Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare

5 Comments

In PBS: The “Greed Is Good” 1980s as a war on anti-Semitism Steve Sailer waxes sarcastic over the narrative recounted in The Lucky Sperm Club: Jews, M&A and the Unlocking of Corporate America – “the inside story of the development of the mergers and acquisitions movement in the 1980s — a phenomenon that has ruled global commerce ever since”.

Sailer writes:

Back in the 1980s when I believed everything I read on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, the junk bond mergers & acquisition boom was often justified as a war on anti-Semitism in American business life. Eventually, after Ivan Boesky and Mike Milken went to jail and junk bonds contributed to the early 1990s recession, you stopped hearing that interpretation quite so much, but it’s still out there. Certainly, nobody is much interested in debunking it.

From PBS.org, here’s a preview of a new book that revives the argument that the 1980s leveraged buyout bubble was payback for discrimination against Jews. It’s by John Weir Close and is called A Giant Cow-Tipping by Savages: The Boom, Bust, and Boom Culture of M&A

Close, the author, provides the jewish version of how the mergers and acquisitions culture started:

M&A was driven by two Jews, Marty Lipton and Joe Flom, who had simultaneous epiphanies about how to take advantage of new government regulation

America was still an agglomeration of ghettos: Italians knew Italians, Jews knew Jews, Poles knew Poles, Irish knew Irish, WASPs barely knew any of them existed and the Cabots spoke only to God.

“When I came to New York in the ’70s, the WASP aristocracy still reigned,” the Lucky Sperm Club’s Shapiro recalls. “You didn’t see an Asian face above Canal Street. You didn’t see a black face in a law firm unless it was the mailroom. You certainly didn’t see an Hispanic face. Swarthy Italians and Jews? They were not people you dealt with.”

As recently as the 1970s, Jews and all others not of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ascendancy were still excluded from any position of real power at the bar, on the bench, at banks and in boardrooms.

Yet again, as happened so often in their history, the Jews somehow found their own methods to carry them past such barriers, and once those blockades were destroyed, other demographics followed.

But it was primarily Jews who first became expert in taking over companies against the will of their existing executives. The white-shoe law firms and elite investment banks found this simultaneously distasteful and tantalizing in the same way medieval merchants viewed the lending of money at interest. Both groups were discouraged from joining in one of the most profitable enterprises of their day: the old merchants by, among other things, an ecclesiastical ban on the practice of usury; the new lawyers, by the establishment’s social codes of behavior. Again, the Jews found themselves in control of an industry that then perpetuated the stereotype: the omnipotent, venal Machiavellian, hands sullied by the unsavory. But the business of takeovers paid the rent. And then some.

This is the jewish narrative. Jews oppressed by Whites. Who forced them into finance! Then the jews prevailed and turned their narrative into a template for other “minorities” – neutralize the White oppressors so everyone can pay their rent (to the jews, of course).

Sailer notes that it was Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, two more jews, who invented the “junk bond” fraud that helped finance their takeovers of corporate ownership. I wonder who the jews were who actually started it all by lobbying for and writing the government “regulations” all these other jews took advantage of.

At any rate, it was only the prosecution of Boesky and Milken in the 1990s which broke through into mainstream consciousness. The jew-dominated media was busy spinning the whole affair not as an ethnic war, but as an internecine corporate struggle, a hopelessly complex story best reduced to a parable about the excesses of greed. One clear indication that it was in fact part of an ethnic war came when Milken retained professional hyper-jew Alan Dershowitz for his legal defense. Throwing off the cloak and doubling down on the jewish privilege and aggression which had characterized the raiding all along, Dershowitz immediately went on the offensive. Aiming not so much at the courtroom as at the court of public opinion, Dershowitz leveraged the jew-dominated media to finger “anti-semitism” as the source of all the trouble.

Any perception that Dershowitz lost his battles – whether to keep Milken out of prison or to transfer blame for jewish malfeasance to “anti-semitism” – is wrong. Milken was sentenced to just 10 years in prison for the incalculable damage he had wrought. He served only 22 months. Purportedly disgraced, Milken remains rich and famous. He continues to advertise himself as a financier. At the time, the culprits were described in disapproving but deracinated terms, like “Den of Thieves“, and jews like Dershowitz howled that this was an example of jews being wronged. Today jewish power is even greater and more overt, so now the story is that jews were waging war because they had been wronged.

