Mark Collett – Book Review – The Host and the Parasite by Greg Felton – Jul 6, 2021 — Transcript


[Mark Collett, founder of Patriotic Alternative, Laura Towler, Aunt Sally, and Natty discuss the book “The Host and the Parasite” with its author Greg Felton.

An early item of contention is Felton’s faulty view that jews are, in essence, a religion and not a race.

Jewishness consists of race, plus the optional characteristics of adopting Judaism, and jewish culture.






Mark Collett


Book Review


The Host and the Parasite


by Greg Felton


Jul 6, 2021


Click the link below to view the video:


BitChute Description


Published on Jul 6, 2021


First published at 08:53 UTC on July 6th, 2021.

 channel image

Mark Collett


 21288 subscribers


Aunt Sally, Natty, Laura Towler and I are joined by author Greg Felton as we discuss and review The Host and the Parasite.

Ways you can help support my work:

BitCoin: bc1qzgjz953f4gznway0hvz6lx360yd2autdkwf6nu

Etherium: 0xb44739a8f2c57Cad38F96Aab8F2a…

You can also donate to my work via Entropy:…



My book, The Fall of Western Man is now available. It is available as a FREE eBook and also in hardback and paperback editions.


The Official Website:


FREE eBook download:…


Hardback Edition:…


Paperback Edition:


PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to debate with me in the comments about anything I have said, I welcome that. However please listen to the complete podcast and ensure you argue with the points I have made. Arguments that simply consist of nonsense such as “what gives you the right to judge” or “I’m a [insert religious affiliation] and you should be ashamed of yourself” or other such vacuous non-arguments will simply be ridiculed.













Mark Collett: Hello everybody and good evening! We are here for the Patriotic Alternative Book Club. And I know what you’re thinking, this was meant to happen at the end of last month! But it didn’t – we had a few technical glitches. But we have rescheduled it, and it is happening now, obviously. And I have been very much looking forward to this. We have a full panel. And we have a superb special guest, who is obviously the author of this book. And we also have all of the regular guests, too. So that is very good.


Now if you could do us a favor we are on a new channel. We are on Laura’s Dlive. And if you can sub to Laura’s Dlive, that would be very, very much appreciated. Because Laura is just getting this channel up and running. We’ve had PWR on here one week. And we are going to be using this channel from now on. So this is our new channel. So if everyone can do us a favor and share it. Because it’s going to be a great show. We’ve got a wonderful special guest. And we’ve got this great panel. That would be super, super helpful!


Now we’re going to get straight into the action tonight. Oh, by the way, we are live on Odysee. We are live on Dlive. But we’re also live on Entropy. Now I’ll make sure the Entropy links are in all of the chat. So if people want to Superchat, which is to send a donation. Or if they want to ask an unpaid question they can do so through Entropy. And all the questions will be read out and asked to the panel, or to Greg Felton, at the end of the night.


Now the book we are reviewing is “The Host and the Parasite”. And that was written by Greg Felton. So we’re going to kick things off with Greg, the man himself. How are you doing Greg?


Greg Felton: I’m doing fine Mark. Baking here in Western Canada.


Mark Collett: Well, you’re loud and clear tonight. So I’m very happy about that. So just introduce yourself. Tell us briefly about yourself. And then, if you can, tell us about it, you know, take five minutes, or so, to tell us about how you came to write this book and what it’s about.



Greg Felton: Okay, well I’m, as you can guess, I’m Canadian. I am currently doing mostly science journal editing for a Swiss publishing firm. I have a Master’s in Political Science, a Bachelor’s degree in Russian language. And I also speak French and Mandarin. I never knew what I wanted to do when I grew up, still don’t really.



But while I was writing political commentary, the World Trade Center collapsed, as I’m sure you all remember. You’re all old enough to remember that. And a friend of mine suggested I write a book about it! And I’ve been a journalist for, oh, I guess since 1993, or. So so I said:


“Why not!”


The only thing is, I had never written anything longer than a university essay. So it was a bit of a challenge. So I made all the mistakes you could possibly make as a beginning writer. But overall I managed to put it together. And after five years I wrote The Host and the Parasite.


And what got me writing it was that I was really disturbed by the conspicuous bloodlust coming out of the North American media. And by North American, I mean, pretty much the world media. The British were bad for it. Canadian media is really a subservient entity to the American media.


So I thought there had to be more to it than this. I mean, why would somebody want to bring down the World Trade Centers? This didn’t seem rational. So initially I planned to write a book that was more, or less, a biography of Osama Bin Laden. But the more I dug into it the more I realized that there was much more to it than that. That there was a real man. And then there was the mythical, demonized, entity that was created in his image.


So the more I dug the more I realized that the United States virtually invented Bin Laden for self-serving geopolitical purposes. And so as it turns out I ended up writing a book that looks at the creation of Bin Laden against the background of Israel’s progressive control over the United States government. And the need for oil in south Asia and the Middle East.




So essentially the book uses Bin Laden as the main motive. But it now becomes one of three separate themes, that what I call the zionization of America. Like the Seven Ages of Man, you have the seven stages of zionization beginning with President Harry Truman. And I look at that. And I look at the corrupting influence of the Christian zionist movement, the jewish zionist movement. And I look at how the United States essentially sold, or gave away, its political independence, which is the scenario we have today.


Not all presidents were equally responsible. I mean, Eisenhower was a good President overall. Even Richard Nixon wasn’t in the pocket of the zionists. But presidents like Truman, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Jr, these people helped destroy their own country. And they did it with their eyes open.


So to this day it’s not really possible to consider the United States as an independent nation in control of its own policy. So that’s the reason, that’s the book itself. And that’s how I refocused it. And it’s now in its third edition.



Mark Collett: Well, thank you Greg. Very, very clear audio which is good, and a very succinct introduction. Thank you so much. So now we’re going to go around the group. And we’re going to ask the questions we always ask. And we’re going to start with Laura. Good evening Laura. I hope you are well.


Laura Towler: I am well. Good evening. And hello to Greg, and Aunt Sally, and Natty, and everybody in the chat as well. I am well. Do you want me to jump into what I thought of the book?


Mark Collett: Yeah, I was going to ask you if you’re well. And I’m going to follow that up with my next question, which I always ask you. Which is, of course, did you enjoy the book, and what were your initial impressions?


Laura Towler: Yeah. So when I discovered that we were doing this book and the topic was The Host and the Parasite. And it was about America and the worldc really. I was like:


“Okay well, because this is a topic that I’ve always really wanted to know more about.”


And I think in relation to America I would say my knowledge is probably, maybe above average for British people, if we look at the whole population. But there’s still so much room for me to learn.


And so much of things that I don’t understand when it comes to America and, you know, Middle East and all that kind of stuff. I follow British politics quite a lot. But if I’m honest, I don’t really follow America much. Which is silly, because it has such a big impact on the world. But yeah, I tend to just follow Britain and maybe not America, or other countries very much.


So the book is so full of information. Let me read some of the chapters out for the audience. So we’ve got, it starts off at Vietnam. And then we’ve got stuff like Unholy Trinity, Bush Versus the Crazies, Invasion of the Policy Snatchers, Jewish Presidency, Inventing Bin Laden, American Jihad, The New Pearl Harbour, Enemies of the State, Dementia in High Places. And it finishes off with Israel America After Bush.


So I just feel like it covers so much. And I think because of that, I found the book very intense. That’s not a criticism of the book, by the way. I think that’s a criticism of my knowledge. And I think if you imagine it building a wall I kind of feel like I have to go down a few bricks to understand a little bit more before I could take this book in.


Either that, I think I needed more time with the book. Because I got the book about a week and a half ago in the post. And it’s 500 pages. So it was very sort of heavy going for me. I haven’t actually reached the end of the book yet. I am going to finish it. But I wish that I had more time to digest the information.


And I think when you’re a streamer you always have to have something to say, these interesting takes, and something new. But I just feel like I can’t really do this book justice, because I learned a lot. But there were also quite a lot that I didn’t understand. So yeah, I just wish that I had more time with the book really.


One thing I will say is a little niggle that I have is that, because I’m a fan of Oswald Mosley, I don’t like it when people use the word “fascist”, or “fascism” incorrectly, because fascism is a economic and cultural policy, where distribution, production, exchange, etc., is owned and managed by the State and everything is done for the good of the state, and the good of the health of the people in that nation. Obviously it’s authoritarian in nature. But it’s also nationalistic in nature.




So that was just a little niggle that I had Greg. Because I think some people do call anything that’s authoritarian, “fascism”, when maybe it’s not correct.


But I just want more time with the book. So I think I’m going to go away and spend more time with it and read it, and digest it. Because I don’t feel like as an individual I can do it justice. But yeah, that’s it.


Greg Felton: Well thanks Laura. I appreciate the comments. I’m glad you found it interesting and worthwhile. It is a lot to take in. It took me a long time, it took me more than five years, stopping and starting. And I had to rewrite some chapters from scratch. Because I had to incorporate a lot of information that was even happening around the time I was writing.


Regarding fascism I did not mean it as an empty expletive. That it’s to say it’s a complete, a synonym for authoritarian government. The way I meant about fascism was in the sense of, … If you look at the United States today there is a lot of similarity with the rise of anti-labor movements, nationalism, militarism. As I say, I’m not here to draw a direct parallel with the United States and Germany of the 1930s, and 40s. But there are many overlapping similarities.


And if you look at fascism, it really doesn’t have a very strong philosophical foundation. A lot of it is authoritarian. And since a lot of it is based upon a rather jingoistic sort of overweening nationalist pride that has scapegoats. That it has a lot of rather unsavory characteristics to it. But I don’t want to get into a discussion about the semantics of fascism. I’m glad you enjoyed it. And how far did you get, by the way?


Laura Towler: Well I picked at different chapters, because I knew I had to have it done by, I think it was supposed to be last Sunday, wasn’t it? And then we got another week. So I would say I’ve probably read half of it. But not just the first half. It’s been different chapters, different parts of different chapters.


Mark Collett: Okay. Well, that’s the same question to Aunt Sally. Hope you’re well Aunt Sally. And also did you enjoy the book and what your initial impressions of it?


Aunt Sally: Hi everyone. Yeah, thank you Mark. I’m well. I did enjoy the book. I did enjoy it. I did find it a bit out of my realm of knowledge. It was all new to me. And I do think it’s very much for the American market, but not exclusively. I’ve written this down. It’s one of those books that deconstructs past events and puts the pieces of the puzzle together. And it did do that for me.


And I was young at the time of Reagan and the Vietnam War, and all that. And I didn’t really pay attention to it. Just living my life in England. And now through reading the book can see things for what they really were other than as compared to what we were told they were. There was lots of “aha” moments for me reading the book. Yeah. So I did enjoy it. But it was a big book and it’s quite a commitment to read.


Mark Collett: Greg, do you want me to carry on going around?


Greg Felton: No, you can carry on. I want to say, a lot of people who have read it said they enjoyed it and they read it straight through. It is, I admit, a lot of history, there’s a lot of argument. And so I do appreciate that it is a bit of a difficult read. But I’m glad you persevered. And I hope you do get through it at the end.


Mark Collett: Okay. Now on to Natty. How are you doing my friend?


Natty: Yeah, not too bad, thank you everyone. It’s good to be here after our abortive attempt on a Sunday. I did read the book. And I did enjoy the whole book. I’m kind of opposite to Laura in that I think I am focused more on American geopolitics. Simply, because it feels more important. It feels like small changes at the top of that pyramid have larger kind of ripples and they spread out throughout the world.


And also in terms of the title of the book, The Host and the Parasite, I think we all understand what that purports to. And I think given America’s shorter history, and the time scale you’re dealing with here, I think it is easier, despite what Laura has alluded to and Aunt Sally have alluded to. But this book is slightly harder to get into, it is actually easier to see the changes happen.


To see, as Greg lays out, the body being kind of overtaken and various parts of it losing control to a parasitic entity that has its own will and has its own own ideas about what the country should be.




And I know Greg you just said you didn’t want to get into the nitty-gritty of fascism. But I thought that would be quite interesting. I know that, like Laura said, she’s a fan of Oswald Mosley and what he represented. I think it would be given your kind of central thesis in the book, … Well, I don’t know if it’s a central thesis. But one of your thesis’ in the book, it would be interesting to get into that, certainly. And I’d look forward to it if we’ve got time to do it.


Greg Felton: No, that’s no problem. I have read considerably about fascism. And I say I never refer to it in the expletive sense. I try to be as clinically and historically accurate as possible. I mean, looking at the differences between say the fascism of Germany, or Italy, or of Portugal, or even Spain, they were all fascist at some point. But they’re all different each in its own way. So it is, … Go ahead.


Natty: Well it made me wonder about the phraseology of the word and why is that fascism reared its head. And the fact that it may be a replacement for a monarchy that no longer exists, and the desire of nations to have a kind of a natural hierarchy that would have been expressed in a few hundred years ago, going back, by a monarch. Now there’s a desire for something else and maybe that’s what manifests itself as fascism. So that’d be interesting to talk about. But maybe, like I said, if we’ve got time.


Greg Felton: Yeah. Sure, I’d love to. I do have some comments about that, about the difference between fascism and say monarchy, or other sort of authoritarian regimes. But yes, we can get into that after the show Natty. I’d love to.


Natty: Sure.


Mark Collett: Okay. Well, I’ve got a slightly different take on the book.


On one hand I think the book has a lot of research going into it. There’s a lot of things that I thought were very, very interesting. And I thought one of the things that I found particularly interesting was that you pointed out very well that the basic take is America goes into foreign countries, because they want oil.


But actually, they’re not going, because they want oil. Oil is more like a spoil of war if you can put it like that. But they’re actually going in, all these wars are basically for zionism. That the whole of American foreign policy has been shaped by zionism. Not by oil. Not by other geopolitical strategy. But simply at the behest of Israel. And there’s lots of really good stuff in there. There’s lots of stuff I didn’t know.


The introduction of where it starts off in Vietnam, I found that very good. So up until that point I was really liking the book.


But the bits I don’t like are towards the end where, … I don’t know Greg if this is being a bit unfair. But it’s almost like you tried to pull it back then. And you sort of seem to claim that jews are massive victims of zionism. That the Nazis were zionists – I don’t believe that for a second.


And then, I don’t know, you seem to try and separate zionism from, really jews! And at that point I kind of lost it, because I see zionism as a political expression of jewish supremacy. And I see jews as a racial group that look at the world through a particular lens. They have extreme in-group preference, they stick together.


And there were certain things that I thought, … The book’s 500 pages, so I probably can’t really say without sort of laughing [chuckling] that it needed to have more in it. You covered obviously AIPAC and the lobbying groups, which is obviously very important. I’ve made a 20 minute video on that. So I didn’t really scratch the surface compared to your work. And I don’t want to diminish your work. But I do feel you missed out certain things about the role of the media which is heavily jewish. And also the role of the ADL.


And I would say when you kind of assert that jews are almost the primary victims of zionism, I don’t believe that’s the case. The primary victims of zionism are White people! And don’t take this the wrong way, I don’t want to take this as an insult. But it kind of read to me as if you went down this rabbit hole, you found more, and more, truths. But I think, it’s almost like you found some of those truths to be uncomfortable, and tried to sort of reel it back at the end and say:


“Well, oh. But it’s not jews!”


And I’m not saying it’s all jews. But I am saying that I believe that zionism is something supported by the vast majority of jews. And there’s a massive double standard in the West where you have, say take for the UK, for example – I know this isn’t a UK based book – you have groups like the British Board of Deputies, the most powerful jewish group in the country that are wholeheartedly in support of zionism and Israel. But then want open borders for the UK.


And I would definitely argue that the greatest victims of this aren’t the jewish people, but are primarily people of European descent, and Palestinians, and Arabs.




Greg Felton: Okay. Well let me address a few things there Mark. First of all jews are not racial. That’s not something that can be really defended well.


A jew is somebody who believes in a religion, the Mosaic religion. You can be a jew from a slavic country, a Latin country, Baltic, Hungarian, even India, from all from what I know. You can also choose not to be a jew. You can give up your religion to be a Catholic, or whatever. Or you could marry somebody who’s jewish. And you can convert. And if you do so you don’t change your DNA. Your race is still the same was it was before any change of religious affiliation.


So it’s important to realize that jews are not a people in the same sense that the Slavs are a people, the Teutons are a people, the Hispanics are a people. In fact, Gilad Atzmon a friend of mine, who lives in England, made a wonderful distinction among jew, judaism, and jewishness. And jewishness is the cult of jewish cultural, or political supremacy.


And Dr Shlomo Sands, who is an Israeli historian, traces the concept of the jewish people only back about 200 years. It was essentially a contrived political dogma. And about that you were quite correct. Zionism is entirely political! But it is not co-extensive with jewishness. A lot of jews may be zionist. And I think you’re right about that as well. Because until 1967, most jews were very reticent about speaking out in support of Israel. Because, if you were an American and you were jewish and you supported Israel you might be thought of as being somehow less loyal than a non-jewish American.


