic.”

Although modern in its expression, this Jewish nationalism is not in its essence different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel from the thirteenth century before the Christian era. The religion of Jehovah played a paramount role then. But its role consisted precisely in forming a feeling in all Jews, from the most powerful to the most humble, that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from other people, including those closest to them in blood, and exalted above them all. The Jews have felt that more and more in modern times, without the aid of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of this religion among them, except in a few permanent centers of Jewish orthodoxy.

In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an unimportant Middle Eastern tribe among so many others, a tribe quite close to others in language and religion before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors, Joshua and Caleb, and then under the influence of the prophets, a people completely filled with the self-image they had manufactured; having nothing but contempt for men of the same race who surrounded them and, with greater reason, for people of other races; seeing only “abominations” in all their gods; even repudiating, as the prophet Ezra commanded after they returned from their long Babylonian captivity, those of their kinsmen who, having remained in Palestine, had married Canaanite women, under the pretext that the latter would loosen the link that bound them and their families to Jehovah and thus weaken their consciousness that they were a “chosen people,” a people unlike others.

They could have remained so indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride as incommensurable as it was unjustified, for even in Antiquity they were already rather mixed-race hybrids, if only because of their prolonged sojourn in Egypt. Had the Jews remained in their self-imposed isolation, the world would certainly have suffered no great loss – quite the contrary. But they did not, because the idea of a “single, living God” – the “true” God, in contrast to “false” gods, to local gods whose power was limited to other peoples – could only imply, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone “lives,” while all others are merely insensate matter, at most inhabited by impure forces, can only be, logically, the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit it would have required that they ascribe life, truth and benevolence to other peoples’ gods as well, in other words, that they cease seeing them only as “abominations.” And that the Jews refused to accept, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The One God could indeed prefer a single people. But it was necessary that he be, by necessity, the God of all peoples – the one whom they, in their insane folly, were unaware of, whereas the “chosen people” alone paid him homage.

The first attitude of the Jews, as conquerors of Palestine, toward peoples who worshipped gods other than Jehovah was to hate and exterminate them. Their second attitude – after Canaanite resistance in Palestine had long ended, and especially after the Jews had lost most of what little international significance they had ever possessed, being reduced to mere subjects of Greek kings, Alexander’s successors, and later of Roman emperors – was to throw into the spiritual pasture of a declining world not only the idea of the futile emptiness of all gods (except their own), but also the false concept of “man,” independent of and distinct from peoples; of “man,” a nationless citizen of the world (and “created in the image of God”) whom Israel, the chosen people, the people of Revelation, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true “happiness.” This was the attitude of those Jews, more or less conspicuously daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century AD until the Arab conquest in the seventh century formed an increasingly influential proportion of the population in Alexandria, as well as in all capitals of the Hellenistic world, which would later become the Roman world. It is also the attitude of the Jews of our own era – an attitude which, precisely, makes them a people unlike others, a dangerous people: the “ferment of decomposition” of other peoples.

It is worth tracing the history of this attitude.

Its seeds, as I have suggested, already existed in the fanaticism of the servants and prophets of the “sole” and “living God,” from Samuel to the redactors of the Cabala. An important fact that should not be forgotten, if one wants to try to understand it, is that the “sole God” of the Jews is a transcendent god, but not immanent. He is outside of Nature, which he created from nothingness by an act of will, and in his essence is different from it, different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from everything that could, in a permanent way, underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all other Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the supreme Reality. He made the world as an artisan manufactures a marvelous machine: from the outside. And he imposed upon it whatever laws he wanted, laws that could have been different, if he had wanted them different. He gave man dominion over all other creatures. And he “chose” the Jewish people from among other men not for their intrinsic value – that is clearly specified in the Bible – but arbitrarily, because of a promise made once and for all to Abraham.

From this metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples as “aspects” or “expressions” of the sole God, and all the less so since these gods represented, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies. It was also impossible to emphasize less the indeterminate variety of men and the irrefutable inequality that has always existed among the various human races and even among people more or less of the same race. “Man,” whatever that might be, had to possess, alone of created beings, an immense intrinsic value, since the Creator had formed him “in his own image” and had placed him, for that very reason, above all other living creatures. The Cabala states the matter clearly: “There exists the uncreated Being, who creates: God; the created being, who creates: man; and … the remainder: the entirety of created beings – animals, plants, minerals – which do not create.” This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy from the outset, since it is obvious that “all men” are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can in fact be creators.

