Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Mandela and Friends

12 Comments

Government Denies Mandela Is “Vegetative”, AP/ABC News:

Nelson Mandela is in critical but stable condition, the South African government said Friday, while a close friend said the anti-apartheid leader was conscious and responsive earlier this week.

BBC News was a bit more forthcoming about the “close friend”, Denis Goldberg, identifying him as “a fellow anti-apartheid campaigner who was imprisoned for 22 years”.

More on Goldberg from Wikipedia:

Denis Theodore Goldberg grew up in Cape Town and studied for a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Cape Town. As member of the South African Communist Party, an organisation which was suppressed by the apartheid regime which came to power in 1948, he joined other leading white members in forming the Congress of Democrats, of which he became leader. This in turn allied itself with the African National Congress and other ‘non-racial’ congresses in the Congress Alliance. He was detained in 1960 and spent four months in prison without trial.

When the underground armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe was founded in 1961, Goldberg became a technical officer. In 1963 he was arrested at the Rivonia headquarters of their army. He was sentenced in 1964 at the end of the famous Rivonia Trial to four terms of life imprisonment. He was the only white member of Umkhonto we Sizwe to be arrested and sentenced in the Rivonia Trial to life imprisonment.

Goldberg described the issue of being white and involved with the armed struggle as follows: “Being black and involved (in the struggle) meant you had support of many people and it meant you got to be part of a community. Being white and involved meant being isolated.”

More on Goldberg from South African History Online:

A Leading member of Congress of Democrats and political activist who was sentenced with Mandela and others to life imprisonment at the Rivonia Treason Trial. After his release he went into exile in London and returned to SA in 2002 to become a Member of Parliament, Special Adviser to Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry 2002-2006.

Denis Theodore Goldberg, an engineer by training, was born on 11 April 1933 in Cape Town, Cape Province (now Western Cape). He married Esme Bodenstein, who was born in Johannesburg, on 9 April 1954.

Bodenstein was also a political activist. She was subjected to solitary confinement under the 90 Day Detention Law in 1963 after Goldberg had been arrested and had escaped and been recaptured.

Goldberg was tried from June 1963 to October 1964 in the Pretoria Supreme Court along with Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and others in the Rivonia Trial. Goldberg was charged under the Sabotage and Suppression of Communism Acts for ‘campaigning to overthrow the Government by violent revolution and for assisting an armed invasion of the country by foreign troops’. The charge sheet contained 193 acts of sabotage allegedly carried out by persons recruited by the accused in their capacity as members of the High Command of uMkhonto we Sizwe.

When Mandela dies there will be more violence. As with past violence, it will be justified and excused by an extension of the jewish narrative, which paints Whites as stupid, crazy, evil oppressors, while painting non-Whites as noble victims and heroes. Guess whose side the jews are on?

Rob Eshman, writing at Jewish Journal, describes the jewish perspective in Nelson Mandela/Moses:

Mandela learned Afrikaans. The reason, he told biographer Anthony Sampson, was so he could convert his captors, his torturers, his oppressors, to his cause — the cause of freedom.

Think of Moses living among the Egyptians, eventually being able to speak to Pharaoh.

In fact, Mandela was as close to the biblical Moses as we’ll see in our lifetime.

It is a well-known and well-promoted fact that this Moses carried on his struggle side-by-side with Jews. The e-mails zinging about trumpeting Mandela’s Jewish connections are as ubiquitous and self-congratulatory as those listing Jewish Nobel Prize winners. But the facts speak for themselves. It was a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who took an interest in a young Mandela, gave him his first job as a law clerk and, in Mandela’s words, became his “first white friend.”

Anti-apartheid activist Arthur Goldreich pretended to own the farm near Johannesburg where the fugitive Mandela hid. Nadine Gordimer helped write Mandela’s speech at his Rivonia Trial, at which Mandela’s co-defendant, Denis Goldberg, was also sentenced to life in prison. Mandela’s defense attorneys were Jewish (then again, so was the state prosecutor). The list goes on.