And, in fact, this was how the Anti-Defamation League, or as I call it the Arab Defamation League, got started. It was very, very, it was part of B’nai B’rith originally. It was very unwilling to support jews [?]. Which is why the ADL threw the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg under the bus! They would not defend them, because they were afraid of becoming somewhat, or being seen as less American.


So the jewish angle really is well presented in the book. Because I think it’s integral to separate zionism from jewishness. And even though today most jews are, I would say, publicly zionist, I cannot say that they are privately zionist, because in the United States today there are more people willing to condemn Israel for it’s war crimes in Palestine than there was say 20, or 30 years ago. Now as far as the, …


Natty: Those people aren’t pulling the levers of power. You may have scattered jewish individuals being against that, but the entire power structure of not only the US, the UK as well, they’re all on board with that. And given the over-representation of jews as MPs in this country, and government representatives in the US, doesn’t that make that quite a spurious argument?


Greg Felton: Not really, no. My book goes into great detail about the zionist occupation of America, especially the jewish control of the so-called think tanks. Like the American Enterprise Institute, INAP, the Institute for Near East Policy.


Yes, I mean, if you want to be strictly speaking accurate. I mean, the jewish zionists and the Christian zionists are mutually reinforcing. And I would think that there were a lot of judeophilic British MPs even going back to Josiah Wedgwood and David Balfour, who somehow felt some sort of religious kinship with jews and basically bought into the cult, or the nonsense of a so-called jewish homeland. Which, of course, Israel is not! It is not a jewish state! It’s just an ethnocentric garrison state, dominated by European jews who think that they are god’s gift to humanity.


The fact that jews are in the levers of power is a fact. I’m not arguing that. But it’s rather pointless to target jews as if they were some monolithic bloc, because you can’t really do anything with it! You see you can’t really condemn people for being jewish. Because to do so reduces you to the level of a bigot.


Now in 1873 there was a German named Wilhelm Maher. He was a journalist, so-called. And he was terribly bigoted against jews. So he invented the term “anti-semitism”. And he used it to condemn jews not just on religious grounds, but on cultural grounds. As if they were some sort of a people that you had to rid the country of. And because of that the cult of the jew as being a member of an ethnic group, of being a definable, almost monolithic, entity, has taken off.


And I think it’s a bit of a disservice to do so, because you can’t really win the argument. You sort of play into the cult of jewish victimhood. And the notion of the, … And I don’t want to get into a disquisition on the “Holocaust” so-called, because that would take us, you know, far, far afield. But the idea of jewish victimhood underscores the ability of the pro-jewish, the pro-Israeli, media to sabotage criticism of Israel by waving the bloody shirt:


“Hey! Here’s the “Holocaust”! You can’t say anything bad about us!”


So I tend to find criticizing zionism to be very effective, accurate, and historically defensible. But it’s a bit amorphous to criticize jews collectively, because it doesn’t really get you anywhere. You can’t do anything with it.




Mark Collett: Well, I’ve got to disagree with you on all points. [Greg starts laughing] And I’ll tell you why the jews are a race. And they’re a race, because they show up on DNA tests.


Greg Felton: That’s not true!


Mark Collett: Wait a second! Wait a second! I let you speak.


Greg Felton: Okay, go ahead.


Mark Collett: Give me give me just a second to put forward my point. Leading rabbis in Israel want DNA tests to establish citizenship. Jewish blood passes on the mother’s side. All of these things point towards a race. You also have atheist jews. You speak about people converting. But when jews take on another religion they still classify themselves as jews. And there are many of these jews in Hollywood who say:


“Oh! I’m a proud atheist jew!”


Because being a jew is not just taking on a religion. I couldn’t take on judaism as a religion and be seen as a jew. And that is why they don’t acknowledge in Israel, jews from Ethiopia. They’re not jews, they’re people who have taken on judaism. They do not accept that.


Israel is a jewish state for the jewish people. That is in all their writings. That’s what it was established for. It is a safe haven for them.


And I believe that they aren’t monolithic. You are correct. Now that’s one thing that you’re right on. But they act like a family. And what do I mean by that? Well, you might have communist jews, you might have capitalist jews. They might disagree on the way that a country should be run, or the way that different nations should be influenced for the betterment of jewish interests. And although they disagree amongst themselves, which families often do, when it comes to actually addressing criticism from outside the family, they sure do stick together like a monolith, then.


Now, of course, there are outliers like Gilad Atzmon. There are outliers who do criticize zionism. They do criticize behavior of jews as a group. But I think – and I’ve listened to your debate with Dr David Duke, I don’t want to turn this whole show into just a debate about this particular issue. But I listened to your debate with Dr David Duke. And I think he put forward some very, very salient points.


And I’m not simply saying to you, you’re wrong, because it doesn’t fit my world viewpoint. I’m saying you’re wrong, because it doesn’t fit the viewpoint of jews! Jews themselves regard themselves as that! They regard themselves as a group. There are even intelligence reports suggesting they have tried to develop biological weapons that can discriminate on the basis of race! Now they wouldn’t have done that, ….




Greg Felton: Let me jump in here for a second Mark. Hang on, okay? You’ve gone over a lot of material! A couple of things. I think you’re basically starting from a mistaken premise. Just because jews say something doesn’t make it true. Jews can believe whatever they want. It doesn’t mean we have to accept it. Chaim Weitzman famously said:


“There are no jewish Britons. They’re only British jews.”


And that sort of goes to your notion of race. But it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference!


There is no such thing as a jewish gene. There are jews from Poland, Russia, Moldavia, Ukraine, Germany. And they have genes from those countries. Now if you wanted to define a people by inbreeding, that’s fine. But just because they share similar genes does not make them jewish! Jew is not a religious [racial?] term! It never has been! It cannot be!


And even though you want to dismiss Gilad Atzmon as an outlier, that’s a little bit disingenuous because, if you talk about someone giving up his jewishness, which is what Atzmon has done. Well that basically disproves the notion that it’s a racial commodity. If Israel were a jewish state it would be run by a theocracy, it would be rabbinical. It’s not. It’s a Western, neo-fascist, or I would say not neo-fascist – I don’t want to offend Laura – it’s an absolutist racially based society that makes apartheid South Africa look like a democracy.


Mark Collett: It’s racially based. You just said that.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But it’s not racially based. The thing is jews think of themselves as a race and they have this arrogant Chauvinism, …


Mark Collett: They didn’t make themselves the race, they test for it on DNA tests.


Greg Felton: Yeah, but the DNA test proves nothing!


Mark Collett: Well, not so sure about that Greg. [chuckling]


Greg Felton: Well I am sure about it! If I were to test my blood, going back to my ancestry in Wales, England, Holland Germany, France, I could probably find somebody, somewhere, who was a jew! I don’t know. I’m not jewish and I never have been. But you cannot claim genetic affinity for something that is a religion!


And just because jews and rabbis say so, does not make it so! Consider your source.


Mark Collett: No, but what I’m saying is, it does show up on DNA tests.


Greg Felton: But it doesn’t prove they’re jewish! It just proved they came from some part of the world. But just because a specific racial group developed, …


They can’t be calling themselves racial. That’s like begging the question.


Mark Collett: Well how can you have atheist jews, then?


Greg Felton: You can’t! They call themselves atheist jews, because they buy into the cult that they are a special people of god. See, jews think themselves that they’re god’s gift to humanity. Like, they’re the “chosen ones”! They were “chosen by god” blah, blah, woof, woof! So if they do that they have to say themselves:


“Okay, we’re not just a religious community of believers, we are some sort of a human group that is created by god.”


So they give themselves the permission to call themselves a race, even though there is no defense for it. I mean, as I said, earlier Shlomo Sands said that the deity of a jewish people is only about 200 years old. It’s a political stratagem to justify the occupation of Palestine, the murder, torture, and expulsion of Palestinians! And to hide behind some sort of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that gave them the right to do it, …


Mark Collett: What it seems like you’re doing here, is it seems like you’re jumping through a number of bizarre hoops, …


Greg Felton: No.


Mark Collett: Simply so you don’t have to acknowledge a bigger picture, which is jewish supremacism, which is something which doesn’t just affect Palestinians. It affects the West.


And there’s something else I’ve got to ask you. And this is very important. Some people in the chat are raising this. There are actual physical displays of jewishness. You can look at certain people and say:


“Oh, he looks jewish.”


In the same way that you can look at certain people and say:


“He looks Irish, or he looks Nigerian, or that’s an aboriginal.”


Greg Felton: Yeah.


Mark Collett: Those are racial characteristics.




Greg Felton: Yes, you have facial similarities. That’s right. But it doesn’t make them a race! For crying a loud! I can look at it, you know, …


Mark Collett: But it kind of does. It’s like Irish people have a certain look to them. They have certain facial shape, they have certain hair color. You see people and you’re like:


“Yeah, he’s Irish.”


That’s an ethnicity. And these are an ethnic group. They have racial characteristics. They’re an ethnicity. And I think most of the chats seem to agree with me and what I’m saying. And obviously, …


Greg Felton: They can agree if they wish. But jews look like, just that doesn’t make them a race, for crying out loud! If you want to go back to a taxonomic description of race which is not what my book is about, and I’d like to get a little bit back on track here. You have caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, and australoid. Or the basic races based upon physiognomy. Now you can look at a jew and say:


“Is he jewish?”


I don’t know, maybe he’s Muslim? Is he jewish? I don’t know, I can’t really tell. Does he come from a jewish parent, or is he Middle Eastern? I think you’re trying to stretch it. I think you’re seeing what you want to see.


Mark Collett: I don’t think that I am. I think I’m taking a balanced view. And you seem to be saying, … Can I try and sum this up, and tell me if I’m wrong. I’m not trying to be glib here. But what you’re saying is all these DNA tests, their own testimony, their own belief system, the fact they look alike, the fact that they believe that their blood passes down on the mother’s side of the family, the fact that leading rabbis want DNA tests for citizenship. The fact that Israel describes itself as a state for jewish people and is effectively a jewish ethnostate, not just based on religion, because they send Ethiopian converts to judaism away.


Greg Felton: Yeah.


Mark Collett: You’re throwing all of that out the window and saying:


“They’re somehow just doing this to fool themselves and they’re almost victims of some kind of trickery!”


Greg Felton: Well, I don’t think trickery. I think it’s just overweening conceit. Israel is not a jewish state. I’m sorry there’s no defense for that. Now you can argue that maybe, because they think they’re jews. But what they think does not equal truth! Truth is not a function of belief!


Natty: Well, eventually it is so, right, Greg? Because you can say that this is a conceit that they’ve told themselves. If I give an example, the word “racism” was kind of conjured up in the 20s by Bolsheviks in order to divide people and attack the White Christian Europeans in Soviet Russia. But it’s now becoming ingrained in society, so much so that people who will point out the entomology of this word, will go nowhere. It doesn’t matter, it’s too far ingrained.


And you can say that this idea of “jewishness” as a race is only 200 years old. But it’s too late now. It may be that you’re arguing that this is the way they’ve achieved power over the United States is to pretend they are a racial group and they’re separate. If that’s how they’re identifying themselves, doesn’t it behoove us to say:


“Well fair enough then. You’ve created that myth for yourselves and we will respond accordingly.”


Greg Felton: Well, how about the Sicilians who call the Mafia a race, because they all look Italian and they all behave the same, …


Mark Collett: They don’t call the Mafia a race, …


Greg Felton: Of course not, of course. But the Mafia is little different from jewishness in this regard. It’s a gangster organization. And frankly I just don’t see the merit in trying to argue something that is essentially notional. I mean, you could argue that, … If you want to say that jews are a race, because they have sort of genetic, … If you want to believe that those genetics point to jewishness, that’s fine.


I’m suggesting that you have to read into those DNA results which you want to see in order to believe it. David Duke’s argument was entirely that of a rather narrow-minded Southern bigot who wanted to rationalize his dislike of jews. And I have no use for David Duke’s point of view. And it was all I could do to stop losing my temper.


Mark Collett: Well, look, David Duke’s a very good friend of mine. And I’ve got to say, I think that’s very unfair to call him a “Southern bigot”. I think David’s work on his books “Jewish Supremacism”, “My Awakening”, “The Secret Behind Communism”, they are fantastic works. One of those was a New York Times bestseller when it was released. And I think that David’s points, when I listened to his debate with you he was very calm. He was very clear. And I’ve worked with David now for a very, very long time! I’ve known him for about, ….







Greg Felton: Okay I don’t want to talk about David Duke. He talked over me so much I barely got a word in edgewise.


I came on to talk about Gaza, the United States, and American policy. He ended up going on some sort of harangue about jewishness, and race, and genetics, which is not what I came on the show for, …


Mark Collett: No, I presented my opinions on the book. And my opinion on the book is lots of it is very, very, well researched and leads down a certain road. But it’s almost like somebody’s saying:


“What’s two, add two, add two, add two, add two?”


And everyone’s waiting for you to say 10. And then you say:




Greg Felton: That’s unfair. That’s not fair at all. I make a distinction between jewishness and zionist and I’m consistent with that. Because even though many jews dominate the media, there are jews dominating the American government, the fact that they’re jewish, they call themselves jewish, is less significant than they support Israel. And I can imagine that if Bernie Sanders had won the nomination for the Democratic Party this particular jew would have made a far better President and would have done more to stand up to Israel than the supine, what’s his name, Joe Biden. So I just do not see the merit, …


Mark Collett: Yes, but Biden’s cabinet, the inner cabinet, the most important positions in Biden’s cabinet are some 80% jewish!


Greg Felton: Yes I know that. Which means that he’s rather supine and he takes marching orders from the people who put him in power.


Mark Collett: I mean, but yet again jews aren’t the victim of this, the victim of this fundamentally are White Americans, the people of European descent whose ancestors not only founded America, …


But I mean, obviously yesterday Americans were celebrating their independence. They founded America and then achieved independence for themselves and their progeny. And now they are controlled by these people.


And I don’t think that any of this is some kind of trick to make them believe there’s something they’re not. I think they’re acting with in-group preference. And I think they’re acting as an ethnic group. And I don’t think that’s just all in their heads, because if it was, the DNA tests wouldn’t support that, …


Greg Felton: One second before you go. I want to say one thing is that the, oh damn! My train just jumped the tracks! Go ahead Natty, I’m sorry, I’ll come back.


Natty: Can I try and just pour some cold water on this? So I don’t know. Maybe we could carry on with the book?


Greg Felton: Yeah.


Natty: To Mark’s point, this isn’t a case for bigotry, or for anti-semitism, or for anything like that it’s simply nationalists who recognize the truths in your book, to deal with reality as we find it. And it may be that you’ve uncovered, or discovered through your for your research for the book and the writing time, some deeper, deeper truth that there needs to be a separation in order for us to push back against it.


But for the majority of people who find ourselves recognizing this, it’s not only it may be that it’s advantageous to them. But it’s also incredibly advantageous to us to recognize the truth as they’ve laid out and as we see it and manifests itself in reality. Especially in geopolitics and in world politics as we see it today.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But you have to remember also one thing that jewish zionists wouldn’t have nearly any, literally the power they have, if it weren’t for the Christian zionists who do their dirty work for them. Christian zionists are the only people in the United States who really have any time for zionist jews.


So you have this, as I mentioned in my book on Holy Trinity, Chapter Two, which is you have Christian zionists, jewish zionists, and neoconservative economists, that form this rather toxic stew of neo-fascist thuggery which has managed to insinuate itself into American politics, …




Natty: Sure! Sure! Our argument Greg, our argument would be that it would be much easier to decouple that relationship, that parasitic relationship, if you could make it explicitly clear to those European Christian Americans that this is a separate entity. These are not your people. You come from Europe you’re a different people. And these people are seeking control over you and their advocation for zionism is not the same as your Christianity and your Christian values and where it comes from.


Sure, go ahead.


Greg Felton: The thing is, “Christian values” is a rather amorphous term that can take on all different kinds of color depending what kind of Christian you are. But remember, that people who buy into zionism like any absolute belief system do not behave rationally.


It’s rather difficult to tell somebody who goes to something like Oral Roberts University, or belongs to Terry Falwell’s organization, that Christian zionism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, or that it forms common cause with a biblical outlier group that is non-standard. And that for much of its history was looked down upon by the vast majority of jews!


In Hitler’s Germany 1931, zionist jews comprise only two percent of the jewish population. Two percent! The zionist jews and the Nazis formed common cause, in that they wanted to rid Europe of its jewish population.


The only difference was Hitler didn’t care what happened to them. And the zionists wanted to force them all to go to Palestine. Which is why David Ben Gurion admitted that he actively sabotaged rescue efforts, even if it meant that more jewish children would be killed, because they couldn’t flee the Nazi regime.


So I kind of think that looking at jews as the only villain here, is a little bit narrow-minded.


Natty: That’s not, as I said, we’re not making a case. I don’t think Mark, or anyone here, is making a case for painting the the big bad in the room, and laying out a case for bigotry, or race and racism, or anti-semitism, or whatever you call it. That’s simply not what we’re trying to do. We’re just trying to deal with the situation that we see laid out before us.