But that is not all. From this new humanist perspective, not only did Jewry maintain its position as the “chosen people” – the “holy nation,” as the Bible says – destined to bear unique Revelation to the world, but everything that other peoples had produced or thought had value only insofar as it was consistent with this Revelation, or insofar as it could be interpreted in that sense. Unable to deny the enormous Greek contributions to science and philosophy, the Jews of Alexandria, Greek in culture (and sometimes with Greek names, like Aristobulus in the third century BC), did not hesitate to write that all of the most substantial products of Greek thought – the works of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle – were only due, in the final analysis, to the influence of Jewish thought, having their source in Moses and the prophets! Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was considerable, did not dare deny the obvious originality of Hellenic genius, but only retained, of the ideas they elaborated, those which they could, by altering or even by deforming them completely, bring into “concord” with the Mosaic conception of “God” and the world. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of ideas bears the name “Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy” – an ingenious collection of interrelated concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato, though not always in the spirit of Plato, mixed together with old Jewish ideas like the transcendence of the sole God and the creation of man “in his image.” All of this was undoubtedly a superfluous scaffolding in the eyes of orthodox Jews, for whom the Mosaic Law was sufficient, but it was a marvelous instrument for seizing spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, global) thought.

Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly permeated with the symbolism of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and so forth, and professed by the ever more racially debased people of the Hellenistic world, constitute the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the first Christian apologists, eventually taking shape during a succession of Church Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks of the latter: “it is a strange experience … to study these obscure assemblies, whose members, proletarians of the Levant, superstitious, dominated by charlatans and desperately ignorant, still believed that God can procreate children in the womb of mortal mothers, misunderstood ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit’ and ‘divine Wisdom’ as persons bearing those names, and transformed the notion of the soul’s immortality into the ‘resurrection of the dead,’ and then to think that it was these men who followed the main road, leading to the greatest religion of the Western world.”

In this Christianity of the first centuries, preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East) by Jewish and later by Greek missionaries to raceless urban masses – so inferior, from any point of view, to the free men of the ancient Hellenic polis – there were undoubtedly more non-Jewish elements than Jewish. What dominated was a common religious subject I dare not call “Greek” but rather “Aegean” or “Mediterranean pre-Hellenic” – or even Near Eastern pre-Hellenic, for the people of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia all more or less exemplified it in their primeval cults. It was the myth of the young god cruelly put to death – Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus – whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) became food and drink for men, and who came back to life in glory every year in Spring. This subject had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, as much in the classical era as before. Transfigured and “spiritualized” by the allegorical meanings attached to the most primitive rites, it manifested itself in the international “salvation” religions, namely in the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and Attis, Christianity’s rivals in the Roman Empire. As Nietzsche saw so clearly, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in “giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries,” taking hold of the old prehistoric myth, revivifying it, interpreting it in such way that, in perpetuity, all those who accepted his interpretation would also accept Jewry’s prophetic role and its status as “chosen people,” bearer of unique revelation.

Historically next to nothing is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so little about his origins and the first thirty years of his life that some serious authors have even doubted his existence. According to the canonical gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he Jewish by blood? Several scriptural passages tend to make one believe that he was not. It has been said, moreover, that the Galileans formed a small island of Indo-European population within Palestine. At any rate, what is important, as the source of the historical turning point that Christianity represents, is that, Jewish or not, Jesus was presented as such, and what is more, was presented as the Jewish people’s expected Messiah, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, and by all the Christian apologists who followed over the centuries. What is important is that he was, thanks to them, integrated into the Jewish tradition, forming the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young vegetation god who died and rose again, a myth the Jews had never accepted. He became the Messiah, acquiring the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus and all the other dead gods who triumphed over Death, pushing them all into the shade for his own profit, and that of his people, with an intransigence that none of them knew, the typically Jewish intransigence of Paul of Tarsus, his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the “jealous God,” Jehovah. Not only was “new meaning” given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning was proclaimed the sole good and the sole truth, the rites and the myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only “prepared” and “prefigured” it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitized souls to receive the supreme revelation. And this revelation was, for Paul as for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists that followed – Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus, Origen – given to the Jews by the God “of all mankind.”

Jewish intolerance, until then confined to a single people (and to a despised people, whom no one dreamed of imitating) extended itself, with Christianity and later with Islam – that reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology – to half the globe. And, moreover, it is that very intolerance that accounts for the success of the religions linked with the tradition of Israel.