“I found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics,” Mandela once wrote, “perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

In other words, the Jews who supported Mandela fought out of the same sense of empathy that animated him. Because you were slaves in Egypt turns out not to be just a line we say at Passover.

Was it more impressive that Jews, who could have lives of white privilege in apartheid South Africa, aligned themselves with Mandela, or that Mandela, who suffered deeply at the hands of the Afrikaners, sought to empathize with them? Either way, the same powerful force was at work.

Mandela as Moses – the role of the jewish narrative in justifying violence against Whites couldn’t be more explicit.

Note the importance of the dual nature of jewish identity, passing simultaneously as “white” and “victims”. The cognitive dissonance created by such a pose serves to mask, somewhat, the reality of jews seeing themselves as having common cause with non-Whites, joining with them to do violence against Whites, and celebrating the results.

Blog

Joe Sobran on Force

2 Comments

I stumbled across an intriguing quote while searching for an image of Joe Sobran to attach to my latest podcast, The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3. The quote comes from the conclusion of Sobran’s essay, Anarchy without Fear, dated 17 Oct 2002:

The measure of the state’s success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not.

The body of the essay concerns the interplay of rule, legitimacy, morality and force:

The first great American anarchist was Lysander Spooner, who died more than a century ago. His argument was simple. There is a natural and unchangeable moral law, which forbids slavery. No man has the right to force others to do his will. The state not only claims such a right, but claims a monopoly of force — the right to force its subjects to accept its laws as morally binding, no matter how arbitrary and unjust those laws may be.

. . .

There is no getting away from it: at bottom, the state is nothing but organized force. Its only abiding rule is this: “Obey, or we will hurt you.”

What is force? Simone Weil defined force as that which turns a person into a thing — a corpse or a slave — with no will of its own. Of course even a slave exercises his own will to some degree, but only by sufferance of his master. The state itself has to allow its slaves some latitude, but its permissions aren’t genuine rights.

. . .

Most men today can hardly imagine living without the parasitic force-systems we call states. However bad the state may be, they assume that anarchy would be somehow even worse, even after a century of world war, mass murder, and general waste and destruction claiming hundreds of millions of lives and creating poverty where there might have been plenty.

By now, if men learned from experience, they would talk about the state in the same tones in which Jews talk about Nazis.

“Obey, or we will hurt you” echoes the title jew Joey Kurtzman gave to Derbyshire’s odious acquiescence to jewish power, Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You.

When it comes to jewish power, men have learned from experience. Thus most talk about Nazis in the same tones as jews because they don’t wish to be hurt or crushed.

To paraphrase Sobran, the measure of the jews’ success is that the word Nazi frightens people, while the word jew does not.

Blog

The Nature of Jewish Power

2 Comments

Steve Sailer at Taki’s, on Jewish Wealth by the Numbers:

Similarly, in Israel, you can write openly about one of the more interesting and important subjects of our era: Jewish wealth. For instance, the Israeli-American centrist think tank Jewish People Policy Institute reported in 2010: “World Jewry today is at a historical zenith of absolute wealth creation.”

Forbes Israel, the Tel Aviv offshoot of the American business magazine, has a cover story on Jewish billionaires. The Israeli edition has made up a list, drawn from Forbes‘s overall ranking of the world’s 1,426 billionaires, of the 165 richest Jews in the world.

Overall, n/a states that 140 of the Forbes 400 rankings of richest Americans, or 35 percent, are Jewish.

Jews are usually said to make up about two percent of the US population and perhaps three percent of the older generation that dominates the Forbes 400. Therefore, Jews are roughly 17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population.

This 35 percent Jewish figure has been fairly stable since n/a started his analyses in 2009. The first careful analysis of the Forbes 400 was performed by Nathaniel Weyl back in 1987, when he found 23 percent were Jewish. That suggests a sizable increase in Jewish representation among plutocrats over the last generation. Yet bear in mind that’s only one data point from the past. I’ve been casually following the Forbes 400 for 30 years, and membership shifts frequently due to various bubbles.

n/a has also done a quick and dirty look at Forbes‘s global list of 1,426 billionaires (#1, by the way, is Lebanese-Mexican Carlos Slim). Unlike Forbes Israel‘s estimate of 11 percent Jewish, n/a comes up with over 17 percent. Note that this is pretty much of a SWAG for Eastern Europe, where it’s harder for an Anglophone to look up biographical information. Still, this estimate would mean that per capita, Jews are a little over 100 times more likely to become billionaires than the rest of the human race.