Greg Felton: By the way, sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt guys. I’m so sorry. But if you want to get my book you should go to And we fill orders immediately. And because America’s holiday is today, all orders will go out tomorrow. So you can order with immediate fulfillment at Sorry, go ahead guys.


Mark Collett: No, no. All the links will be in the description. So if people wish to buy the book, we’ve got all those. So people can grab that.


But another thing I was gonna say. I don’t think the jews really have that much power because of Christian zionists supporting them. I think they’ve got so much power, because they’re vastly over represented within the media. In Hollywood, they run the porn industry. Almost the entirety of the visual material that people consume in America is controlled by jews.


So you have constant [word unclear] about the “Holocaust”, you have every news station basically agreeing that anti-semitism is the grossest thing ever, and it’s out of control, and that jews are so hard done to, but they’d never do anything wrong!


Greg Felton: Right.


Mark Collett: And we’ll have the jewish news zooming in on what appears to be a bottle rocket going over a wall and landing on a street and cracking a pavement. But then zooming out when a hospital is destroyed, completely leveled, killing dozens of women and children in Palestine, not by a bottle rocket but by military-grade ordnance. And that’s being covered up completely by the jewish media. So what you’ve got here, …


Greg Felton: That is quite right, …


Mark Collett: Just two seconds. I’ll just finish this point. I’m not going to go on too long. But all I was going to say. And we can always move on to another part of the book. Because I don’t want to get bogged down in this all night.


But what you’ve got here is, in my opinion, you have an ethnostate for jews, which is what it’s defined as in the Middle East, and that is being supported by nations that are being controlled and manipulated by a jewish diaspora that lives within their borders, and has taken control, or has manipulated themselves into positions of power, where they lean on politicians. So they have a much greater say in those countries and the way those countries are run, especially foreign policy. And this is how they operate.


And I think really you cannot divorce the state of Israel from this jewish diaspora, and the jewish diasporas vast over-representation when it comes to media control.




Greg Felton: Well, as I say, I think I’ve argued with you, as much as I want to about this. I mean, you can argue that jews are the problem, however I don’t see how you’re going to translate that into any sort of actionable remedy.


Because you can’t simply target jews. Because that’s a bit lazy. What I would suggest is you should look at how much money the jews have, how much money controls political careers.


I mean, recently there was a 1973, William Fulbright, who was a senator in the United States, openly admitted that 80 percent of senators were in the pocket of Israel. The only reason for anybody to betray his country to a foreign political entity, which is holy and utterly illegitimate, is that there’s money involved! There’s self-interest involved.


So if you want to go on about jews controlling the media, why don’t you ask why is it allowed to go ahead? Why do people not do something about it? Because it’s in their self-interest not to.


Now people in Canada, for example, we had some reporters, good reporters, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation complained to the media, to their owners, or the management of the station, that they wanted more balance in reporting on Palestine, on Israel. For their efforts they were removed from the Palestinian beat and given other assignments.


People are afraid of the calumny of anti-semitism! They are afraid of losing their jobs! They may be in fear of their lives. But if you think of Israel, of the zionists, as a gangster collective, not as a religious group, not as an ethnic group, but as a gangster, or gang of criminals, you are far better able to explain their behavior. How many jews, …


Mark Collett: This is an ethnic group that has extreme in-group preference and wields power by entering into nations and subverting those nations by controlling their finances, their media, their movie productions. They create lobbying groups, they create words like “anti-semitism”, and special bodies, …


Greg Felton: No, they didn’t create “anti-semitism”, that was done by a German, I told you earlier. That was Wilhelm Maher. They exploit anti-semitism as an empty epithet to stifle criticism. But they did not invent the term.


Mark Collett: They have groups like the ADL, they have powerful groups in the UK, the British Board of Deputies, which, …


Greg Felton: Yeah, we, yeah. But again this is just going over the same material, …


Mark Collett: But, as I say, we can move on to other parts of the book.


Greg Felton: Yes, I think so, …


Mark Collett: I think Aunt Sally and Laura, if they want to weigh in on anything to do with this, they’re more than willing. If anyone wants to have any final words on this, before we move on to anything else in this particular, …


Laura Towler: Well, I feel like we’ve spent [chuckling] quite a lot of time discussing what it means to be a jew. Maybe the first half of the stream.


Greg Felton: Yeah.


Laura Towler: And there are so many chapters in this book, like I said in my introduction, that I just feel like it covers everything that’s ever happened in the world!


Greg Felton: Thank you!


Laura Towler: You said at the start of your book Greg, that you began by writing, you thought you were going to be writing a book just about Bin Laden, and you talk about what you described as the media spreading anti-Muslim bigotry. You do actually have a chapter in the book called “Inventing Bin Laden”. I wonder if you might want to talk about that? I’m sure the audience would be interested to hear your thoughts on that if we could do a quick summary.


Greg Felton: Okay. Very good. Thank you. As I say everything you have to think about has to do with American subservience to Israel. And one of the things that is kind of interesting about Israel is that its attack, its foreign policy, has become ever more virulent and more pernicious.


Now initially it was anti-Palestinian. There was the targetting, they were attacking Palestinians, stealing their land, killing their children. But the intifada which happened in large part during the 1980s show that the Palestinians weren’t going to take it lying down. Now the intifada was something that Israel really could not do much, could not effectively address.




Eventually Israel decided to widen its scope to include not only Palestinians, but Arabs in general. So now they are anti-Arab, not just anti-Palestinian. But that had limited appeal as well.


So the Israelis decided to:


“Look, we’re going to target Islam. We’re going to go anti-Islamic, so anybody who is Muslim is a threat to Israel. Not just an Arab, not just a Palestinian.”


Now Bin Laden himself was a rather kind of innocuous little son of a construction business, Mohammed Bin Laden. And Osama was really a nobody. But when the United States saw the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in Boxing Day 1979, 1979, I think. And Bin Laden went there to defend his Muslim brethren against the invasion, then the United States saw an opportunity:


“Hey, maybe we can make use of this to make Russia’s life difficult.”


And so the United States started funneling money to Pakistan, which sort of funneled the weapons to the resistance, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. And this went on for quite a while.


So Bin Laden to a large extent was an instrument of American foreign policy, whether Bin Laden wanted to admit it, or not. He would never have allowed that to happen frankly, because he has very little use for the United States.


America needs an external enemy. And when Bin Laden was fighting the Mujahideen it was a very useful way for the United States to externalize [words unclear] we can focus on Bin Laden. He’s not just now a Muslim true believer defending his co-religionists, he is now an enemy of the State. He is now elevated to the status of an Uber-villain.


So the United States needed Bin Laden to justify bloated Pentagon budgets. It needed it to justify in interfering in the Middle East for reasons that had nothing with American national security.


So Bin Laden became not just a person, but became elevated to the status almost of a devil figure.


Now in my book I show that Bin Laden died in 2001 from kidney failure. But when that happened America was in a quandary. What the hell do we do? We need this man to be our great enemy.


So they had to keep him alive artificially. So they had to reinvent him. They had to have fake videos with Bin Laden impersonators. They had to use phony documents to prove Bin Laden was around. They had to keep them alive artificially for political purposes. And that’s why Bin Laden was really invented.


First of all as an instrument of the Central Intelligence Agency to fight, to keep the Russians bogged down in Afghanistan.


Later he was deemed to be a manifestation of Muslim extremism, which was essentially anti-jewish, or anti-Israeli.


And so Bin Laden essentially became a tool of the American, or what I call Israel-American mythology. Because Bin Laden really was a very, very placid man. He was an honest, deeply religious, man who saw his country, Saudi Arabia, being overrun by a non-believing capitalist entity.


And it was, because of Operation Desert Shield that Bin Laden realized that he had better get the hell out, because King Fahd was going to have him arrested. So he fled to Afghanistan, and then Bin Laden went on to support Muslim resistance efforts around the world. Although he had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack. And that has never been proven.


Even the report of the 9/11 Commission, which was grossly inefficient, had no mention of Bin Laden, except in one footnote. And it was just some offensive fax he sent from London. That was it.


So Bin Laden is largely a manufactured fear, the way Jesus Christ was largely manufactured as a deity, because it was useful for the Roman Empire to do.




Laura Towler: Yeah, I mean, I’ll let the other three jump in, because they might have something to say about that.


But I just wanted to add that it’s not a rare thing for the media to manufacture something. I mean, in the United Kingdom they’ve manufactured the threat of far-right extremism, which we all know doesn’t exist. Obviously the media’s treatment of somebody like Assad in Syria as well, you know, manufacturing him into somebody that he doesn’t appear to be.


But I mean, Mark, Aunt Sally, Natty? Do you have anything to say about that?


Natty: Well I would ask, I mean, the stuff about Bin Laden is certainly interesting. And I think we’re probably on firmer ground when we talk about the manufactured kind of hatred for Islam, or the West’s hatred for Islam. That’s not to say there isn’t good reasons in Europe to look at the importation of millions of Middle Eastern and African Muslims into our country and say:


“Well hold on a second! This is crazy! The grooming gangs, the terrorist attacks, all of this other stuff that happens.”


But I think there’s a decoupling to be done between the kind of manufactured hatred of Islam as it exists in the Middle East.


Now I would ask Greg, you, after looking at Bin Laden and studying the patterns of how America does it and how the media pumps this guy up to become the big bad. And given what Laura said about how the British government will do the same thing with the far-Right at the moment. What do you see as the next “big bad”? Do you see it having as much staying power as Bin Laden?


I’m just thinking about Soleimani [Qasem Soleimani – An Iranian major general, assassinated on 3 January 2020 by a US/jewish drone strike]. When they killed him there was nowhere near as much that, although there was from the kind of the fawning political class. And then the media lovies. But for the most part people were thinking:


“Why on earth do we drone strike this guy?”


You have to kind of post hoc decide that he was the most evil guy ever.


Greg Felton: Yes, Soleimani’s assassination was extremely disturbing. But the Iranians knew they couldn’t do much about it. I mean, all Iran has to do is engage in righteous self-defense, and retribution, for an attack, and that becomes a casus belli, and that justifies all manner of missiles against the country. Iran knows that it can’t afford to retaliate.


Because the real terrorism, guys, is not from people who are Muslims, who blow up buildings, or whatnot. The real terrorism, the only terrorism, comes from governments who coerce behavior out of people. The churches and even, … The British government, for example, who are holding Julian Assange, they’re doing so to coerce information out of him that’s patently false.


The greatest terrorists today are the Americans and the Israelis. And the British aren’t far behind.


Because if you want to be a terrorist you have to have a State media, the state organization to control behavior. Now the next great baddie, Natty – it’s a very good question – we’re looking at either Russia, or China. Because I think to a large extent people are getting fed up with the anti-Muslim argument, because too much of it is essentially I think naked Christian bigotry. It’s a lot easier to hate a country than to hate a religious group.


And what we’re seeing now in Russia with the wooing of Ukraine into NATO – which really should be disbanded, because it’s an anachronism – we’re seeing an attempt to foment hostilities on the border of Russia. Which is what “Ukraine” means. It means “border”.


And we have China, which is an economic rival to the United States. And since the United States is a dying empire and it will not go quietly into that good night, it’s going to pick a fight with China that it thinks it can win. And China is going to stomp all over it. So America is going to be the architect of its own demise! As if it isn’t already.


But I can’t see one person being held as the great bogeyman, because Bin Laden was a gift to the Israel lobby. And to the American zionist military establishment.




Natty: Well I agree that the focus is going to move to China and Russia. But I don’t agree that it’s easier to get people to hate a nation as opposed to get religions to hate each other. I mean, surely given the kind of anti-Islam rhetoric that we’ve been, I don’t know, plied with, that seemed much easier to swallow. And I don’t exclude myself from this. Like I said there are good reasons to not want massive amounts of people from the Middle East who follow Islam in your country.


Greg Felton: What’s wrong with Islam? [word unclear] part of Christianity. I mean, it’s just a religion.


Natty: Well, I’m a Christian. So I want to be surrounded by my own people who are also Christians. I don’t want to be surrounded by, …


Greg Felton: Who says surround you? That’s a rather parochial attitude, isn’t it?


Natty: Not at all. I’m a nationalist! I want to live in a society that reflects my values. And my family’s values. And my family going back who lived on this land and tilled the soil, were Christians as well.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But whether you’re Christian, or not, is highly irrelevant. I mean, like, …


Natty: I don’t agree at all, … Why would it be irrelevant? I mean, these were doctrines whether you believe in the veracity of Christ, or believe in god, or anything like that, we’re still, at the very least, in Europe for the most part cultural Christians. And that’s where we derive our values from.


Greg Felton: Yeah well, for example, the word “values” is a little bit amorphous! What values are different from that of a Muslim, for example?


Mark Collett: Well, you do realize that in the UK Muslim grooming gangs have raped, sexually abused, groomed, drugged, and in some cases murdered, over a hundred thousand White British girls. And there’s a major, major, problem in Europe with Muslim immigrants and their sexual attitudes towards Western women.


Greg Felton: Okay. First of all, I don’t think you can extrapolate over all Muslims from a few gangs. So I think that’s a little bit, you know, …


Mark Collett: But these aren’t a few gangs, you’re talking hundreds of thousands of girls. It takes the complicity of entire communities too, …


Greg Felton: By using the word “Muslim” though, you’re kind of [words unclear] their religious community with a big brush though, aren’t you? I’m not suggesting that I’m going to defend these people! But to say that there’s some sort of cultural, or difference between a Christian and a Muslim, that somehow a Muslim is to be not wanted, whereas a Christian would, it sort of makes all Christians sound good, all Muslims sound bad. And that ends up becoming a recipe for religious intolerance.


I don’t want to get an argument about immigration but, …





Mark Collett: I don’t think there’s any greater intolerance than gangs of men in their 20s, 30s and 40s picking up underage girls plying them with drugs and alcohol, raping them, then returning to their family homes only for the community to cover up these ridiculous and horrendous, …


Greg Felton: Well. I don’t think Muslims have a monopoly on raping and abusive behavior, …


Mark Collett: They might not have a monopoly but they have the leading market share.


Greg Felton: Yeah, I think you’re kind of getting a little bit, you’re kind of making a tendentious argument and I don’t think you would find that Muslims in Canada are doing that, or Muslims in France, or Muslims in Italy, or Argentina, for that matter, …


Mark Collett: Muslims in France and Italy are definitely doing the same thing.


Greg Felton: Well, you’re kind of, … I don’t know, I just don’t think this is a useful path to go down, because we’re arguing in a vacuum here.


Mark Collett: We’re not really arguing in a vacum. What I’m saying is, the Islamic book has essentially two categories of people. It has the believer and the non-believer. And their holy law is based around the fact that if you are a believer you can treat non-believers completely differently then, …


Greg Felton: Hold on a second! That isn’t true. The Muslims believe that if anybody is a member of “the book”, which is jew, Christian, or Muslim, they should all be respected. And, in fact, in the Quran, if you’ve ever read it, you know, that Jesus Christ is mentioned more often than Muhammad is!


And I’d kind of like to get off the religious topic and get back to my book, please. I think this is turning into a little Duke-ish for my liking.


Mark Collett: Well, again you seem to be having another go at David Duke. And I’ve already said he’s a very dear friend of mine, … I think it’s very unfair the way you’ve categorized him earlier.


Greg Felton: Well he did sort of go off on a tangent of which I was not prepared to get into, and, …


Mark Collett: But you were appearing on David’s show. And I’ve got to say this Greg, you were aware of who David was before you appeared on the show.


Greg Felton: Yes. But I was also called on the show for a specific reason. And that reason was not made manifest at all throughout the show! And I was harangued.




Mark Collett: I mean, I know you’re not an expert on what’s going on in Britain. And I’m not asking you to be. But when you’ve got people here who are really facing a severe problem here. Where White Britons are going to end up a minority by 2066.


And unfortunately, a large group of those people who are replacing White Britons are Muslims. And these people are carrying out a huge wave of rapes! You’re talking, as I said, hundreds of thousands of girls. I can send you proof of this. This has been on front pages of newspapers.


Greg Felton: I’m not suggesting you’re making it up. But I just don’t see how you can use Muslim in such a cavalier, broad brush, manner. I’m not going to do this, …


Mark Collett: I’ve got no problem with Muslims in their own countries. Everybody has their own place in the world. But it’s not necessarily all living on the same street.


Greg Felton: Yeah, we don’t want them in our neighborhood, we’ll just put them in the ghetto somewhere! Anyway, can we just move on to something a little bit less amorphous, a little less speculative, here.


Natty: I don’t think it’s “amorphous”. I mean, this is nationalism manifest is you are connected to the people around you. And the people from the Middle East, even if they’re second, or third generation, have a much less claim to the land we’re on. I mean, this is the fight of our time, right? This is what’s happening to Europe. This is what’s happening to America.