In fact, by the 1980s the jews had been waging an unrequited war for decades. Sailer points out that the “battle for Revlon was written about endlessly in the 1980s as a struggle between the dying WASP past and the new money meritocracy” even though the raider (Ron Perelman) and raidee (Charles Revson) were both jews.

This is no surprise to students of the jew. Henry Ford’s The International Jew well documented the distasteful qualities and startling extent of jewish power as of the early 1920s, before their hegemony was complete. The jews used the same playbook in the 1920s and 1980s as they do today. First they pillory the goyim for imagining jews are pillaging them. Then they pillory the goyim for making the jews pillage them. Pillory and pillage, pillage and pillory. Even when it’s nothing more than jews fighting jews over who gets to pillage the goyim, their age-old canard is that they’re fighting the discrimination and intolerance of an omnipotent “anti-semitic” conspiracy.

Sailer concludes with a lame plea of ignorance:

I don’t really know why the Revlon takeover of 1985 was seen in the media as such a milestone of Jews overcoming WASP discrimination. It just was.

In summary, the Revlon takeover as a plucky triumph over anti-Semitism is a good example of how malleable accounts of one’s people’s past oppression can become for the purpose of justifying dubious dealings in the present.

The corporate raiding was but a mopping up operation, a battle that could take place only because other political and social battles had been fought and won in prior decades. It was the jews’ overwhelming financial and media power, and partial control over business, which made mopping up on the corporate front possible. They prevailed mainly by default. Their whining about “WASPs” notwithstanding, in the US the jews have never faced any comparable opponent as aware, cohesive or ruthless, who clearly saw themselves at war and with whom.

The dominance of the jewish narrative today is an indication of jewish dominance not only over media, finanace and business, but over the very thoughts of non-jews. Yet the jewish narrative doesn’t spring from jewish dominance. Just the opposite. It is only an uncompromising belief in their righteousness, in the moral legitimacy of their cause, through which any people have any prospect of prevailing in the long term.

Armed with such beliefs the jews have, time and again, cultivated the opposite in their hosts – unawareness and disorganization – and thus prevailed. The very first step to combat jewish parasitism is recognize it as such. Jewish lies are not harmless, but are more properly regarded as the acts of a hostile adversary, an essential element of their stealthy struggle to attain and maintain dominance.

Blog

Answering the American Studies Association

3 Comments

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren’t “white” in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn’t subject to the usual standards by which “white” states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on “what it means to be pro-Israel.” A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the “tyranny of small differences,” as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening’s. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one’s support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist’s responsibility to guard Israel’s survival, to guard Israel’s interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What’s best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is “unanswerable” only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the “anti-semitic movements” which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally “liberal” jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally “conservative” jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No “dual loyalty” here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don’t face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any “anti-semitic movement”? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

Blog

The Murder of Mary Phagan

1 Comment

Part 1 in a series of podcasts on this subject was first broadcast two weeks ago. Part 3 broadcasts tonight. The series will likely continue through January.

In the wake of Mary Phagan’s murder on 26th of April 1913 came “the trial of the century”, culminating in the lynching of Leo Frank in 1915. Overall I’m finding it a fascinating subject to examine, quite informative about race relations between Whites, jews and blacks, then and now.

Blog

When Circular Firing Squads Attack

34 Comments

Responding to Carolyn Yeager’s most recent program, Movement Madness, Rodney Martin made a SPECIAL BROADCAST via his by American Nationalist Network.

The complaints Yeager and Martin have about each other don’t interest me, but I would like to answer Martin’s references to me.