Lists highlighting jewish power cause hyper-jew Jeffrey Goldberg, at Bloomberg, to cry, Stop With the Jew-Ranking Already! (the original title, evident in the URL, was dear-jewish-media-please-stop-making-lists-of-jews):

The Jerusalem Post has just published its annual ranking of the world’s 50 most influential Jews, and I’m sorry but also somewhat relieved to report that I don’t appear on it this year.

I’m sorry because one of my goals in life is to inhabit the fever dreams of neo-Nazis, and nothing gets a neo-Nazi going more than the specter of supernaturally powerful Jews. I’m relieved because, who really wants to be on a target list? At a certain point, the Post should just provide home addresses to make the roundup even easier.

Speaking of neo-Nazis: It isn’t entirely clear to me why the Jewish media (not the “Jewish-dominated media” of those aforementioned fever dreams, but the press that actually cover matters of interest to Jews) fetishizes list-making. The Forward, a national U.S. Jewish weekly, publishes a list of the top 50 American Jews

‘Jewish Power’

So the lists published by the Post and the Forward always leave me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Why are these publications aping a practice of non-Jews — singling out Jews for their special prominence in society? . . . The phenomenon of disproportionate Jewish representation in many high-profile fields . . . combined with ancient and deeply embedded anti-Semitic ideas that are still prevalent in some parts of the world, suggests that they should resist the urge to quantify “Jewish power.”

As with hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, Goldberg makes no attempt to refute the facts. Instead they crack jokes. Nervously. Jews like this realize, and realize well, that jewish power is based on lies and fraud.

Blog

Paul Weston and Liberty GB

9 Comments

Speaking in London on 3 Mar 2013, Paul Weston introduces his new British nationalist party, Liberty GB, and explains why he thinks it’s necessary:

David Cameron’s Conservatives will not talk about the major issues, which to me are mass immigration – which now has got to such a point that it equates to population replacement – and they won’t talk about Islam. And of course Labour won’t, and of course the Lib Dems won’t.

The only party that will talk about it is the British National Party, but I don’t think they are going anywhere politically. They may very well be the biggest national[ist] party in the country, and there’s an awful lot, tens of thousands of people, who support the BNP but do not support a leader who is a holocaust denier and has the background that he has. So I can discount the BNP in terms of really gaining electoral success in the future, and the mainstream parties as I just said are absolutely useless when it comes to it.

So this is why we are starting this party, and we will talk about Islam, we will talk about population replacement, which as I said is literally genocidal.

Paul Weston on the Woolwich Killing, Islam and the State of Modern Britain presents his views in more detail. At 1:38 he explains why “conservatives” behave as they do:

They have to admit, that if there is a problem with Islam, they have to do something about it. And if you want to do something about it, that automatically makes you a far-right, racist, xenophobic bigot. And they don’t want to be labeled that. So they would rather betray their entire country than be labeled a racist. And this whole racism thing has got to stop. . . . And when they talk and label us as racists they’re doing this because the left-liberals have declared a racial and cultural war on the indigenous people of this country. It’s what they’re doing. Everything they’re doing right now is literally a racial and cultural war.

Genocide. Race war. Treason. Weston offers a remarkably articulate, unvarnished view of what’s happening not only in Britain but across the West. It’s quite a pleasure to see and hear someone so gifted stand up and give voice to these views, much in line with my own. Unfortunately, Weston suffers the same reticence he sees in “conservatives”. He’s afraid to associate with a “holocaust denier”, much less be labeled one. He wants the whole “racism” thing to stop, but not the “anti-semitism” thing.

This hobbles Weston’s analysis. He acknowledges the critical importance of race. He recognizes government-imposed immigration and multicultural policies as genocide. He calls it a racial war. Then, when when it comes to the who/whom and motives, he reverts to “conservative”-speak, mischaracterizing the enemy as “left-liberals”.