I had this as one of the questions actually. The demographic shift away from what you might consider very broadly White European Christians in America, Canada and Europe. Have you got a problem with that? Or do you think that’s okay? Do you think it’s something that bothers you? Or do you think it’s something worth fighting, or is that something that you think is par for the course and doesn’t really bother you?


Greg Felton: [words unclear] Muslims a problem, …


Natty: Yeah you’re kind of cutting out.


Greg Felton: Okay yeah, you break up a little bit too. So hang on a second.


Look, I haven’t discussed this I haven’t studied this a great deal. So I don’t really want to get involved with it. I don’t want to find myself arguing against people based on religion, because that makes me somehow think that I’m special! That I have a certain quality that other people don’t have.


If you want to have more White Christian babies, then you should make more White Christian women pregnant! You know why don’t you just go screw yourselves into oblivion and solve the problem yourself!


Natty: I mean, [chuckling] I suspect you’re being slightly disingenuous, right? But it’s not unnatural for people, … The desire I’ve laid out to you to live amongst your own people who reflect your cultural values, like you say that’s “amorphous”, that’s not an unnatural desire.


Greg Felton: I think it’s cultural values. Again, I don’t want to get into, … What’s the difference a White, Christian, British culture and a White Christian Hungarian culture? Or a White Christian Greek culture? Again, I’m not really, I don’t want to get into a racial discussion. This is not something I have studied enough, or I want to get deeply involved in. My point is, …


Natty: Sure, I can bring it back Greg. Greg I can bring it back. The reason we got onto this was talking about Bin Laden and the zionist pump up of anti-Islamic rhetoric. My only point was that there is a reason why that was so easy for them. Why it was so easy to graft that onto the European way of thinking, to find this natural enemy in the Middle East, and in Islam. That was my point.


With something like Russia, or China, who are borders away and aren’t in our countries and aren’t living amongst us, millions, as a very recent phenomenon, it may be harder. But there’s a very natural reason why it was easy for that to be pumped up over the last few decades where we’ve seen these people arrive on European shores, and to a lesser extent to American shores.


Greg Felton: Yeah, just like Pope Urban II got a bunch of Christian zealots to go off to the holy land to slaughter Muslims as a way of exporting violence. I mean, it doesn’t have to be, …


Natty: How are you getting that from what I just said? How did you actually, …


Greg Felton: I mean, Christians have long had a dislike for Muslims. I mean, it doesn’t really have to be that they’re coming to Britain. And they’re going to, ….




Mark Collett: I think that’s [word unclear] because of the Islamic crusades. The occupation of Spain.


Greg Felton: Those weren’t crusades. That was for the most part when the Muslims left Saudi Arabia – what is now Saudi Arabia – in the 600s, they were welcomed by most people! And, by the way, this Muslim civilization in Spain was far superior to anything White Christians could have come up with at the time! Andalusia, …


Mark Collett: Now that’s absolutely ridiculous! That is possibly the most ridiculous, ill-educated, and asinine point, I’ve heard yet, tonight.


Greg Felton: Well, yeah, that’s going a long way, because I’ve heard quite a few myself. Because Andalusia was a masterpiece of civilization!


Mark Collett: No it wasn’t! It built on slavery! Where White girls suffered to the highest, …


Greg Felton: Come on! Let’s get off the slavery, …


Mark Collett: There had to be a Reconquista, where the Spanish people had to take back their land. If you think, …


Greg Felton: Please! [chuckling] You’re talking about [word unclear] are you? Please!


Mark Collett: Yeah, I’m talking about White people taking back their homelands, …


Greg Felton: Okay, let’s start talking about “White people”, okay? There’s no such thing as “White people”! There are European, Asians, …


Mark Collett: People of European descent.


Greg Felton: Yeah, but not every European is White! I mean, do you consider a swarthy Greek to be White?


Natty: Is Lawrence Fishburn White? I mean, do we have to do this?


Greg Felton: No. Let’s get off race and Whiteness and Muslims!


Let us talk perhaps a bit about the rise of Donald Trump. Did anybody get to that part of the book?


Natty: Yeah. I’m happy to move on. I mean, it seems to be getting a bit heated. But there’s I don’t know, it just seems to be, … I don’t know. Yeah, okay. If you want to move on. And if Mark’s happy to move on. And if Laura and Aunt Sally are happy to move on, then we’ll move on.


Mark Collett: Aunt Sally has not said much. Maybe Aunt Sally has something nice to say?


Aunt Sally: I haven’t actually, because I’m quite fuming what he said that Jesus Christ was a manufactured deity. That has really offended me. So I haven’t actually got anything to say.


Mark Collett: It takes a lot [chuckling] to offend Sally! It takes a lot, but you’ve managed it Greg.


Greg Felton: Well if you look at the debate that happened in Nicaea, [325 AD] with the Nicaeans and the Aryans. And trying to decide what Jesus was. He essentially co-extensive with god? Or was he subordinate to god, because he was the son, as the Aryans said. I mean, it was quite a civil war that took place in the Christian church. And Constantine, the Emperor, was trying to reconcile opposites, and didn’t do a very good job of it.


But if you look at the earliest Christian writings – which go back to the gospels of Timothy, Philip, Andrew, James – you find a view of Jesus that’s quite at odds with the Petra Pauline school of thought, that’s become standardized through selective editing over the last 2,000 odd years.


I don’t want to get into a religious argument. But I mean, the idea of Jesus as being the Son of God, and being divine, that was imposed by Theodosius under penalty of death! So it had to be imposed upon people, rather than have people come to it themselves.


So, I think it’s quite fair to say that Jesus was manufactured as a deity. Because it was politically expedient for the Roman Empire to do so. Because it needed an organizing tool to control the public. There’s a very good book called “When Jesus Became God”. And it’s a very interesting history of the debates of the Nicaea Council in 325.


Aunt Sally: The story of Jesus has been subverted from the beginning. The church itself was subverted from its inception. So I have no affiliations with any religious entity, particularly not the church, any church. But I do believe in Jesus Christ. And I’m not really interested in reading the books you’re talking about. I’m happy as I am.


Greg Felton: Okay, that’s fine. I’m not suggesting you not be happy.


Laura Towler: Maybe we could do questions, Mark? We’ve got quite a lot.


Greg Felton: Well, you’ve got people chatting and sending in questions on the chat?


Mark Collett: Yeah, I can ask these questions.


Greg Felton: Oh yeah, sure. That’ll be fine.


Mark Collett: Yeah, well don’t speak too soon Greg! [Laura laughs]


Greg Felton: Believe me, I have dealt with hostile people many, many times!




Mark Collett: Glenn the Chinaman gave 10 US dollars have and said:


“I listened to your interview with Dr David Duke. How can you say that zionism isn’t jewish supremacy? I have read Chabad’s rabbinical texts, the Tanya. And it talks about those without jewish blood having three satanic spheres surrounding their souls, whilst jewish souls are pure holiness.”


Do you want to respond to that, Greg?


Greg Felton: Umm, religious commentary like that, I don’t have much to say since I’m not religious. I would say that, rather than say it’s jewish supremacy, I would say it’s, …


It does look, I will grant you, that to the layman it looks like jewish supremacy. But there’s nothing jewish about it. It’s just a bunch of gangsters who happen to be jewish. And I think that’s probably the best way to look at it.


And I’m not going to get involved in satan, or demonic spirits, or anything like that.


Mark Collett: So [chuckling] you’re saying it’s not jewish, but it looks jewish, because they claim they’re jewish, they’ve set up an ethno state to say they’re jewish. So are jews the victims in all of this? Is this what you’re saying?


Greg Felton: Well I’m thinking that if you go back. If you want to go back to the origin of this. If you want to go back to Hitler’s Germany, the jews themselves, the Yiddish jews, were very much victimized by the zionists. However, since 1967, …


Mark Collett: You believe in the “Holocaust”?


Greg Felton: No, of course not. The “Holocaust”, the six million figure, was a contrived figure that comes out of the Torah. There is no defense for six million dead jews. That’s absolutely silly! And even the Auschwitz-Birkenau, mausoleum shrine, reduced it’s estimate of jewish dead from four million to one and a half million.



So if you want to subtract two and a half million from six, you get three and a half. [words unclear] that is referenced in modern rhetoric into a slanging match about the holocaust. Because the “Holocaust” itself is, … Joseph Goebbels who was Hitler’s propaganda minister made a very basic statement and he said:


“That for propaganda to work it has to be based on a kernel of truth. And out of that kernel of truth you can build whatever you want. But you should never build propaganda on a lie, because a lie can be exposed.”


But it’s that kernel of truth that can be used to radiate throughout the propaganda. And people will glom onto that, because, see, well technically that’s true. So maybe the propaganda is real. Adolf Hitler did persecute jews! There’s no question about that.


But the figure of six million had to be asserted, because that was the cult, the cultic figure that the jews, that zionist jews, needed to justify the creation of Israel. Which is why Israel is not a jewish state! It’s a contrivance, because according to religious superstition six million jews had to die in a fiery sacrifice before the jews could return to the holy land.


And so the “Holocaust” was a manufactured entity to the extent that the claim of six million jews is defended. It’s that six million figure which is absolute and unchanging! And it’s the dogmatic nature of that number that renders it preposterous!


Now, if you want to go back tonight to Halloween 1918 you have the former Governor of New York writing about dead, or dying, 6 million dead, or dying Romanian jews. The New York Times, or the Pittsburgh Criterion between 1900 and 1935 are talking about dead, or dying Ukrainian jews, Polish jewish families, Russian jews!


The figure 6 million shows up dozens of times from the year 1900 to the present. So there’s no way in hell we’re going to accept as a absolute dogmatic article of faith that 6 million jews died under Hitler’s regime. And yet ignore the previous utterances of 6 million dead, or dying jews. It’s a contrivance.


Mark Collett: Okay well. I think that’s probably. The first thing you’ve said tonight that everyone agrees with. So we’ve got Glenn the Chinaman again. He gave three US dollars. Thank you so much my friend. He said:


“If zionism is just about a state in Palestine, how come so many Israelis migrate to start Chabad houses and try to gain influence in different governments around the world?”




Greg Felton: I would say that the state of Israel relies on blackmailing, coercing, and bribing foreign governments. So the Israelis have to continue to maintain their presence to maintain the flow of tribute and other forms of coerced behavior. I mean, just because you could live in Israel doesn’t mean you have to. I mean, the jews don’t have to live in Israel! They can live whatever they want.


But, because you’re a jew you were supposed to get free passage. Which, of course, does not apply to all jews. Not like Norman Finkelstein, or Ilan Pappé who had to flee Israel to save his life. I mean, if you’re a jew and you support Israel, fine. But if you’re a jew like Dr Norman Finkelstein who does not support Israel, then your life isn’t worth shit!


So you have to be careful that just because you’re a jew does not mean you have the right to live in Israel. Which again proves that Israel is not a jewish state.


Mark Collett: Okay, I’ve got three Superchats here from Glenn the Chinaman, totaling fifty dollars. Thank you so much for being so generous tonight. And he said:


“The first is this. Binyamin Edery migrated from Israel to Japan in 1999. Mr Edery and Chabad helped finance Kazuya Shimba and Yuro Tashima’s [sp] studies at Jerusalem’s Hebrew university. They eventually became Parliamentarian members of the Diet and were crucial in getting Edery appointed as Japan’s first Chief Rabbi [2015]. He also said shortly after Edery became chief rabbi. ‘PM Shinzo Abe was eating dessert out of a boot served by Netanyahu, and signed an industrial R&D collaboration agreement with Israel, making it the first country Japan had signed such an agreement with. And non-Japanese winning elections like Puranik Yogendra becoming a Tokyo assemblyman’ [2019].”


And then he followed this up with:


“Mr Yogendra, ran for the – I’m probably butchering the pronunciations of these – the Edogawa ward of Tokyo. It is 30% Indian. Here is a link to a document by a [word unclear] discussing immigration changing the landscape of Japan. Politicians are taking pro-immigration, and pro-Israel stances. Very unpopular with the Japanese public, and I suspect a foreign power is behind it. Would you like to comment on Israel’s influence in Japan.”


And I’ll pop this link so that in the private chat so Laura can share it in the groups. Greg? Do you want to comment on Israel’s control of Japan?


Greg Felton: Just a second. I don’t think so. I think I’ll pass on that. It’s not a area that I’ve investigated. So sorry, I’ll have to move on.


Natty: I feel terrible for the Superchat! He paid so much and had so much to say about Israel and Japan. I wish I could comment on it, … I mean, we could talk about Japan generally, if you wanted to for a second.


Mark Collett: Give him some value for money!


Natty: Okay. Well as a generality it’s clearly under attack in the same way that European nations, and a lot of West is under attack. It may be slightly further back along the line. I know that this is a really nebulous and vague answer to the Superchat, which was very precise and dealt with a lot of specific writings.


But I would say that there may be “the parasite and host” could apply to a lot of places including probably Japan, at the moment. In some small way.


Laura Towler: Yeah, there’s been a lot of articles over the last five years about how Japan needs immigration, or Japan won’t survive. Same arguments that we get in the United Kingdom about our declining birth rates. You know, rather than putting incentives in place to increase those and remain majority Japanese. It’s all about shipping a lot of immigrants!


So I do think that Japan are a good few decades behind us. But it does seem to be setting in over there as well, now.


Mark Collett: Well I completely concur with that. And I think Patrick Slattery would say the same thing. He’s a bit of a expert that used to appear on Patriotic Weekly Review and talk about issues to do with the Far East.


Trish 65-55-5 gave 10 US dollars. Thank you so much. And said:


“Laura, sorry to hear you’re not feeling well today, dear.”


You’re not feeling well Laura?


Laura Towler: Oh I just, [chuckling] put in the chat that I have a headache. But I just think it’s a pregnancy thing. It’s supposed to be common in the second trimester, because your hormones are all over the place. I just have a constant headache. And I was so happy to stop feeling sick. Now I got to the second trimester. But now I have a headache instead. So five more months to go!


Mark Collett: Arab Social Nationalist gave 10 pounds. Thank you so much my friend. He said:


“Greg is struggling here, because uniquely the word ‘jew’ denotes a religion and a race. It would be helpful to use the word Hebrew to refer to non-religious jews. Whether the jew believes he is a race, or not, what does it matter to us. The jew acts as one. And we have to respond on that basis.”


How do you answer that Greg?





Greg Felton: Ah! We’re back to this are we? The jew acts as one. Well, as I say. I mean, it’s like treating the jews as some sort of board, like some sort of collective entity that all things are alike. I can’t accept that. I don’t really think that makes sense.


By the way, Hebrews I think, so far as I know, Hebrews are an extinct people much like the Hittites. So I don’t think you can call them Hebrews.


As I say I just prefer that distinguishing jew and zionist is about the best distinction I can make. Because I just see no percentage in sort of droning on about the jews. You can acknowledge that the jewish religion, that people are jewish. But I mean, to make such a big deal of it. I mean, what sort of remedy do you have? Do you want to expel all the jews from England? I mean, I don’t know what you want to do.


By the way, if I can ask you Mark, would you mind telling me, …


Mark Collett: You say why are we making a big deal about it. You wrote 500 pages about their control of things. I mean, the whole point of us talking about this is your book, which explores their level of power! I’m not being facetious. But that is why we’re here.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But if I can ask you Mark, how far in the book did you read?


Mark Collett: I read through the whole book. And that’s why I started what we were talking about today with the issues that I felt we have to talk about. That’s why we’re talking about these things. Because I thought some of it was very well researched. But I felt that what let the book down was actually the things that we’re talking about. We seem to have focused on these.


I’m not saying the book has no merit, or there’s nothing in the book of worth. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, that I believe that in the book there are things of merit, but also in the book there are things that are ultimately things we’re talking about that don’t make sense, and aren’t in keeping with the things that myself, or my audience, or other people, who talk about issues of jewish power have observed.


Greg Felton: Okay, yeah, we can disagree about that. But I just want to ask what you think about the last chapter of my book? Where I talk about the metaphor of the movie The Matrix.


Mark Collett: I don’t actually have any notes. I’ve just looked through my notes. I don’t actually have anything about that. But if that’s an interesting part of your book, explain it to people if you think that’s something that needs explaining, or discussing. I don’t know if anyone else has noted anything down on that chapter. But if you think that’s worth explaining, explain it now, I’m sure the audience would be happy about it.


Greg Felton: I’d be happy to, but I’m just wondering if you had any personal reaction to it, where I talk about the nature of rational government?


Greg Felton: I think the thing with the issue of The Matrix, the problem with that analogy is its being used many times by many people to illustrate many different points. It’s an analogy that’s often, … I hear it used in the White nationalist movement. People say:


“Have you been red pilled?”




“Is somebody blue pilled?”


Which basically, …


Greg Felton: No, no. That’s not what I’m arguing. That’s not what I did. That’s not the analogy I used. About the specific analogy I used which is a little bit different from the red pill, blue pill, one. You did read that, right?