@17:50:

My wife is not an injun, sorry to disappoint you Carolyn. I would ask you however to have you to post a picture of your partner over at the White network, Tanstaafl, and if you like I can reveal his name and his jewess wife, and let’s just see how much Ashkenazim blood runs over there. We wanna get into your tagline “Whites talking about Whites about White interests”, let’s really get into this. This all could have been resolved if you had just sent me an email…

I don’t see what I or my wife have to do with this, and neither did Martin until he decided he didn’t like what Carolyn was saying. He lashes out at me out of spite, not based on any principle he wouldn’t have continued to overlook if he had gotten the right email.

If I wanted my name or face revealed I would reveal them myself. What I have disclosed about myself personally, including my wife’s background, I have done in order not to speak under false pretenses.

@20:30:

Talking about hypocrisy, you don’t attack people using a fake name, you don’t have a person running your network and talking about White issues who’s married to a jewess and using a fake name, who’s terrified about being contacted by anyone in the movement…

My fake name and wife are really beside the point. The point is that I help keep Carolyn online, and since Martin has decided he doesn’t like what she’s saying, I have to go.

I’m a technician and analyst. I have no ambition to be a public spokesman for Whites, much less a leader. Even though I don’t make myself easy to contact, I have met several people, including one or more who have probably met Martin.

@30:45:

Can you imagine if I were to open my email right now and read every email that people sent me regarding Carolyn Yeager? I can tell you people would be shocked. If I were to read the emails telling me about her co-host Tan? I’m not gonna do that today, I won’t do that unless I have to. He’s disclosed that he’s married to a jewess. One of the criticisms we’ve had/heard was that during the Thanksgiving week, which was also Hannukah, they didn’t have any programs. Were they taking Hannukah off, because of the face-to-face relationship there? I don’t know.

If Martin thinks he knows something other Whites should know, he should disclose it. Holding it out as a threat, to be disclosed only “if he has to”, signals vendetta, not principle.

I took two weeks off after making podcasts for 75 weeks straight. During most of that break I was on the road with my family. We’re not jews. We don’t celebrate jewish holidays. My wife’s father was a jew. He died when she was a little girl. If you want to condemn me, let it be for what I’ve done, not some trumped up bullshit out of your imagination.

Blog

Chechar’s Crusade

18 Comments

On Carolyn and Tan is Chechar’s latest effort to explain why I suck. It amounts to the fact that I don’t share his position, that Whites suck:

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

As I’ve explained before, I’m not inclined to make lengthy or frequent responses to Chechar because he mainly craves attention and doesn’t really offer any new or useful ideas. His belief that Whites suck is already the dominant belief amongst Whites, and it’s doing Whites great harm. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites, much less my positions.

As I noted in my conversation with Carolyn on White pathology, many Whites go back through history searching for answers. What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to “prove” that the answer is not the jews. Chechar is one example of this. Another that comes to mind is Ian Jobling.

Chechar argues that I blame the jews entirely as a way of excusing Whites entirely, that I have identified attempts to excuse jews by blaming Whites (the suicide meme), therefore I must be trying to accomplish the opposite. Basically Chechar likes the suicide meme, thus he dislikes my pointing it out and arguing against it.

Chechar’s argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.

Chechar’s just-so argument is not simply wrong, it’s wrong in an ironic and telling way. Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally. Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative – that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity. The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once “converted”, turn into Europeans. Second, it requires a willful misreading of the persecution, calling attention to the exception, the jews who were most obvious, to distract from the rule, the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.

Any model of reality which is true, not to mention constructed from a point of view in favor of Whites, must account for the jews, and especially jewish crypsis – their deliberate deceptions about who they are and what they’re up to. Jewish crypsis, if nothing else, is evidence of jewish hostility toward Whites. According to the jewish narrative, Whites are to blame for it. According to Chechar the jews don’t even matter. In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools. Throughout history the jews have cultivated and exploited exactly this kind of behavior in their hosts, preaching blindness and ignorance while they condemn and cavort however they please.

In his conclusion Chechar quotes approvingly the following comment:

it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

It’s hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism. If White/jew relations were symbiotic there wouldn’t be anything to get emotional about. But jews and their sympathizers do get emotional, using that and other excuses to prevent and derail such discussions. From a parasite’s point of view discussions about parasitism can’t be good for the parasites. From a White point of view that’s exactly why Whites should discuss it, not shut up.