“Left-liberal” was a favorite of fifth-columnist jew Lawrence Auster, though Weston’s rhetoric is best understood as an outgrowth of a broader jew-first movement known as the counter-jihad. Norwegian ultra-nationalist Anders Breivik referred to this movement as “the Vienna school“, alluding to Gates of Vienna, a nexus of sorts for a loose network of websites and forums hosted by self-professed pro-Westerners. Counter-jihadists can be understood as quasi- or even pseudo-nationalist dissimulators. Their opposition to muslims and islamization is ultimately predicated upon support for jews and judaization. Full-throated advocacy for jewish nationalism is de rigueur. White nationalism is regarded with skepticism. White racial identity is regarded with contempt.

Weston’s emphasis on race, racial war and genocide pushes the counter-jihadist envelope, exposing the jew-first nature of the counter-jihadist worldview. Consider, for example, his exchange with anti-White jewess Sonia Gable, wife of anti-White jew Gerry Gable. He describes their attitude as:

Your past is evil. You deserve everything that you now get as a result of what your ancestors did a long, long time ago.

This is the jewish narrative in a nutshell. Such attitudes are so prevalent and easy to find because anti-Whiteness is at the heart of jewish identity and jews have power.

Weston understands the evil-White-oppression template but considers the holocaust version of it sacrosanct. He stares jews in the face and pretends he sees “communists”. His passionate speech about genocide concludes with him feigning ignorance about the who and why of it all.

The article Weston wrote about his exchange with Gable, The Left — Mad, Bad, or Criminally Ignorant?, was reposted and commented on at Gates of Vienna. It’s even more telling. The dissembling starts right in his introduction:

In the peculiar world view of communists, anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist

Weston engaged Gable because he understands “fascist” is code for anti-jew. He plays the same game by using “communist” instead of jew. For whatever reason, Weston will not see even the jews who attack him as enemies. He wonders if they might be mad or ignorant or even criminal, but even so he thinks they might still be convinced to join forces with him against the real enemy:

Sonia, as an organisation claiming to fight against racism and fascism, you would have my full support. I am viciously attacked by the real far-right, and they are deeply unpleasant people.

Spurned by Gable, Weston seems frustrated and confused:

I simply cannot understand what thought processes drive you to support the dilution and eventual extinction of a decent race of people and their culture, in favour of an emerging mono-cultural and supremacist majority which pays scant regard to the rights of women, Jews, and all those not of the Muslim faith. The parallels between Nazi ideology and fundamentalist Islamic ideology are pretty much identical.

And you support this, and attack people like me?

By playing the what’s-good-for-the-jews card he gives the game away. Gable attacks him because she disagrees with him on this point. Weston concludes, once again, by acting as if he cannot understand. But I think it’s clear enough.

In trying to explain “conservatives”, Weston explained himself. If he were to admit that there’s something wrong with the jews, that there’s a connection between their victimology, their rabid anti-White thought processes, and the genocidal racial war he decries, then he’d have to do something about it. It seems he doesn’t because he’s more concerned about defending jews than he is about defending White Britons.

Blog

Foxman and Sacks Explain “Anti-Semitism”

15 Comments

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, on Why Anti-Semitism Endures.

What is “anti-semitism”? Foxman says it’s jealousy, scapegoating, a “disease of the Christian world”. Take your pick. As a shyster performing the same schtick for decades, his explanation is remarkably incoherent. He doesn’t address why “anti-semitism” endures, nor why it follows the jews wherever they go.

Here’s Foxman again, on The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.

Foxman estimates just how many Americans are “seriously infected with anti-semitism”; notes various aggressive measures jews use to promote their interests (litigatation, legislation, education); argues that “the greatest challenge is the internet”, “the dark underbelly”, “superhighway for bigotry”; claims the ADL “broke the back” of the KKK by promoting anti-mask laws in Georgia in the 1950s.

A transcript of the interview is at Big Think Interview With Abraham Foxman.