Mark Collett: Yeah. I read the book. It’s just something I didn’t actually have notes on. It was obviously something that didn’t stand out for something I wanted to debate, or bring up with you this evening.


Greg Felton: Did anybody else happen to see it?


Natty: Yeah. Again, like Mark I don’t have any notes on it. But from what I remember you basically said:


“That it was a flipping, the Matrix reference was saying that we should be looking at where we are now, as if we think we’re red pilled on, where we are, there’s more to it.”


And it’s not as easy as just red pill and blue pill, right? From what I can remember that’s what you’re saying, right?




Greg Felton: That’s not all what I said. I argued that The Matrix represents a kind of a cartesian dualism between reality and non-reality. And what I argued was that if we assume that we are in a matrix. And we assume that everything is rational, that everything makes sense, that the world of appearance is the same as the world of reality, then we’re happy. But if something doesn’t make sense we have no way to explain it! We can’t find a way to make sense of something that seems patently absurd.


Natty: Right. Yep. This is why I was trying to push you earlier on the topic of what is, or isn’t, or whether the jews are a race, or an ethnicity, or whatever, we have to deal with reality as we find it. And whether it’s congruent with a deeper understanding, if it’s, … It’s no good having 5, or 6, or 10, or 100 people understanding something. I guess if you want to stretch the Matrix analogy, they have to go back into the Matrix to achieve anything. They can’t stay outside of it and say:


“Well we may be able to see that the reality as you understand it is different, or we may recognize some greater truth, but we still, …”


Greg Felton: Actually you can. You see the whole point of that analogy was for people to look at the United States and say:


“Look! What we see is not what we get!”


The United States that started out back with the Constitution in 1787, flawed though as [word unclear] it was, is not the same country that exists today. It’s been taken over by a foreign entity, much like a virus. Something far more pernicious than SARS Covid 2. So the US that exists today is not the same US that has always existed.


And if you understand that the world today is irrational! Not rational! Then you can make sense of why American senators sell themselves to Israeli money! Jewish PAC money! AIPAC, the ADL, B’nai B’rith, the Zionist Organization of America. All those organizations have power in the United States, because the United States is not a democracy! It is not an independent country! It is a satrapy [any subordinate or local ruler] of an imperial power that’s on the far side of the Mediterranean!


If you accept that the world is irrational and that you have a frame of reference based on political discontinuity, then you can make sense of why the United States does what it does. If you accept what you’re told about the United States from Americans, or from jews, or from whoever, you’re going to be unable to understand why America does anything!


And that’s why the last chapter about Donald Trump is kind of interesting. Because by the time Trump ran for the Republican Party nomination in 2016 there was nobody in the Republican Party with two working brain cells to rub together! The Republican Party rejected every professional political candidate. None of them could stand up to Trump. Not, because Trump is a genius, the man was a glorified moron! But he was an outsider. He was somebody who wasn’t political.


Trump is a product of the hollowing out of the American political culture caused by the subordination of the United States to a foreign government’s dictates! That is what the book is about. This is at the end of the book. It explains how Israeli influence permeated the government of the United States, without getting involved in the media, or the Federal Reserve, or anything like that. That wasn’t the ambit of my book.


Natty: Yeah, Greg. I mean, I did actually have notes on this. You’ve put it in bold on the last chapter. I didn’t realize you were talking about the Matrix analogy there. But you’ve got these, your final conclusions, here in bold. I mean, you just read out part of it.


Greg Felton: Right.




Natty: The point that we’re kind of butting up against each other here on is, I don’t think, and I don’t think Mark thinks either, or probably from a nationalist perspective whether you want to be an American nationalist, a British nationalist, whoever, it is not irrational to conclude that yes Israel is acting as the head of an empire. But it’s the head of an empire. And they are separate.


The people who represent that hegemony are separate from us, whether you want to say religiously, ethnically, racially. This is how these people define themselves. I mean, it’s the same as your conclusion, you just have to just accept that there’s an ethnic, or a racial element to it. That’s the only difference here.


Greg Felton: Well then again, how do you explain how so many, … If you look at the population of the Congress in the United States, I would submit that most of them are Christians, at least nominally. And yet eighty percent, or more, are virtual puppets of the Israelis.


Natty: You’re not gonna get any argument here on that.


Greg Felton: Well then, why are Christians doing the dirty work of zionist jews? Why don’t they say:


“Piss off! Go back where you came from! We’re Americans first! We’re not instruments of zionist oppression!”


Why do Christian zionists go along, …


Natty: Me and you both know the answer to that. And everyone else listening knows the answer to that. Because the moment any one of them does such a thing, or make such a statement, they will be un-personed. In the same way that we’re streaming on Dlive to 300 people, and not on YouTube, or on cable television, or the BBC, having this discussion.


Greg Felton: Yes, I understand that.


Natty: And you will just lose everything.


Greg Felton: Right. Quite true. And I’ve been the victim of censorship myself.


Natty: Sure. Yeah. I mean, we all are.


Mark Collett: Superchat guys. So we’re gonna have to move on. So we’ve got 18 minutes left. Trish 65-55-5 gave 10 US dollars. Thank you so much. And said:


“I’d love to see Laura, and Sally’s, and Natty’s, notes as this debate goes on.”


Maybe we’ll publish them at a later date.


Arab Social Nationalist gave five pounds. Thank you so much my friend. He said:


“Greg you’re literally muddying the waters and is intellectually hamstringing himself and anyone who wants to face the dangers of organized jewry. The jew is at war with the Gentile and Greg is asking us to pretend otherwise. This is effectively hasbara! Sad!”


Stan One gave ten pounds. Thank you so much, …


Greg Felton: Hang on a second! Let me just address them. Hasbara I’m well aware of, and hasbara is precisely what is causing the problem. But the fact that I choose to distinguish between zionist and jew, I don’t think that makes me a “water muddier”. I mean, if you look at all the jews in Biden’s cabinet, they’re all zionists. Even Biden himself when he was Vice President publicly stated on television:


“I am a zionist!”


Yet, I don’t think Biden is jewish. So the problem is zionism, not jews! Zionism is a cancer that permeates people of whatever religion you wish to mention. I’m quite sure I could find, if I looked hard enough, a Muslim zionist. But I don’t think so.


Mark Collett: Stan One gave 10 pounds. Thank you so much. And said:


“You can always tell on social media when somebody starts a conversation, ‘my fellow Whites’, and then tries to deconstruct the White race.”


So yes, that’s [chuckling] a very important point!


Natty: Can I answer that? Can I just quickly respond to that? Yeah. I mean, this just circles straight back to my point that we have to deal with reality as we find it. And if people, especially who want to deconstruct what it means to be White, want to use that term and for it to mean something, then we should be we should just say:


“Well fine. Well, you’re talking about me, therefore I am White. That’s it.”


Greg Felton: There’s a man in Canada named Mark Steyn. I won’t tell you what religion he is, you can figure that out. He argued that Muslims in Europe who have children are committing acts of terrorism by the very fact of having children! I want to let that sink in for a minute.


Mark Collett: Let’s do some more Superchats. Trish 65-55-5 gave five US dollars and said:


“Bernie Sanders hates his jewishness, but loves his Marxist and communist roots, which could be construed as a jewish artefact.”


Greg Felton: Well, that’s a bit silly, isn’t it? You think, I mean, a lot of people throw around the word “Marxism”. And they don’t really know what it means.




Mark Collett: Well communism was invented by jews.


Greg Felton: Say what?


Mark Collett: Communism and Marxism was jewish.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But so what? I mean, just because somebody wants to have a social program for public health, or for anything else, does not make him a communist. Does not make him a socialist. I mean, the word “Marxism” has become an epithet, like “Nazi”. So it’s almost lost whatever meaning it ever once had. I mean, just because Bernie Sanders is not a Right-wing Democrat does not make him a communist. Come on that’s just, …


Mark Collett: I mean, he is.


Greg Felton: It’s like saying Franklin Roosevelt was a communist.


Mark Collett: I think Bernie Sanders has pretty much admitted that he is a communist.


Greg Felton: Well, I haven’t seen that. I’d love to see the source for that.


Mark Collett: Yeah, well Trish 65-55-5 gave 10 US dollars and said:


“Greg’s not been paying attention!”


Oh, she gave ten dollars to this discussion. Trish 65-55-5 has been very generous tonight. Gave another ten dollars and says:


“Does Greg believe that Muslims follow the Quran?”


Greg Felton: I would suggest that most Muslims do. But again Muslims follow it to varying degrees, just like, is every Christian a Bible-believing literalist? I don’t think. So besides, the Quran is not the problem. And if you look at religious books, all religious books can be cherry-picked for violent, or for magnanimous purposes.


I mean, the Christian Bible is full of some of the most, … Just take the jewish Bible, the Torah, is full of the most invidious, inhuman, cruel, sadistic, nonsense that’s ever been written! And so I just find that to look at the Quran and to hold it up, or to suggest that, or to follow the Quran would somehow lead to the answer that:


“Well, if that’s the truth, that’s dangerous.”


Because [words unclear] it isn’t. It’s a book. Quran, by the way, in English means “revelation”. And it seems to be some guy named Saint John, who was on the path, and was probably gooned on magic mushrooms, wrote his own revelation, which is really off the wall! It doesn’t really belong with the synoptic gospels. And probably should not have been included in the official edited version. It’s a bit of an outlier, really.


Mark Collett: Okay. Trish 65-55-5 gave 10 US dollars and said:


“There it is, there’s no such thing as White people!”


I don’t know if you want to [chuckling] respond to that Greg?


Greg Felton: Well I find people use the term “White” to be a bit lazy. I mean, …


Mark Collett: Look, it’s shorthand for people of European descent. [words unclear] Africans of sub-Saharan descent, that’s really what they’re talking about. We know what people mean. When people say “White”, it’s just a shorthand statement.


Greg Felton: So is “black” shorthand for African?


Mark Collett: Of course, it is. When people say “black”, you conjure up in your mind people who are of sub-Saharan African descent.


Greg Felton: Yes. So do you call Chinese “yellow”?


Mark Collett: I don’t call Chinese people yellow. But when people say “orientals”, we know that they mean people who are Korean, Chinese, or Japanese. That’s what people have shorthand statements to describe groups of people. Because, if we went around every time we saw someone say:


“Yes, he’s a man of European descent, or he is of sub-Saharan African descent.”


It’s long-winded. People, White, and black, are just shorthand.


Greg Felton: Yeah. But I find it, … I appreciate that, and you’re quite right. But I do find that the word “White” is often paralleled, almost immediately followed by the word “Christian”. And we end up with kind of a quasi-religious, ethnic, mishmash, that’s sort of, because it’s a little bit disquieting.


Natty: The reason is, just very, very quickly Greg, the reason that happens is, because our history, where we come from, who we are, is being consistently and repeatedly deconstructed by the very people your book talks about. So it’s up to people who may not have the greatest understanding – although I could point you to people who do have a good understanding of this – to grasp for words that explain who we are and where we come from. And it may fall roughly on your ears. But it’s not an untruth.




Greg Felton: Well, first of all, Christianity is falling, because it’s no longer credible to many people. I mean, church attendance is falling. The one rising part of Christianity are the fundamentalist extremists who, you know, buy into things like heliasm and whatnot. I mean, Christianity is dying, because everything dies after a while. Nothing lasts forever.


And to say that these are my values. I mean, I don’t find Christianity to be estimable at all. I think it’s a silly little fairy tale, based upon a man who was so full of himself he committed assisted suicide! And then a bunch of people built a religion around him!


I mean, I just find Christianity to be a preposterous belief system. And I don’t see that has any value for me at all!


Natty: Get the Inquisition in here! I think, get the [chuckling] Inquisition in here right now!


Greg Felton: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Natty: I’m talking about the Neo Inquisition Greg! You’re on thin ice, pal! [chuckling] yeah.


Mark Collett: We’ve got one last Superchat. This one’s for Laura. It’s for five pounds. And it’s Laura, off topic:


“Have you tried the ring gender test, where Sam dangles her wedding ring on a piece of thread over her bum? If the ring moves back and forth like a pendulum the baby is a boy. If the ring moves in the circle the baby is a girl.”


Have you tried this Laura?


Laura Towler: I haven’t tried that, no. Should we try it tonight Sam? [Sam] Oh yeah, I’ll get right on that. He says he’ll [chuckling] get right on it.


Mark Collett: Well that brings us about to the end of the show.


I’ll let Greg have the final say, but we will go around the panel starting with Laura, then Aunt Sally, then Natty, then me. And people can give their final summation on the book. And then we’ll give Greg a brief time to respond to that. And obviously say where the book’s available.


Laura, can you give your summation?


Laura Towler: Yeah, well thanks for joining us Greg. I think it’s been an interesting conversation. And if people are interested in the topics, you know, I read up out a lot of the chapters at the start, then I’d pick up the book and see what you think. I do think it was a bit intense for me. But I think maybe I feel like I’m quite a fast reader. But I had to read this book quite slowly. And I am going to go back to it and make sure I finish it and try and digest everything that you’ve said.


I think politically and ideologically I’ve disagreed with quite a lot of the conversation from your side tonight, Greg. But that’s not in regards to the book, that’s just something separate.


So you’re obviously very well read and you’re more knowledgeable on these topics than I am. So I am going to go back and read it. But yeah, it’s been a fun conversation. It’s got heated at times. But I’m sure we can all handle it. And I’ll pass over to, is it Natty next?


Mark Collett: Aunt Sally.


Laura Towler: Oh Aunt Sally, apologies.


Aunt Sally: Yeah, I don’t know what to say. I mean, despite the fact that you’re a heathen, that’s fine, that’s your problem.


Greg Felton: I’m proud to be a heathen.


Aunt Sally: I used to be a heathen, so good luck with that. That’s all I’m going to say on that.


But as far as your book goes, I appreciate that that I’ve been part of this to read it. I’ve been quiet tonight. I’ll let everyone else get on with it. But what I want to say is that, in a way I found it a bit of a gateway book in that I could lend it. I have actually already lent my copy to somebody that isn’t familiar with the JQ, as we know it. And your book is more palatable for that. So yeah, I could lend the book to a normie.


And I think also the another good thing about the book was that it showed the power, or demonstrates the power, of propaganda. And it evidences how that worked out in real time over my lifespan. So I appreciate that, in the book.


Greg Felton: Thank you.


Aunt Sally: Okay, thank you.


Greg Felton: [words unclear] propaganda.


Aunt Sally: Oh that, I would like to actually, yes. Thank you.


Mark Collett: Natty, your final thoughts?


Natty: I’m not going to stray from my original thoughts on the book. I do think there’s good information in here, and it is well researched, is well sourced. I think there’s more of an ideological divide between Greg and ourselves, obviously, or certainly myself. And hopefully we’ve laid some of that out clearly tonight. And I know that, like Laura said, it has got heated. I think that’s this kind of crucible of where ideas can come to the surface and people can think for themselves and hear both sides of it.


I would say that it feels like, and again, I don’t want this to sound like an attack on Greg, but you’ve piled up this massive body of evidence going back 60 years, or more, and come to the wrong conclusion, or just slightly missed the mark, for want of being, I don’t know, to appear kinder, or not falling into the “naughty” words that you’re not allowed to be – a racist, or a bigot, or whatever. [Greg chuckles]


All I’m saying Greg is that these are words that our enemies call us. If talking about this stuff and if recognizing certain things makes you that thing, well it doesn’t matter. We waste so much time trying to dodge these labels.


You’ve put together an excellent book, and you’ve, like I said, it’s well resourced, well researched, loads of really good information in there. And I still recommend it despite the fact that we’ve kind of butted heads on a few of the issues.




Greg Felton: Well, thank you Natty. I just want to say that I’ve never moderated my language for fear of criticism. In fact, the more criticism I get the more fun I have! So I have been criticized for having the title “The Host and the Parasite”, because I was:


“Oh! You’re going to offend all the jews! Who are going to think that the jews are parasites! You’re going to be labeled as a, …”


I don’t care! It’s a perfect title, and it works!


Natty: Sure. I agree with that. It is a good title.


Mark Collett: Okay. Well, we’ve got a couple of last Superchats. Trish 65-55-5 gave 10 US dollars and says:


“Does Greg support voluntary expatriation?”


Greg Felton: No. Why should I?


Mark Collett: No he doesn’t. And she also asks, another five dollars for information on Natty and Aunt Sally’s online presence, because she wants to hear more from them. Unfortunately they don’t actually have the online presence anymore. I have the monopoly on their online appearances. But if they ever do have, if they ever do start up their own YouTube channels, or whatever, we’ll give them to you.


My final say on the book before Greg wraps it up. And then I say good night to everyone.


I think the book has got some excellent parts to it. I think there’s lots of really good information there. But, as I said, at the beginning, I haven’t changed my opinion on the book. I think it’s a little bit like two, plus two, plus two, plus two, plus two, equals thirty-nine. I think the logical conclusion is five twos is ten. But unfortunately I think Greg misses that and the conclusion of the book seems to almost draw back from what I believe is the obvious truth of the matter. And we’ve debated that extensively.