I have mentioned the salvation religions, in particular the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and her lover Attis, which flourished in the Roman Empire when Christianity was still young. At first sight, each of them had as much chance of attracting to itself the restless masses for whom Roman order was not sufficient, or was no longer sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt alienated from any national cult, whatever it might be. Each of them offered to the average individual all that the religion of crucified Jesus promised, and with rites all the more able to assure his adhesion, since they were more barbarous.

Mithra the Bull-Slayer

In the third century AD, the worship of Mithra – the old Indo-European solar god, contemplated through the thousand deforming mirrors that the races and traditions of his new worshippers represented – seemed destined to become dominant … provided that no decisive factor should intervene in favor of one of his rivals. The god was popular among Roman legionaries and their officers. Emperors had believed it worthwhile to receive initiation into his mysteries, under a shower of the Bull’s hot, redemptive blood. A growing number of common people followed the movement. One can say with complete confidence that the world dominated by Rome just barely failed to become Mithraic, instead of Christian, for some twenty centuries. One can say with no less certainty that, though it did not become Mithraic, this failure was due neither to any “superiority” of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teachings of the priests of Mithra, nor to the absence of sanguinary rites among Christians, but rather to the protection granted to the religion of the Crucified by the emperor Constantine, and not to any other factor. Indeed it was Christianity’s very intolerance – especially, perhaps even exclusively – that procured the preference of the master of the Roman world.

What the emperor wanted above all was to give to this immense world, populated by people of diverse traditions and ethnicities, the most solid unity possible, without which it would be difficult to resist for long the external pressures of the so-called barbarians. Unity of worship was certainly the only kind of unity that he could hope to impose on his empire, on condition that it could be achieved quickly. Among the popular religions of salvation, Mithraism undoubtedly counted the greatest number of faithful. But it did not seem capable of being spread rapidly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to survive, and the unity that Constantine so much desired would therefore not be accomplished – or would take centuries – whereas the interest of the empire demanded that it be done within a few decades.

One could say as much of the old cult of Cybele and Attis: its priests did not proclaim, following the example of the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth; on the contrary, they believed, as did all men of Antiquity (except the Jews), that truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its faithful grasp an aspect of it. They, too, would have allowed rival religions to flourish in complete liberty.

Fourth-century Christianity, although penetrated with ideas and symbols borrowed from neo-Platonism, or from the old Aegean mystical substrate, or from still more remote forms of the eternal Tradition, had itself inherited the spirit of intolerance from Judaism. Even its most enlightened apologists, the most richly nurtured in traditional Greek culture – such as a St. Clement of Alexandria or an Origen who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, regarded it as a preparation for that of the gospels – did not put the two wisdoms on the same plane. There was, they believed, “progress” from the former to the latter, and the Jewish “revelation” retained its priority over the distant echo of the sole God’s voice which one could detect in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they dismissed as “abominations” – or “demons” – all the gods of the earth, except that One who had been revealed to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets – Jewish prophets – and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus, the latter entirely Jewish, the former regarded by the Church as a Jew, a “son of David,” though in fact his true origins are unknown and even his historicity could be questioned.

The profound link that attaches Christianity (and in particular the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”) to the ancient mysteries ensured its survival down to our own era. And it was, for Paul of Tarsus, a stroke of (political) genius to have given to the oldest myths of the Mediterranean world an interpretation that ensured to his own people an indefinite spiritual domination over that world and over all the peoples it was destined to influence during the centuries that followed. It was, for the emperor Constantine, a stroke of genius (also political), to have chosen to encourage a religion which would, by its rapid diffusion, give to the ethnic chaos that the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire. And it was, for the German tribal chief Clodwig, known in French history as Clovis, again a stroke of genius (political, in his case also) to have felt that nothing would better ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other German leaders, than his own adhesion (and that of his warriors) to Christianity, in a world then already three-quarters Christian, where bishops represented a power to be sought out as allies. Political genius, not religious – and still less philosophical – because in each case it aimed at power, personal or national, at material stability, at success, but not at truth in the full sense of the word, that is, accord with the Eternal. It involved mundane human ambitions, not a thirst for knowledge of the Laws of Being, nor a thirst for union with the Essence of all things – the Soul, at once transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

For if it had been different, there would have been no reason for the religion of the Nazarene to have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were its equals. Christianity had only one practical “advantage” over them: its fanaticism, its infantile intolerance inherited from the Jews – a fanaticism, an intolerance, which, during the early days of the Church, cultivated Romans or Greeks could only find laughable, and which Germans, nurtured in their own beautiful religion, simultaneously cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd, but which would give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed, since orthodox Judaism remained – and would remain – the faith of a single people.

Christianity could henceforth be combated only by another religion with equally universal pretensions, just as intolerant as it.