Though Foxman is the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in the US, and perhaps the world, he doesn’t come across as exceptionally intelligent or well-spoken. This is especially evident when he is contrasted with the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in Britain, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

In The “Fourth Mutation of Anti-Semitism” Sacks, like Foxman, paints “anti-semitism” in pathological/psychological/biological terms. Sacks provides a typical example of the jewish narrative – a one-sided version of European history, entirely sympathetic to jews and antipathetic to Europeans.

Sacks doesn’t just invert the jewish problem, he abridges it. He begins with the Greeks by excusing them, along with the Romans. He says “anti-semitism” stage one “got personal with the birth of Christianity” and characterizes it as “a hatred of jews, not of people in general”.

Stage two starts around 1096, having to do “with the massacre of jewish communities in Northern Europe during the First Crusade”. This is “when jews became a demonic force”, “the infidels, the anti-Christ”. He cites “the blood libel” as “demonic anti-judaism”.

As an aside, Sacks use of the term demonic is similar to Foxman’s use of the term bigot. In both cases it is blatantly hypocritical – professional bigot Foxman accusing jewry’s enemies of bigotry against jewry, and professional rabbi Sacks demonizing jewry’s enemies for supposedly demonizing jewry. “The blood libel”, to which both of these two professional jews refer, is in fact a defamation of Europeans.

Sacks dates “mutation three” to the coining of the term “anti-semitism” in 1879, which was “not religious hostility to judaism, but racial hostility to jews”. He claims with this understanding of jews, “all you could do was work for the extermination of the jews” and that “the holocaust was already implicit in that word itself”.

Jews regard anyone who recognizes jews as a potential threat, and ultimately as exterminationist. It is projection – a window into their own parasitic minds. Jews see themselves as separate even while they sniff out and pathologize any sign of awareness in their host. Such aggressive inversion confuses fair-minded people who, in the end, find it easier to swallow the mealy-mouthed platitudes jews offer than comprehend the relentlessly dishonest jew-centricity of jewish minds.

Sacks describes the “fourth mutation” as “demonic anti-zionism”, “focused not on jews as individuals but jews as a nation in their own sovereign state”, “poisoning the world peace”, “responsible for every kind of distress in the universe”.

A stereotypical jewish strawman argument. Jews are responsible for having their own sovereign state, of by and for themselves. They are also responsible for self-righteously organizing and lobbying to have every other sovereign state serve jewish interests as well. Jews, including Foxman and Sacks, do this and brag about it, as if it’s good and right. Objecting to it is what they characterize as “anti-semitism”.

Sacks asserts that “jews must never fight ‘anti-semitism’ alone”, that “the fight against ‘anti-semitism’ is led by non-jews” and is in fact “a government-led activity”. He cites “international conferences of parlimentarians” actively discussing ways to promote the best interests of jews.

The sad fact is that jews are effective in getting others to serve them, even to fight and die for them. The concern of jews like Sacks, however, is Why the Jewish Voice Isn’t More Self-Confident.

Sacks says it’s because jews are paranoid and define themselves as “the people who dwell alone”, “nature’s victims”, who everyone hates. Sacks says he disagrees with this self-image, though as mentioned above it is the same image reflected in the jewish narrative he recites.

“Why has being a jew become a burden?” Sacks explains, “that is the residue of “anti-semitism”. He defines judaism as “the voice of hope in the conversation of humankind”. His final assertion:

There’s nothing threatening about judaism because we don’t try to convert anyone. We say look, guys, this is how we see things. If it makes sense to you please have it, and if it doesn’t, that’s okay.

The reality is that jews argue and organize in order to tell others how to see things – what is right and wrong, what can or can’t be said or done. If this doesn’t make sense to you, and you argue or organize for your own benefit, then you will find that the jews have governments on their side.

Here is the Big Think page for the Sacks interview. The whole interview, including the two bits linked above, runs 14:35.

Some highlights: Sacks expresses his pride in building day schools for jews in Britain, says jews “have an influence out of all proportion to our numbers”, and sees “no model” for a Chief Rabbi in the US overlooking the pontiff-like, moralizing role played by Foxman.