And also, if people want to hear a longer debate on that, there’s almost a two-hour debate between Greg and Dr David Duke on David’s Odysee channel. [Greg laughs] So they can listen to that as well.


Greg, I’ll let you have the final say. Please tell us where we can buy your book. And if you can give your summation. And then I’ll give a quick outro.


Greg Felton: Sure. The book can be bought at It is fulfilled on the day of, and it’s sent out the next day, except tomorrow’s an American holiday.


I have to say that the one thing about my book is that I’ve been entirely consistent from chapter 1 to chapter 18. I set out to do something and I tried to keep within the limits of my ambit, which was a political analysis of Israel, its control over the United States. It was never meant to be a disquisition on the nature of jewish supremacy. Now you can argue that is a tangent of the book, that you might have wished I’d gone into a bit more deeply. But I chose not to. I chose to do the book I did.


It is consistent, it is self-contained. There are no glaring errors in it. And if you want to know why the United States is the way it is, do not read the press, do not look at the world around you. Look at the puppeteers behind the curtain and read history! Read about what happened since 1948 when the United States became midwife to a war crime and allowed Israel to dispossess almost eight hundred thousand Palestinians between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948.


Israel is wholly, completely, illegitimate! It has no legal, moral, religious, or any other justification to exist. It was proclaimed even though the British mandate still had about three months to run.


Israel is an utterly criminal entity! And it has more to do with the arrogance of certain White Europeans to claim a religious superiority over others, than it has to do with any sort of biblical injunction.


The 6 million “Holocaust” figure is a fiction designed to justify the creation of Israel. And Israel would not exist without the willing collaboration of judaeophilic Brits and Americans.


So to be quite honest, Israel is our fault! We created it! We are responsible! Because that hideous little backwater on the eastern Mediterranean would not have existed! Would not exist, I mean, if we didn’t care about jewish money and we didn’t have this sort of affinity for jews as co-religionists.


Israel is our creation. We are like Dr Frankenstein and it is the monster. Only it has none of the naivety and innocence that Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly imbued her monster with.




Mark Collett: Okay. Thank you. I’m not going to comment on that. But thank you Greg. And ultimately, I think it’s been an entertaining stream. I think it’s been a good debate.


I’d like to thank Greg for coming on. I’d like to thank Aunt Sally, Natty, and Laura. I’d like to thank all the people who donated so very generously. Thank you so much for the Superchats tonight. I’d like to thank everyone who watched. We had just over 450 people watching at the peak of the stream, which is excellent numbers! And it has been very, very entertaining. So if everyone would like to say, …


Oh! And I didn’t tell you. In fact, I’m not even going to tell you this. I’m going to leave this to somebody else! Because I know she’s dying to tell you this. What’s the next book we’re reviewing and who wants to tell us about it?


Laura Towler: I will! [laughing] I actually don’t know the name of it. But it’s a book about Oswald Mosley, and it’s by Antelope Hill Publishing. What’s the full title Mark?


Mark Collett: I am just pulling up the full title. The book is called, and I am just scrolling to it, is simply called “The BUF, Oswald Mosley and British Fascism”. And we are reviewing it. It’s a bit of a historical one. So that’ll be very good.


So if everyone wants to just go around the group very quickly and say good night, then we’ll wrap things up.


Laura Towler: Yeah, it’s a good night from me. And next week have we got a stream, Mark?


Mark Collett: Next Monday we are reviewing Master and Commander at the film club.


Laura Towler: It’s a PA film club.


Mark Collett: Yeah, Commander only won by four votes. It’s been the closest vote to date.


Laura Towler: Yeah. Yes. So I’ll be back for a stream then. I’ve got a couple more midweek streams as well, if anyone wants to follow my Telegram channel. I’ll let, you know what they are. But yeah, I’ll keep it short. And thanks to the rest of the panel for being here. Thanks Greg. And thanks to everyone for watching. Hope you enjoyed the stream. Good night.


Greg Felton: Good night.


Natty: Good night guys.


Greg Felton: Well, it’s good night for me, and it’s good night from him.


Mark Collett: Aunt Sally? Do you want to say good night, or have you already left?


Natty: I think she’s gone already.


Laura Towler: She has to pick her son.


Mark Collett: So Aunt Sally has had to fly.


Look, thank you everyone. It’s been a great stream, really enjoyed it. Thank you so much for your generosity. Thank you for being with us for the full two hours. I hope you have a great rest of your week. I’m back on Wednesday for PWR. Stay strong! Keep fighting! And I’ll see you all again soon thank you so much and good night.


Greg Felton: Bye bye.












See Also:



Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT




Trump as J-Tool?





PDF Notes

Version 1

* Total words = 19,610
* Total images = xxx
* Total A4 pages =


Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)




Version History


Version 4: Jul 25, 2021 — Added 33 mins of transcript. Transcript now complete.


Version 3: Jul 23, 2021 — Added 23 more mins of transcript. 90/123 mins complete. Added an image.


Version 2: Jul 21, 2021 — Added 28 more mins of transcript. 67/123 mins complete.


Version 1: Jul 19, 2021 — Published post. 40/123 mins complete.

This entry was posted in 911 - World Trade Center, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-semitism, Bk - The Host and the Parasite, Greg Felton, Israel, Jew World Order, Jewish Bolsheviks, Jewish Diaspora, Jewish Problem/Question, Jewish Supremacism, Jews - Hostile Elite, Jews - Lying, Laura Towler, Mark Collett, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism, Muslim "Grooming" Gangs, Muslim invasion, National Socialism, New World Order, Race, Revisionism, Semitism, Third World Invasion, Transcript, Uncategorized, Western Civilization, White genocide, White Nationalism, WW II, Zionism, Zionists. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mark Collett – Book Review – The Host and the Parasite by Greg Felton – Jul 6, 2021 — Transcript


    “Essays of a Klansman”
    Diffusion du Lore, France, 2021, pp. 108

    It is true that this anthology of articles written between 1969 and 1981 by Louis Beam (b.1946), a leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Texas, made us want to reincarnate the glory lost forever of this legendary organization. This very recent edition (from June 2021) is the very first translation of articles signed by Louis Beam with the pseudo AK 47 or AK 116 during these twelve years of stalking by the FBI. This essay is the second to be published in English by the author in 1983. In 1992 (nine years later) he published “Leaderless Resistance” which we had read in Greek translation. The first to use this English title “Leaderless Resistance” for his writings was the American spy Ulius Louis Amoss (1895 -1961) in the 1950s.

    Another writer of articles for this freshly translated anthology would be the very famous Nathan Bedford Forrest (1821 1877), one of the founders of the KKK and who was the subject of another essay written by Paul-Louis Beaujour at Déterna editions. We have already presented another book by Beaujour about Ian Stuart.

    “We are Christians … In the name of God who created us, let us prepare to fight” urges us Louis Beam on page 54 of this edition. We wonder why Jules Dufresne (the editor and director of the “Lore” publishing house) took the initiative to publish the first translation of this work since until yesterday he was only publishing paganist essays : Odinist ones. (like “Summoning the Gods” by Collin Cleary), or Indo-European (like “Indo-European religion” by Hans F.K Guenther), or North-European (like “Nietzsche Hyperborean” by Olivier Meyer)? And our answer to this important question would be: “because this Christian essay does not encourage interracial love, as we can see today in Catholic or Orthodox churches”.

    But the strongest reason why we liked this book would be the fact that Beam talks about Marx by telling us: “Karl Marx (descendant of a family of rabbis) published his “Communist Manifesto “in 1848 and the first Jewish international assembly at Kattowitz, near the Russian border, happened in 1884 “(an inversion of the last two numbers-note to us), op.cit. page 84.
    Pastor Robert Miles (1925 – 1992) was a friend of Louis Beam and chief of KKK in Michigan and in a documentary about him directed by David Schock and entitled “The funeral of Pastor Robert Miles” he reveals to us the reason why the KKK lasted for much more than a century. He says that the real reason for this success would be the fact that it was decentralized. “There were several KKKs” he tells us, therefore the opposite of the centralized notion of power advocated by Marx.

    The arrival of the second essay of Beam “Leaderless Resistance” in 1992 in the United States will confirm this observation of the pastor and will open the doors to attribute to its author Beam the nickname “Lone Wolf”. If you remember, the same nickname was given to the Oklahoma Bombings “terrorist” Timothy McVeigh three years later.

    written by Dionysos ANDRONIS

  2. Cotard says:

    The common mosquito is a parasite which sucks its sustenance from the bloodstream of its host — and yet, it can do so only after it has injected some of its own saliva into the host’s blood. The reason is that the nutriment the mosquito seeks, the blood cells of the host, will not flow easily into the mosquito’s proboscis. In order to suck them up it must first break down their structure, and this is accomplished by the injected saliva.

    Likewise, the Jew, in order to prey on other peoples, must disrupt their societies, and he accomplishes this by the injection of his own special poison into their bloodstream.
    Order is the Jew’s mortal foe. One cannot understand the role of the Jew in modern European history unless one first understands this principle.
    The Eternal Bolshevik

    It explains why the Jew is the eternal Bolshevik: why he is a republican in a monarchist society, a capitalist in a corporate society, a communist in a capitalist society, a liberal “dissident” in a communist society– and, always and everywhere, a cosmopolitan and a race mixer in a homogeneous society.

    And, in particular, it explains the burning hatred the Jews felt for European institutions during the Middle Ages. It explains why the modern Jewish spokesman, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews, frankly admits that the universal attitude of the Jews toward medieval European society was, “Crush the infamous thing!”

    William L. Pierce on Jews from Who We Are

    … The ensuing slaughter of 75,000 Persian noblemen described in the Book of Esther is probably a figment of the Jewish imagination, but it is nevertheless still celebrated with glee and gloating, more than 2,400 years after the event, by Jews around the world in their annual Purim festival.

    Treacherous Friendship

    Unfortunately, later massacres instigated or perpetrated by the Jews against their non-Jewish hosts in response to anti-Semitism were all too real. The great English historian Edward Gibbon describes some of these which took place in the first and second centuries A.D.:

    From the reign of Nero (54-68) to that of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives, and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government but of human kind.

    … In Cyrene they massacred 220, 000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000, in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XVI) Laundered History Actually, very little of humanity is shocked at the recital of these Jewish atrocities today, for the simple reason that the carefully laundered “approved” textbooks used in the schools omit any mention of them. Instead, humanity is treated to one television “documentary” after another, from “Holocaust” to “Masada,” in which the blameless, longsuffering Jews are “persecuted” by their enemies.

    When one looks at all of Jewish history from the time of the Egyptian sojourn to the present, the outstanding feature which emerges is its endless series of cycles, each consisting of a period of increasingly arrogant and blatant depredations by the Jews against their hosts, followed by a period of reaction, in which either the exasperated Gentiles slaughter, drive out, and otherwise “persecute” the Jewish offenders; or the Jews manage to get the drop on their hosts instead and arrange a slaughter of Gentiles; or both.

    Dual Existence

    Indeed, this feature of Jewish history is not only outstanding, it is essential: without it the Jews would have ceased to exist by Roman times, at the latest. For the Jews are a unique people, the only race which has deliberately chosen a dual mode of national existence, dispersed among the Gentile nations from which they suck their sustenance and at the same time fiercely loyal to their center in Zion, even during the long periods of their history when Zion was only an idea insteadof a sovereign political entity. (…)

    Barrier of Hatred

    And the diaspora would survive little more than a generation, were it not for the Jewish consciousness, the concept of Zion. It is this alone which keeps the dispersed Jews from becoming assimilated by their Gentile hosts, for the Jewish consciousness inevitably raises a barrier of mutual hatred between Jews and Gentiles.

    How can a Jew of the diaspora, who is taught from the cradle that he belongs to a “chosen race,” do other than despise the goyim around him, who are not even considered human beingsby his religious teachers? How can he do other than hate them for holding back him and his fellow Jews from the world dominion which he believes belongs rightfully to the Jewish nation? And how can Gentiles fail to sense this contempt and hatred and respond in kind?

    Action and Reaction

    … Any tendency to empathize or identify with their hosts is kept in check by a nonstop recitation of all the past wrongs the Gentile world has done them. Even before anti-Semitism exists in reality, it exists in the Jewish imagination: the Gentiles hate them, they believe, and so they must stick together for self-protection.

    Sure enough, before the Jews’ solidarity has a chance to erode appreciably, the Gentiles are hating them. The Gentiles react to the Jews mildly at first and then with more and more resentment and energy as the Jewish depredations continue. It is this action-reaction combination, the hatred and counter-hatred, which keeps the Jews from being absorbed into the host nation.

    Exaggerated Losses

    Finally there is an explosion, and the most nimble Jews flee to begin the cycle over again in another Gentile land, while the slow ones remain to suffer the pent-up fury of their outraged hosts. The memory of this explosion is assiduously cultivated by the surviving Jews and becomes one more grudge they bear against the Gentile world. They still remember and celebrate the explosions of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, and two dozen other Gentile peoples over the last 35 centuries or so, exaggerating their losses and embellishing the details every time in order to make the memories more poignant, while the Gentiles in each case forget within a generation or two.

    These periodic outbursts against the Jews have actually served them doubly well: not only have they been invaluable in maintaining the Jewish consciousness and preventing assimilation, but they have also proved marvelously eugenic by regularly weeding out from the Jewish stock the least fit individuals. Jewish leaders, it should be noted, are thoroughly aware of the details of this dynamic. They fully recognize the necessity of maintaining the barrier of hatred between their own people and the rest of the world, just as they understand the value of an occasional explosion to freshen the hatred when assimilation becomes troublesome. (…)

    Tribal Connections

    Every Roman army from the time of Julius Caesar was followed by a contingent of Jewish slave dealers, ready to purchase prisoners of war for gold on the spot after each successful battle or siege. No sooner were Gaul or Britain or the German lands in the west pacified by Rome’s legions than Jews appeared in the conquered region to set up shop and get an early edge on any potential competitors for control of the local commerce.

    The great advantage that a Jew had in this regard was that he was never merely an individual entrepreneur: he was an agent of a tribe of entrepreneurs. A Roman might depend on family connections or political alliances to further his commercial enterprises, but he was nearly always outclassed in this regard by a Jewish competitor, whose connections extended literally to every other Jew in the Empire, and beyond.

    Wholesale Expulsions

    Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.

    Much has been made of the religious bigotry of the medieval Church in explaining the unpopularity of the Jews. Indeed, religion often did flavor Gentile reactions against the Jews…
    Sometimes clerics played a role in inciting such actions against the Jews, but far more often the people acted spontaneously, and religion was generally only a cover for other motives, which stemmed much more from the economic activity of the Jews than from their contempt for Christianity.

    Bred to Business

    The Jews were more successful at commerce than the Gentiles were, partly because the former collaborated with one another in virtually every transaction, while the latter usually did not. Thus, a Jewish wholesaler always had a lower price for a Jewish retailer than for a Gentile retailer, while a Gentile wholesaler merely tried to get the best price he could from all comers, Jew or Gentile.
    In addition to the benefits of racial solidarity, the Jews were probably better businessmen, on the average, than their Gentile competitors. The Jews had been bred to a mercantile life for a hundred generations. The result was that all the business — and all the money– of any nation with a Jewish minority tended to gravitate into the hands of the Jews. The more capital they accumulated, the greater was their advantage, and the easier it was to accumulate still more. (…)

    Advice and Bribes

    The Jews were often able to ameliorate their situations greatly during the Middle Ages by establishing special relationships with Gentile rulers. They served as financial advisers and tax collectors for the princes of the realm and of the Church, always ready with rich bribes to secure the protection of their patrons when the hard-pressed common folk began agitating against them. They made themselves so useful to some rulers, in fact, that they were favored above Christian subjects in the laws and decrees of those rulers.

    The Frankish emperor Charlemagne was one who was notorious for the favors and privileges he bestowed on the Jews, and his successor followed his example. (…)

    Despite the enormous financial power of the Jews and the protection their bribes bought them, they were continually overreaching themselves: whenever they were given a little rope, they eventually managed to hang themselves. No matter how much favor kings, emperors, or princes of the Church bestowed on them, the unrest their usury created among the peasants and the Gentile tradesmen forced the rulers to slap them down again and again.

    The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was so intense by the 12th century that virtually every European country was obliged to separate the Jews from the rest of the populace. For their own protection the Jews retreated into walled ghettos, where they were safe from the fury of the Gentiles, except in cases of the most extreme unrest. And for the protection of the Gentiles, Jews were obliged to wear distinctiveclothing.

    After the Church’s Lateran Council of 1215, an edict forbade any Jew to venture out of the ghetto without a yellow ring (“Jew badge”) sewn on his outer garment, so that every Gentile he met could beware him.

    But these measures proved insufficient, for they failed to deal with the fundamental problem: so long as the Jews remained Jews, there could be no peace between them and any other people.

    Edward the Great

    In England, for example, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors.