The preceding text is from Chapter III of Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et réflexions d’une Aryenne (Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1976).

The Federal Reserve is a Suicide Bomber with a Deeper Agenda


By Brandon Smith

Central bankers are sociopathic in nature and sociopathic people tend to behave like robots. When one understands the motivations of central bankers, or at the very least what their goals are, their actions become rather predictable. The question is, what truly motivates these people?

I believe according to the evidence that the central banks are motivated by ideological zealotry with the core purpose of total global centralization of economic and political power into the hands of a select group of elitists. This agenda is really just a modern “reboot” of feudalism or totalitarianism. They sometimes refer to the plan in public as the “new world order,” or the “global economic reset.” I often refer to the encompassing ideology as “globalism” for the sake of expediency.

To attain this goal, central bankers must influence mass psychology using traumatic events. Fear opens doors to centralization of power. This is simply a fact social behavior and history. The more afraid a population is, the more willing they will be to give up freedoms in exchange for safety and security. Therefore, the most effective weapon at the disposal of the globalists and their central banking counterparts is engineered economic crisis – a weapon that can, if allowed, destroy entire civilizations almost as fast as a nuclear war, while still keeping most of the expensive infrastructure intact.

Beyond that, economic crisis is also a weapon that can influence a population to embrace even greater enslavement while viewing their slave masters as saviors rather than villains.

Despite what many people assume, central bankers are not driven by a desire for profit. They print their own capital, they hardly need to make a profit. Central bankers are also not driven by a desire to keep the current system afloat. They have demonstrated time and time again their habit of deliberately sabotaging the system through the use of inflationary bubbles followed by fiscal tightening into weak economic conditions. The U.S. economy today is just as expendable as any other economy the banks have destroyed in the past. It is not special.

This fact is becoming extremely clear lately as the Federal Reserve initiates policy tightening measures into obvious economic weakness; an action which is crashing stock markets as well as destabilizing other sectors of the economy including housing markets, auto markets and credit markets.

As noted, this was highly predictable. In September of 2015 I published an article titled ‘The Real Reasons Why The Fed Will Hike Interest Rates’, predicting that the strategy the banks would use to bring about the next crisis would be interest rate hikes in the midst of financial instability. This was the same strategy they used to initiate the Great Depression. And as mentioned earlier, sociopaths act like robots – they tend to use similar tactics over and over again because these tactics have worked in the past.

At the time, the vast majority of analysts were predicting that the central banks would move towards negative interest rates. But if the goal of the banking elites is total centralization of the global economy, then keeping the U.S. system alive for another decade or longer makes little sense. They had already created the perfect financial bubble using QE and near zero interest rates to encourage debt accumulation at historic levels. It’s a veritable economic atomic bomb, why not use it?

At the beginning of this year, I published an article titled ‘New Fed Chairman Will Trigger A Historic Stock Market Crash In 2018’. In that article, I predicted that Jerome Powell would push forward with interest rate hikes and balance sheet cuts. This would put extreme pressure on highly indebted corporations and they would be forced to stop spending capital on stock buybacks, which have been propping up equities for several years.

I would point out that not only has Powell in fact done exactly what I predicted, but that he has done it consciously, knowing what the results would be. In 2012, Powell outlined the exact consequences of policy tightening in the Fed October minutes. These minutes were not made public until recently. They PROVE that the Fed is fully aware of what it is doing, not acting blindly.

In September of this year, in my article ‘The Everything Bubble: When Will It Finally Crash?‘, I predicted that stock markets would begin crashing in December of 2018, despite many skeptics arguing that a “Santa Claus rally” was guaranteed. From the article:

The Fed’s tightening policies have resulted in a severe reaction by emerging markets which are already crashing and have diverged greatly from U.S. markets. American stocks will not escape the same fate.

The Fed’s neutral rate efforts suggest a turning point in late 2018 to early 2019. Balance sheet cuts are expected to increase at this time, which would also expedite a crash in existing market assets. The only question is how long can corporations sustain stock buybacks until their own debt burdens crush their efforts? With such companies highly leveraged, interest rates will determine the length of their resolve. I believe two more hikes will be their limit.

If the Fed continues on its current path the next stock crash would begin around December 2018 into the first quarter of 2019. After that, other sectors of the economy, already highly unstable, will break down through 2019 and 2020.

Though stock buybacks had saved markets from the plunge in February, they are long gone in the final quarter as the cost of corporate debt expands. Stocks are now in near free fall in December. The crash of the “everything bubble” has begun. So far, intermittent bounces have been brief, lasting in some cases mere hours to a couple of days, then plunging into complete retraction. The trend line indicates far more pain to come.

I was able to calculate this outcome because I am willing as an analyst to accept certain realities. The most important being that at this stage the Fed DOES NOT CARE about propping up the U.S. economy, and ultimately, the Fed does not even care what happens to itself as an institution. The truth is that the Fed is working towards an ideological end game of global centralization; this means one economy, one currency and eventually one world government (a plan which has been openly admitted to by globalists in the past). It has no loyalty to the U.S. system, and it will destroy the U.S. system if it must to achieve this prize.

The concept of the “plunge protection team” has become widespread in recent years, and for good reason. It was the central banks in tandem with government agencies that have hidden honest economic data from the mainstream public as well as artificially inflated asset valuations to obscure the truth – that the US and much of the world has been suffering from systemic decline, a collapse that has been ongoing since at least 2008.

However, things change, and the plans of central banks evolve. It took a decade to create the ‘Everything Bubble’; an unprecedented bubble encompassing every facet of our economy including Treasury bonds and even the dollar. The true purpose of most financial bubbles is to engineer a crash. The “plunge protection team” is no longer a guaranteed element of US markets anymore. If they are intervening, it has only been as a steam valve to slow the current crash to more manageable levels. In other words, it’s a controlled demolition.

I don’t call them the “PPT” anymore – instead I think I’ll call them the PAC (Plunge Acceleration Commission). The PAC-men are devouring the economy piece by piece and digesting it as they go. They want a crash. In fact, they need one.

Far too many people wrongly assume that the Fed is the apex of globalist power. The Fed is nothing more than a single tentacle of a larger vampire squid. It is the branch of a franchise, not the top of the pyramid.

I would liken the Fed to a saboteur and a suicide bomber. It was sent here to America with the explicit goal of undermining the U.S. economy and the U.S. currency over the period of a century in preparation for a final destructive act which would open the path to global centralization. It was sent here in disguise, to get close to the target, to explode our economy. Its job is to do as much damage as possible, even to the point of sacrificing itself. When the dust settles, other globalist institutions plan to move in to pick up the pieces and offer the desperate citizenry a pre-designed solution.

At this time, ending the Fed is still useful as a symbolic act, but strategically it would be pointless in saving the economy. The Fed has already accomplished its mission.

This is why I don’t take the ongoing WWF wrestling match between Donald Trump and the Fed very seriously. Trump’s continued associations with banking and think tank elites suggest to me that his battle with the Fed is staged theater. Consider this: If the Fed is designed to blow up our economy and possibly itself, blame needs to be redirected away from the central banks. What better way to do this than to let conservatives think they are “winning” by pursuing a shutdown of the Fed? It’s an entity that the globalists were planning on sacrificing anyway.

Trump campaigned on the argument that the Fed was creating an artificial bubble in stocks through low interest rates. Then he took full credit for the stock market rally for the past two years. Now he is attacking the Fed for raising interest rates and causing markets to fall. It seems to me that the future mainstream narrative will read that a spoiled Trump caused the crash, blamed the “innocent” central bank that was only attempting to “normalize” the economy, and in the process made the situation even worse.

I am already seeing a stream of articles defending Jerome Powell as some kind of heroic rebel willing to raise rates in the face of establishment opposition. This idea is laughable when you consider the Fed’s long history of inflating and then imploding bubbles while banking elites siphon up hard assets and push the citizenry into further poverty and servitude. Powell isn’t a “rebel”, he’s a middle manager carrying out the same old strategy that globalists have always used: Problem – Reaction – Solution. Debt bubble, debt crisis, financial collapse, public desperation, asset absorption, centralization.

I will be elaborating on Trump’s participation in the global economic reset scheme in my next article. Needless to say, the false Trump vs. Fed paradigm was also predictable. Read my article ‘In A Battle Between Trump And The Fed, Who Really Wins?’, published in February of 2017, as well as my article ‘Trump vs The Fed: America Sacrificed At the NWO Altar’, published in July 2018, for an in-depth analysis.

Ultimately, the Fed is a proxy threat. A shadow of the greater monster that must be defeated.

Our focus now must be to determine who rebuilds the system after the crash runs its course. This means preventing global central bank hubs like the IMF or the BIS from becoming the dominant economic force in the world. It means a long and arduous struggle. It means defiant structures – localized economies and production, self-reliant people providing their own necessities and engaging in trade, and communities formed around mutual aid and security. It means a fight is coming that goes beyond the information war.