    Another prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

    At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

    England’s Golden Age

    Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

    Edward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

    Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.

    The common mosquito is a parasite which sucks its sustenance from the bloodstream of its host — and yet, it can do so only after it has injected some of its own saliva into the host’s blood. The reason is that the nutriment the mosquito seeks, the blood cells of the host, will not flow easily into the mosquito’s proboscis. In order to suck them up it must first break down their structure, and this is accomplished by the injected saliva.

    Likewise, the Jew, in order to prey on other peoples, must disrupt their societies, and he accomplishes this by the injection of his own special poison into their bloodstream.
    Order is the Jew’s mortal foe. One cannot understand the role of the Jew in modern European history unless one first understands this principle.

    The Eternal Bolshevik

    It explains why the Jew is the eternal Bolshevik: why he is a republican in a monarchist society, a capitalist in a corporate society, a communist in a capitalist society, a liberal “dissident” in a communist society– and, always and everywhere, a cosmopolitan and a race mixer in a homogeneous society.

    And, in particular, it explains the burning hatred the Jews felt for European institutions during the Middle Ages. It explains why the modern Jewish spokesman, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews, frankly admits that the universal attitude of the Jews toward medieval European society was, “Crush the infamous thing!”
    12-year Miracle

    In the brief span of 12 years during which National Socialist Germany existed — only six of these years in peace — miracles of economic, social, scientific, and artistic achievement were wrought. While the United States and other Western nations still wallowed in the massive unemployment and misery of the Great Depression, Hitler had already restored Germany to full employment and prosperity. What the democracies could only achieve by aiming for war, Germany did as early as 1936 by building roads and Volkswagens.

    The degeneracy and decadence which had characterized the democratic Weimar regime in Germany prior to 1933, with all its prancing homosexuals, self-destructive drug addicts, jaded thrill seekers, musical and artistic nihilists, pandering Jews, Marxist terrorists, and whining self-pitiers, were gone, and in their place was a nation of healthy, enthusiastic, self-reliant, and purposeful Germans: a nation led by progressive men and women conscious of the value of their race and their culture and committed to the advancement of both on all fronts.

    And Germany was the only such nation in the White world. Italy had undertaken a number of progressive social, economic, and governmental reforms after the victory of Mussolini’s Fascist movement in 1923, but Fascism failed to put race in the center of life, as National Socialism did.

  3. Cotard says:

    The Jews, and the Jews in England by Cobbett – Anthony Ludovici -selected quotes

    Despite their frequent superficial morphological distinctions, there is a singular uniformity and standardization in the behaviour and activities of the Jewish communities of all countries, and the fact that in the history of the last four thousand years they have provoked remarkably similar reactions among the different peoples with whom they have come into contact is a sufficient demonstration of the regularity of their habits of mind and character, and of the latter’s social expression.

    Possessed by a people less energetic, less ambitious, less determined, it is possible that their peculiar psychological qualities might have been overlooked, and that their influence upon the customs, institutions and policies of the nations among whom they settled might have been negligible. But correlated, as they are, with a will to ascendancy and power, probably unequalled by any other ethnic type, their peculiar psychological qualities naturally become the object of attention and study; and it is for this reason that in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and modern Europe and America there has always been a “Jewish question”, and that it is considered legitimate to discuss the influence of the Jews.


    Now, one of the strangest phenomena of modern times is the fact that in most discussions about the Jew in his relation to Western culture and institutions this consideration of his essentially Oriental character and type should almost without exception have been sedulously overlooked. It is as if the belief in the independence of mind and body, of soul and physique, had been so profoundly inculcated upon modern man as to make it impossible for him to see the absurdity of regarding character and mental and emotional constitution as unrelated to, or unconditioned by, their physical correlatives. For if the Jew is essentially an Asiatic, then his mental and characterological features must have an Asiatic colour and quality. If he is really an Oriental, he cannot think and feel as a Westerner.


    Not once did it occur either to a member of the Lower House or to a peer taking part in that controversy that, if Englishmen were reputed to have behaved in a certain fairly standardized manner in all the circumstances of home and public life, the peculiar type recognized as English must be in some way correlated with their characteristic behaviour and psychology — in fact, with any expression of their personality in legislation, administration, etc. And that, consequently, if English legislation and administration were to remain true to type, it was essential that no un-English type should mingle his influence with that of Englishmen.

    Had such a thought occurred but once to any of the debaters, they must have seen that English customs and institutions could hardly retain their identity unless the type which had hitherto been responsible for them remained exclusively in control.

    To introduce into the administration and public life of the country a psychology correlated with another type must necessarily modify, if not imperil, those very aspects of it which theretofore had depended for their peculiar form and character on the fact that they were the social expression of Englishmen.

    It was not a question of whether it was “cricket” or “kindly” or “gentlemanly” to exclude the Jews with other aliens from Parliament. It was a question of whether England did or did not wish to continue her national life as an expression of her national type.

    Anyone wishing to convince himself of the levity and fantastic levels maintained by the debates should read, not only Macaulay’s Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations Affecting the Jews In England, [2] but also the reports of the relevant debates in both Houses. [3] He will then be able to appreciate more fully than from anything that can be said here the lamentable superficiality of most of what was thought and said on both sides. And nothing that has been thought and said since has added one iota of wisdom to the frivolities of our nineteenth-century ancestors.

    Maybe the Asiatic outlook, the Asiatic way of solving English problems, was thought definitely desirable by the advocate of Jewish emancipation. They may have imagined that English public business and administration could only be improved by the addition of Asiatic elements both to the electorate, the legislature, the Civil Service and the Bench. But if so, why did not they frankly come out with this plea?

    Why did they not declare their conviction that we needed this new element in our national life in order to carry on more successfully?

    Why, like medieval prelates and monks, were they content to argue as if the one difference between Englishman and Jew was religion, and that, if the Jew undertook not to undermine Christianity, the last remaining objection to his emancipation would be removed?

    Did they perhaps think that he had so deeply influenced the life of the nation already, since his readmission under Cromwell, that to raise barriers to his now confirming by legislation the radical modifications he had brought about amounted to straining at a gnat after swallowing a camel?
    Much might be said in support of this point of view had it ever been advanced. It might have been argued, for instance — though no one did argue in this way [4] –that since the first half of last century, not only England, but her House of Commons and her House of Peers, was full of men who were not only practising Jewish methods in business, finance, general trading and manufacture, but were also convinced of the soundness of these methods, what difference could it make if the Jews themselves were represented on our public and administrative bodies?


    It might have been argued that since, very often, legislation merely regulates methods and practices already established by custom, how could the admission of Jews into the electorate and Parliament affect our lives, except perhaps by merely hastening a process which was in any case inevitable — namely, the legalization of Jewish customs and usages already well established in the country?

    For, truth to tell, the process of change ever since the seventeenth century, whether wholly influenced or merely speeded up by the readmission of the Jews, had been characterized chiefly by the Judaization of the productive and business life of the country. True, certain fatal steps towards capitalism — the institution peculiar to the Jewish genius, as Werner Sombart has so ably shown [5] — had been taken before even the Jews were readmitted. But it is legitimate to ask whether such fatal steps might not perhaps have been retraced, or whether they would have been allowed to culminate so logically and rapidly in the modern capitalistic state, had the Jews never settled in this country.


    As an Oriental, as a descendant of a race inured in the desert to an existence which, though precarious, was certainly neither industrious nor laborious, [6] and, ever since his abandonment of the nomad’s life, attracted to and becoming more and more occupied in trade and general trafficking, the Jew, not only in his own community, but also as an influence outside his community, was bound to promote and cultivate precisely that kind of culture — which, for the lack of a better name, we may call ‘black-coated’ — in which clean, easy and quick paths to wealth, or at least to self-support, are preferred to strenuous, slow and clothes-soiling paths, in which a love of the work as such, apart from the profit it brings, may be a motive for choosing and clinging to it. [7] Owing to his age-long connexion with civilization, urban life and trade, the Jew was bound to promote and develop the culture which is built upon a vast expansion of urban rather than of rural habits and occupations. For men invariably tend to choose and foster the conditions in which their peculiar mastery is best displayed. A swordsman does not choose pistols for a duel.

    Finally, by his congenital proclivity to traffic with the products of other men’s labour rather than to be a producer himself, the Jew was bound to favour all those activities which we now know as speculating, forward buying, forestalling, regrating and the promotion of every variety of agency and middleman function until, in the whole of the labour and products of the nation he influenced, there was nothing that remained immune from the ‘rake-off’ of the purchaser with the capital to anticipate a demand.


    One of the outstanding features in the growth of modern capitalism has been the gradual transformation of the notion of property as involving privilege plus duty and responsibility into a notion of property as free and devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of modern capitalism as not forestalled by this significant transmutation of values.

    Property, as involving privilege plus obligation and responsibility, presupposed certain ties and stakes in the land, certain relations to dependents, assistants and equals, and certain obligations to the community as a whole for its incessant contribution to all forms of property, which were possible only to a legal denizen with traditions and contacts in his locality and usually his soil. This being so, however, no alien, no “freelance” sojourner, wishing to settle in this country and to accumulate property could do so unless the very notion of property became suitably modified.

    Before thus modifying it, no one, however, once paused to consider whether property as such could possibly continue to be defended or justified. Apart from the Jew’s ancestral inability to understand the gregarious view of property, the desire naturally was to divorce it from obligation and responsibility, particularly that kind of obligation which was implicit in the ancient usages of the country, and which prescribed duties that none but a man of property with a certain traditional status could discharge. What did it matter if, by divorcing it from such obligations, property must cease from having any meaning?

    Thus, all notion of responsibility and duty which, from the beginning of settled life in England, had been inseparable from ownership, was allowed to drop out of the institution of property, as if for all the world such a modification made no difference to its odour, its philosophic justification and its function in the theory of the English realm.

    It was a change eminently favourable to the Jew as a congenital particularist and a freelance aspirant for property and power in a foreign land. And although in the history of the divorce of property from obligation, as a development of capitalism, certain fatal steps were undoubtedly taken before the resettlement of the Jews in England, it would be daring wholly to exclude Jewish influence from the drastic reforms which secured the establishment of free and irresponsible ownership (really a contradiction in terms) after the Grand Rebellion, and which ultimately culminated in the institution which we know as modern capitalism.


    Thus, if in such a society the Jew was to persist in his ambition to acquire power that had no insuperable limitations, it meant that, willy-nilly, he must give the weight of his support in influence and money to all those tendencies in the land which were aiming at destroying these peculiar and unpurchasable forms of power, and at dismantling the political framework into which they fitted.
    Whether the political incompetence of the occupants of these seats of power, or their stupidity or their gross neglect of their duties played into the hands of those elements in the nation which were anxious to displace them is a question which need not be gone into here. Suffice it to say that, from the most humble squire to the most exalted member of the nobility, there were throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a sufficiently high proportion of unworthy men of privilege and power in the country abundantly to equip the arsenal of any section of the nation which happened to be determined upon their destruction.

    But what is important is the fact that, no matter how virtuous or efficient they might have been, and no matter how exemplary might have seemed their administration and their leadership in the eyes of the masses, the Jew could not logically have acted otherwise than he did; for he was by the very nature of his position committed to siding with their political critics and opponents.

    Fundamentally, there is no reason –no fact in the past history of the Jews — which would justify us in assuming that, had the privileged rulers of this country satisfied all the demands of the nation, the Jews, as inveterate strangers, knowing only their own ethnic and spiritual solidarity, would have allowed the efficient performance of their functions by the privileged classes to weigh against the more pressing desideratum of opening up all avenues to power for themselves.


    WE HAVE SEEN that there are no reasons, either anthropological or historical, for considering the Jews as other than a definite, highly specialized type of humanity.

    From their bedouin ancestors they have inherited certain characteristics, of which some have been retained to a notable extent unaltered to this day. Their retention of these ancestral traits has been favoured partly by the circumstances of their history as a people and partly by the original momentum possessed by the traits themselves.

    Among the more salient of these traits we may name:

    (a) The non-territorial sense of nationality and ethnic unity, which makes the Jews prone to disperse by choice and prone to suffer compulsory dispersion kindly. This trait, which has a nomad origin, also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them ever to feel rooted in an ancestral soil as the territorial national feels.

    (b) The inability to grasp or accept an institution of property, in which mutual obligation is implicit, in which privilege is proportionate to responsibility, and in which the contribution of the community, either present or past, has made it impossible to isolate property as a possession to be enjoyed individually or divorced from all ties or limitations. The nomad may know of a family contribution, but not of a communal contribution, to his property, and when he packs up his tent and his household goods, and drives his flock before him to a new pasture or a fresh oasis, he can recognize obligations to no man.

    (c) A distaste for those forms of gaining a livelihood, or of sustaining themselves and families, which involve manual or generally physical labour. The bedouin is at bottom the antithesis of the horny-handed son of the soil, and his tastes differ accordingly.

    (d) A capacity for hardness both to themselves and others. An individualistic existence like that of the nomad necessarily involves periods of privation, hardship and lonely struggle often against equally individualistic rivals.

    (e) A latent tendency to a democratic and liberal outlook, which becomes active and militant when Jews are faced with the problem of establishing themselves among a conservative people. This democratic and liberal tendency has two possible roots –the habit of individual freedom and of owing obedience to no man in a nomad state; and the recognition by the Jews, when they find themselves faced by a conservative people or a people organized on aristocratic lines, of the usefulness of siding with and supporting all those elements in the land which are undermining the conservative and aristocratic traditions.

    (f) A seniority over all those types of mankind which have had a relatively much shorter connexion with civilized and urban life. This has endowed the Jews with a superior shrewdness regarding all the circumstances and problems that are likely to arise in closely herded urban communities. (The psychological insight and the intelligence of the Jews may be merely other aspects of this seniority.) This trait, as we have seen, springs from the Jew’s millennial association not only with civilization but also a civilization of trading and urban centres.

    Further traits which manifest themselves as the result of the above innate tendencies, when Jews find themselves among a people more recently civilized than themselves or organized on an aristocratic, feudal and mutualistic institution of property, are:

    (1) A general intolerance of all the restrictions imposed on a free use of property, on a free use of business shrewdness. For instance, an intolerance of any laws or regulations which may exist against regrating, forward buying, cornering markets, concentrating large fortunes in single hands, etc., all of which practices our Tudor and Stuart sovereigns did their utmost to suppress.

    (2) A general intolerance towards all purely hereditary titles, honours or privileges which have their root in custom, ancient usage, above all in the soil, and which cannot be bought. Hence Jewish radicalism.

    (3) A tendency to convert a society based on a mutualistic conception of property, and on a system of graded service with protection of the subordinate in return for his obedience, into a society in which the population is atomized, in which each man’s interests and hand are against his neighbour’s, and which is characterized by a bellum omnium contra omnes — in fact, modern capitalism.

    (4) A general feeling of intolerance towards the territorial national, which, as the result of the phenomenon known as over-compensation, forces their natural will to ascendancy to inordinate levels when they are among territorial nationals.

    (5) A late and ultimate tendency to meet the general break-up of capitalism and the society built upon it — a society which necessarily proves incapable of enduring owing to the faulty foundations on which it rests — by siding with those elements which desire to hasten and consummate its break-up. The tendency of the Jew in decadent Europe may be due to his recognition of the fact that the system he has created, capitalism, is inevitably doomed, and to his desire to secure himself a modicum of control, if not of leadership, in the new system which is socialism or communism. For it must be remembered that the Jew is congenitally incapable of visualizing or framing a system of gregarious life based on the old ideas of limited property with responsibility and mutuality, and, therefore, when capitalism fails, he can see no other alternative than socialism or communism.

    Now, every one of these characteristics, far from having been modified or eradicated, has been rather confirmed and intensified by the events in the Jews’ long history, and as throughout this history the Jews have been subjected to a constant process of rigorous selection by which only those who were most true to type have been able to survive, they now represent a highly specialized group of human beings, with all the limitations and all the highly developed gifts imparted to them by their unique destiny.

    We have seen that it is not historically correct to regard any of the characteristics by which they are generally recognized as created in them by circumstances comparatively so recent as the treatment they received at the hands of the medieval European peoples, among whom they sojourned after the Roman Dispersion.

    We have seen, moreover, that this applies even to their indomitable desire for ascendancy, which is making them strive everywhere for the strategic positions from which modern civilized states may be directed or controlled, and to their notorious predilection in favour of trade, finance and all those occupations which, while being what is known as ‘clean’, secure those who pursue them a share in the productive labour of others.

    Having, moreover, recognized these facts and established them on what appears to be irrefutable data, the question is, what should be the attitude of the territorial nationals in any modern state to the Jews sojourning among them?

    From the purely anthropological standpoint, it may be concluded right away that anything in the nature of mixed marriages with the Jews, particularly on the part of English people, cannot fail to introduce into pure English stocks many ethnic elements which are not merely foreign to the English as a people, but the absence of which from English strains constitutes one of the principal claims to the specific character of the English as a particular people in northwestern Europe.
    Mixture with the Jews through marriage must, therefore, seriously modify the English strain. And all those who any longer wish those specific elements in civilization which are commonly regarded as English, and which are but the external expression of the English type, to be retained as an essential part of the English nation will, therefore, naturally avoid mixed marriages with the Jew.

    As a colonizing people which has come into contact with all sorts and varieties of races and types, and kept singularly free from intermarriage with them, this, to the English, should not be a difficult form of abstention, and apart from the English peerage there is little evidence that mixed English and Jewish marriages are much in favour.

    With regard to the attitude of the English to the Jews in social and political life, however, the position is not so simple.

    There can be no doubt that, from the standpoint of a strictly conservative attitude, the Jew should be precluded from too much control over our institutions and customs because, as they are not an external expression of his type, his intervention as a power over them cannot fail to modify them in an un-English way.

    Prudence would, therefore, seem to dictate a policy of exclusion both of the Jew and his influence from all those departments of English life in which his influence may so alter the character of the nation as to make it lose all its specific qualities.

    Thus it would seem hardly needful to state, if we desire to preserve that character and those qualities, that the Jew should be excluded from all those positions in which the chance or opportunity occurs of fundamentally modifying the character and customs of the nation. For, whether intentionally or not, it would seem as if the Jew could not help modifying these national features in a non-Occidental direction.

    On the other hand, there are grave logical objections to these apparently obvious policies:

    (a) For instance, our data above have shown that ever since 1655 English life has undoubtedly become more and more Judaized — that is to say, that the people of this country and the life they lead have tended to approach more and more to Jewish standards or to standards under which the Jewish character flourishes.

    Would there be any sense in now excluding the ethnic Jew, when his Gentile counterpart, his Gentile pupil and slavish imitator is everywhere enthroned by his side, and in greater numbers than the Jews themselves? Is there any sense in excluding the creator of a culture if you retain his values? Modern English life is bristling with evidence of the victory of the Judaized Englishman and of Jewish values. What sense, then, would there be in so empty a gesture as excluding the ethnic Jew and retaining his Gentile understudy? What purpose would be served in excluding the Jew and in continuing to worship at the shrine of his idols?

    No exclusion of the Jews from the administrative or cultural life of England, therefore, could be more than a piece of shallow, hysterical patriotism if it did not contemplate and include the far more fundamental but infinitely more difficult task of freeing the country of its wrong values. And all bodies of Englishmen who seriously wish to recover English civilization at this stage cannot be regarded as any more than emotional and hysterical flag-wavers if they do not see the compelling need of that infinitely difficult task — the task of accompanying any gesture of organized reform by a frontal attack upon the Judaized elements in their kith and kin and their own Judaized values.

    (b) In addition to this necessary warning — the burden of which has been to some extent, though not wholly, overlooked in Germany — there is a further difficulty that requires stating, and it is a great difficulty which is peculiar to England as the head of a great empire.

    The difficulty arises from the complicated problem of administering even by proxy a vast area such as the British Empire, in which scores of different races have to be treated as legitimate British subjects. And it is very questionable whether, at this stage, we can revert to a policy which even the Romans considered injudicious, of withholding full civic rights from any ethnic unit within the length and breadth of the Empire.

    To differentiate our policy in this matter according to what kind of people we are dealing with, and to make one adverse exception in the case of the Jews, would hardly be practicable, more particularly as we know from history that the Jews received equal rights in the colonies long before they did in England. The policy of excluding the Jews from administrative influence and power, therefore, could only prove practicable if it were consistently pursued with regard to all other races and types. But whereas this might have been possible two centuries ago, it is hardly possible now.

    The only alternative to the radical exclusion of an ethnic type in an empire like ours, therefore, is a demonetization of all the current values which can definitely be classed as disruptive, decadent and destructive of what is regarded as the essential culture of England. For, just as the Jews have, by the support of values favourable to their existence ever since the seventeenth century (though really much earlier, owing to influences coming from the Continent throughout the centuries following the banishment), helped to modify England and English life and made them both much more adapted to their needs and tastes, at the cost of transforming England, so it is possible by a wholesale demonetization of these values to make English life and England, and possibly even the Empire, adopt a culture and an outlook as different as chalk from cheese from those which we now see about us.

    But such a transformation and wholesale demonetization of established values is a stupendous undertaking, and although none other offers any hope, it may be questioned whether at this stage in our history we still possess the energy, the fire and the will which alone could be adequate to carry through such a fundamental and far-reaching change.

    If we do not, and if we ourselves cannot move towards a sounder, healthier and saner condition which will restore our ancient institutions and ancient stamina, health and self-esteem, there can be no practical solution of the problem at all. It is essential to set out with a transmutation of existing unsound and corrupt values, especially those which have bedouinized not only our society but also our pure type. And if we wish to be practical, it is to this task that we of this generation will address ourselves with all the energy and resolution at our command.

  4. Cotard says:

    Michael Higger – The Jewish Utopia

    Michael Collins Piper:

    In 1932, Michael Higger, Ph.D.,assembled a remarkable book entitled The Jewish Utopia, which he dedicated to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which he described as [the] “symbol of the Jewish Utopia.” Higger’s volume is a remarkable document which the late Robert H.
    Williams, an American nationalist writer of the 1950s and 1960s, described as a compendium of the philosophy behind what Williams called “the Ultimate World Order”—that is, the New World Order.

    What is remarkable about Higger’s book is that the copy that Robert H.Williams first discovered and then popularized among American nationalists was found at the Abraham I.Schechter Collection of Hebraica and Judaica of the Texas University Library, donated by the Kallah of Texas Rabbis. So Higger’s book was no mere “think piece” by one isolated writer. The organization of rabbis in Texas thought so highly of the work that they donated that copy to the state university’s library.

    Dr.Higger’s book was a compilation of Higger’s study of what Williams described as“the sum total of the prophecies, teachings and plans and interpretations of the foremost Jewish rabbis and tribal leaders over a period of some 2,500 years,” since the time of the oral law and the beginning of the Babylonian Talmud, in which could be found what Williams described as a “double standard for Jews and non-Jews and its nationalistic, militaristic interpretation of the Torah” (the Torah, of course, being the first five books of the OldTestament—the so-called “Five Books of Moses”).

    The books talked of “the righteous”vand “the non-righteous.” In the end, according to Higger’s interpretation of Jewish tradition, the“non-righteous” shall perish.” Higger wrote:

    To understand the rabbinic conception of an ideal world, it will help us if we imagine a hand passing from land to land, from country to country, from the Indian Ocean to the North Pole, marking “righteous” or “wicked” on the forehead of each one of the sixteen hundred million inhabitants of our earthly globe.We should then be on the right road toward solving the major problems that burden so heavily the shoulders of suffering humanity.

    For mankind should be divided into two—and only two—distinct and unmistakable groups, namely, righteous and wicked.To the righteous would belong all that which God’s wonderful world is offering; to the wicked would belong nothing.

    In the future, the words of Isaiah, in the language of the rabbis, will be fulfilled:

    “Behold, My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry. Behold, My servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; Behold, My servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed.”

    This is the force of the prophecy of Malachi, when he said, “Then shall ye again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.”

    And it is clear, throughout Higger’s writings (based on his analysis of the works of the great rabbis and Jewish spiritual leaders) that the “righteous” shall be the Jews and those who choose to align themselves as servants of the Jews and the“wicked” will be those who are perceived by the Jews to be standing in opposition to their interests!

    Higger cites the words of theTalmud: “It is a heritage for us [the Jews], not for them [that is, everyone else—every other human being on the face of the entire planet].”

    Higger goes on to point out that under this New World Order (what he calls “The Jewish Utopia”):

    “All the treasures and natural resources of the world will eventually come in possession of the righteous.” This, he said, would be in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah:

    In her gain and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord; it shall be not treasured nor laid out, for her gain shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat their fill and for stately clothing.

    But that wasn’t all.The Jews and their hirelings would have even more riches under the Jewish Utopia.Higger noted that: “Similarly, the treasures of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls and valuable vessels that have been lost in the seas and oceans in the course of centuries will be raised up and turned over to the righteous ….”Higger added:

    In the present era the wicked or ordinary rich, have many comforts in life, while the righteous are poor, missing the joys of life. But in the ideal era, the Lord will open up all the treasures for the upright and the unrighteous will suffer.

    God, the Creator of the world …will be happy, so to speak, only in the era to come when the world will be governed by the doings and actions of the upright.

    Here is the amazing summary of it all by Higger:

    In general, the peoples of the world will be divided into two main groups: the Israelitic and the non-Israelitic.The former will be righteous; they will live in accordance with the wishes of one universal God, they will be thirsty for knowledge and willing to the point of martyrdom to spread ethical truths to the world.

    All the other peoples, on the other hand, will be known for their detestable practices: idolatry and similar acts of wickedness. They will be destroyed and will disappear from earth before the ushering in of the ideal era.

    In short, this is effectively discussion of massive extermination of those who stand up to the Jewish Utopia—the NewWorld Order. It continues:

    All of these unrighteous nations shall be called to judgment before they are punished and doomed.The severe sentence of their doom will be pronounced upon them only after they have been given a fair trial when it will become evident that their existence would hinder the advent of the ideal era.

    Thus, at the coming of the Messiah, when all righteous nations will pay homage to the ideal righteous leader and offer gifts to him, the wicked and corrupt nations, by realizing the approach of their doom, will bring similar presents to the Messiah.

    Their gifts and pretended acknowledgment of the new era will be blunted rejected, for the really wicked nations, like the really wicked individuals must disappear from the earth before an ideal human society of righteous nations can be established.

    And when one considers the fact that the Jewish concept of the Messiah is often reckoned to be that the Jewish people themselves are “the Messiah,” what Higger has described takes on even more consequence.

    What of Armageddon? This is stuff of which legends are made.

    Armageddon, in Jewish tradition, is the final battle in which the Jews will once and for all establish their absolute rule over the earth. According to Higger’s analysis of the Jewish teachings in this regard:

    Hence, Israel and the other righteous nations shall combat the combined forces of the wicked, unrighteous nations under the leadership of Gog and Magog.

    Assembled for an attack on the righteous nations in Palestine near Jerusalem, the unrighteous will suffer a crushing defeat and Zion will thenceforth remain the center of the kingdom of God.
    The defeat of the unrighteous will mark the annihilation of the power of the wicked who oppose the Kingdom of God, an establishment of the new ideal era.

    Note the use of the term“ new ideal era.”

    It is no coincidence that the terminology is reflective and reminiscent of the term “NewWorld Order” for that is precisely what the Jewish Utopia— this “new ideal era”—happens to be.This struggle will not just be a struggle of Israel against her “national enemies” but the climax of the struggle between the “righteous” and “unrighteous.” So say the Jewish sages.

    Who are the “wicked”? Higger explained that “wickedness” is “an obstruction to the Kingdom of God.” He said that “no exact definition” can be formulated, but that there were rabbinic passages dealing with the subject giving a general idea of the meaning of “wicked” and “wickedness” so far as a Jewish Utopia was concerned. And note that he does specify that these terms are defined in terms of a Jewish Utopia.Higger asserted:
    First, no line will be drawn between bad Jews and bad non-Jews.

    There will be no room for the unrighteous whether Jewish or non-Jewish in the Kingdom of God. All of them will have disappeared before the advent of the ideal era on this earth. Unrighteous Israelites will be punished equally with the wicked of other nations. All the righteous, on the other hand, whether Hebrew or Gentile, will share equally in the happiness and abundance of the ideal era.

    In contrast to what the average American Christian would think about all of this, or perceive in the context of his Christian faith, which looks forward to a universal kingdom of God in Heaven, the paradise referred to throughout The Jewish Utopia describing the “new ideal era”—the New World Order—is “a universal paradise of mankind . . . established in this world,” with no reference to the future world whatever.

    Who will rule this NewWorld Order? According to Higger’s assessment of the Jewish tradition: “He will be a descendant of the House of David.”

    Higger advises us that Talmudic tradition says that “a descendant of the House of David will appear as the head of the ‘ideal era’ only after the whole world will have suffered, for a continuous period of nine months, from a wicked, corrupt government like the historically traditionally wicked Edom.”

    (Note: Today there is a formally organized international Jewish organization, Davidic Dynasty, openly working to track down and reunite all of the descendants of the House of David.This is no “conspiracy theory.” It is fact.

    Knowing what the Talmud teaches about who shall rule the globe, we can perhaps understand the motivation of this group.) And, Higger proclaimed, the whole world will “gradually come to the realization that Godliness is identical with righteousness,” and that God “cleaves to Israel and that Israel is the ideal righteous nation.”

    According to these rabbinic teachings which are the foundation for the age-old Jewish dream of the establishment of the NewWorld Order, the peoples of the earth will then proclaim to the Jewish rulers: “We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

    So it is that, as the rabbis proclaim: “The people of Israel will conquer spiritually the peoples of the earth, so that Israel will be made high above all nations in praise, in name and in glory.”

    Note the concept of “conquer”—as in battle.Note the concept of Israel raised above all others—as in supremacy and superiority. Violence and racism toward the non-Jews: as simple as that.
    It is no coincidence that many other Jewish writers and philosophers of consequence have said that there will eventually be a global religion and, in fact,we have seen efforts (by Jewish elements) to infiltrate and alter all of the religions of the world, to move them closer to one another, and this, Higger related, has been part of the prophecy: “The nations would first unite for the purpose of calling upon the name of the Lord to serve him.”

    In other words, there would be a world government and one global religion, and as Higger and others have noted, that international religion would be Judaism.That would be the “spiritual conquest” of the world.

    What about gold? What about wealth? According to Higger, although gold played a part in the conquest by the righteous, to whom it was given by God, in the new ideal era “gold will be of secondary importance in the new social and economic order. But the City of Jerusalem will possess most of the gold and precious stones of the world . . .The depreciation of the importance of gold and its like does not necessarily imply the introduction of a system of common ownership of property.”

    In other words, the Jews will have control of it all and since the Jews— via the City of Jerusalem—will be in control of the gold, it really will not be of any consequence in the New World Order in which the Jews rule.

    Higger added: The secondary importance given to gold in the new social order will be for two main reasons:

    1)The equal distribution of private property and other necessities of life will automatically depreciate the importance of gold and other luxuries;

    2) The people will be trained and educated to differentiate between real, spiritual values and material values.

    Indeed, it will be the Jewish power, seated in Jerusalem, headed by a descendant of the House of David—referred to as “the Holy One”—who will divide up the property of the world.

    Who will get this property? The answer, as defined by rabbinic authority:“To the righteous will belong all the wealth, treasures and industrial gains and other resources of the world.To the unrighteous will belong nothing.”

    The unrighteous nations“ will not share in the ideal era.” Their rule will be destroyed and disappear before the ushering in of the NewWorld Order. The “wickedness” of these nations will consist mainly in accumulating money belonging to“the people” and of oppressing and robbing “the poor.”

    Although Higger does not state this emphatically, those familiar with Talmudic tradition, logic and reasoning, the “people” and the “poor” are the Jews: TheTalmud teaches that only Jews are humanity and all others are animals, thus, of course, only Jews can be “people.” The “poor” are—of course—the Jews who have forever painted themselves as the victims and the oppressed—as in“the poor,persecuted Jews.”

    Another group of the “wicked” nations will suffer the same fate as the first: “Their unrighteousness will be characterized by their corrupt govern-ments and by their oppressions of Israel.”

    In other words, any government that stands against the Jews will thus be considered to be wicked and unrighteous if it dares to challenge the Jewish global agenda: the New World Order.
    In the end, ultimately, according to Higger, the motto of this overarching Jewish demand for a Utopia of their vision and dream will be this—and note it carefully: “Righteous Unite! Better Destruction of theWorld Than a Wicked World.” That’s right: the Jewish philosophy is that the world is better off destroyed unless, of course, the“righteous”—that is, the Jews and those who worship them—prevail over the“wicked,” that is, the non-Jews who dare to challenge Jewish power.

    This is frightening indeed, particularly since the Jewish Power Elite in the United States are a preeminent power over the American system: its treasury, its military, its nuclear arsenal.Then factor in the ugly reality that even “tiny Israel” is said to be one of the globe’s five great nuclear powers.

    And in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, bear in mind the critical fact that Israel’s own geopolitical strategy, the foundation of its national defense structure, has been—from the outset—based on its pursuit, ultimately successful, of a nuclear arsenal. (…)

    And one of Israel’s leading geopolitical and military “thinkers,” Dr.Martin van Crevald of Hebrew University in Jerusalem has echoed these ugly and murderous sentiments. He wrote:

    We [Israelis] possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force. Our armed forces are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capacity to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.

    So the Goyim—the “wicked”—have been warned.

    from the book The New Babylon Those Who Reign Supreme, a Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religious and Economic Origins of the New World Order by Michael Collins Piper

  5. Pingback: Mark Collett – Book Review – Reactionary Modernism – Jonathan Bowden – May 30, 2022 – Transcript | katana17

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *