[Jez Turner gives a short yet powerful talk on three essential truths that we need understand in order to awaken our people, namely; race, power, and the agenda of our racial enemy, i.e., organized jewry —  KATANA.]

_______________________

Western Spring Description

by Max Musson

Jez Turner was the fifth guest speaker at the recent John Tyndall Memorial Meeting and in his speech he examines whether we have the ability or the time to awaken our people to the dangers that beset us? He goes on to develop his theme by presenting what he sees as three essential truths about which we should be aware; the truth of race; the truth of power and the truth about the agenda.

Jez ends his speech by talking about the dedication, determination and resilience exhibited by most nationalists, qualities that John Tyndall epitomised, devoting as he did, his entire life to our cause.

Click this link to view the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LejCdf36zE4

Jez Turner

at the JTMM —

Three Essential Truths

Published on Jul 27, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00]

Max: What I’d like to do now is to invite another of our younger male speakers to address you all. This is the man who won the Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize this year. The man who it is described by our enemies as one of the most influential fascists in the country. [laughter from the audience] A man who exhibits bonhomie wherever he goes. A man who is charismatic and eloquent. Jez Turner! Thank you! [long applause].

Jez: Thank you very much.

It’s a strange thing to watch a race die. Stranger still, to not to know the reason why.

But today now, 2017, the dots no longer need joining up! It is obvious to any thinking man, any curious man. And by his nature a thinking man will be curious. Any man can very quickly and easily find the answers to the questions posed by Kipling’s “six honest serving men“, …

“What, when, where, how, who, and why?”

The internet is like a gift from God! A gift, a deus ex machina, has descended to help us save the day. And it can help us save our race from extinction, from impending oblivion, if we use it and use it wisely.

It was not, I think, the Oldham riots that propelled the BNP into the mainstream. There have been countless ethnic riots in the past. Though usually it was the black Africans rioting, rather than Asians. The Asians rioting was a new phenomenon. No, what boosted support for the British National Party and British nationalism, was the Internet! Indirectly it did so, because the mainstream media could no longer hide the truth. They could no longer hide what was going on.

Everyone has those little phones that could film, that can send emails. Everyone becomes a one man reporter. And directly, anyone could easily and quickly get in touch with British nationalism. They could see us as we really are without looking at us through a prism, a filter, supplied by the crass (((mass media))). The truth, came easily and quickly available.

Now if you go to the Rosslyn Chapel, near Edinburgh — it’s a very interesting chapel, very old — lots of stone carvings, ornate pieces everywhere. And despite all these wonderful carving, there’s only one set of words on the wall. And these words say the following thing:

“Wine is strong.
The king is stronger.
Women are stronger still.
But the truth is the strongest of all!”

So those words are very important, to be carved on that medieval chapel.

Now truth, is true! The window of opportunity for us to take advantage of this Internet, this free internet, is closing very quickly! But then again, so is the chances of our race surviving. Time is not with us!

It is truly a race against time! Can we wake up enough of our people, enough of the right sort of people? Can we motivate them, organize them, mobilize them into action, and do so in time? Before we all go down into the halls of Hades and the eternal black night falls. A night from which our children will never wake.

Well, it shouldn’t be so hard to do. After all, our race is the race that built Stonehenge! The xxx, the pyramids, the Norman castles, the Gothic cathedrals! We conquered the mountain peaks! We conquered all the mountain peaks! We explored the depths of the jungles. We sailed the seas and charted the stars! We mined nature’s treasures deep in the bosom of the earth! We painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. We explored and mapped the oceans. We soared through the skies and broke the sound barrier! We discovered DNA! We landed on the moon! We composed orchestral symphonies of sublime beauty! We unlocked the secrets of science and the mind itself!

We can do all those things? And we cannot wake our people up?

I think we can!

[applause]

[05:15]

Now slimmed down to essentials, there are three truths: Race, power and the agenda!

First of all. Identity is everything! Or as Disraeli said:

“Race is all!”

Races are different, peoples are different. If the culture is destroyed, if the identity is destroyed, if the race is destroyed, you destroy everything!

Second truth.

One particular race, a particular religious, ethnic, tribal group, wields immense power! Immense power in the world today!

And for all intents and purposes, this group of people controls the entire planet’s resources! If not the planet itself.

This group owns and controls everything worth owning and controlling!

And, importantly, they use this power to keep their power secret. To keep it hidden from the minds of the man in the streets.

Third truth, “the agenda”!

The same particular racial, tribal, religious group, I’m talking about, uses it’s immense wealth and influence to jealously guard and maintain its own identity! To jealously protect its own race, its own religion, its own culture. While at the same time, using the same power that it has, to undermine everybody’s else’s race, culture, tradition, identity!

It encourages every other race of people to abandon their identity and essentially, in truth, destroy themselves. In sum, this group uses their secret power to secretly destroy every other race, but for their own!

This particular people, is a parasite race of money lenders, fraudsters, rack [sp] renters, pornographers, abortionists, promoters of perversion! And they achieve the first stage of their agenda by pushing for permissiveness! This slide into decadence and degeneration. And it ends with the deracination, miscegenation, the destruction of our people!

In short, our people are made to believe that race does not matter. That identity does not matter. That we have no culture! We British people have no culture! Whites are made to believe that it doesn’t matter if Whites are enslaved, and then eradicated, and exterminated!

Well, my friends, it does matter! Because it matters to those who are forcing this agenda upon us! [tapping the table] If for no other reason, that’s a very good reason why it matters.

Race! Power! The Agenda!

The name for “the agenda” has changed over the centuries.

But today it’s called, the “liberal agenda”, the “politically correct agenda”. There’s nothing new here! Nothing new under the sun! All this is obvious to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear! If you know these self-evident truths and you dare to voice them, you will be slandered, you will be libeled, you will be labeled! But in final analysis, two plus two still equals four! And truth is truth!

And the ideology of putting our own people first, of putting our own house in order, of saying, “Charity begins at home“, has itself been given many names. So many names. What it really all comes down to, is the ideology of common sense!

[10:07]

Now there is nothing very common about “common sense” today. In fact no rarer commodity exists. Dale Carnegie’s “How to Make Friends and Influence People” may tell us how to package the truth, and make it sell better. More effectively perhaps. But at the end of the day, truth must be told! And better to tell it’s harshly, than not tell it at all. And the truth today is very harsh! So let me tell you a bit about how a population, our race, our nation.

Now it is a truth that in any population, any nation, any race, most people, I’m afraid to say, are lazy! Most people are stupid! Most people are cowardly! Most people are selfish! Or worse, combination of two, three, or even all of those qualities.

But those who are not. Not lazy, stupid, cowardly, selfish, those people are nationalists!

Most people can be silenced through bullying, brainwashing, blackmail or bribes. Those who cannot, are nationalists!

And this is why in the nationalist movement you will find some of the best people in the world! In every country. In fact, I would go so far to say that Nationalists are better people than those who are nonpolitical. Because nationalists care about their people. They have a conscience, and they have the guts to do something about it! Right? They take responsibility, whatever the consequences!

And for these qualities, we nationalists are de facto leaders of our people.

For these qualities, we bad the brunt of the attacks of the enemy of our people. We bear the attacks of the so-called “Deep State”, the agents of the Deep State and the agents of the agenda promoted by the Deep State.

And this pressure is immense and continuous! And most people crack under extreme pressure! Most people crack under torture! And if these normal people out there, these nonpolitical people, who seem to be more successful than us in our lives, in our personal lives, in our economic careers. If they seem more squared away, it’s only, because they haven’t had to face the relentless and unremitting pressure of what we as nationalists face!

Because, believe me, if they did! If only for a week! They would all resemble a bunch of turkeys running around the yard at Christmas, when the butcher comes! Right!

Now, it’s fair to say that most nationalists are not active. They have got families to raise, they’ve got children to look after, they are paying mortgages, are earning a living, right? Some nationalists become activists for a while, and perhaps once in a while, every so often, become nationalists. Many nationalists are keyboard warriors and they criticize from the sidelines, and they say:

 

“This organizer is no good! This leader is no good! Da, da, da! ”

They are bragging how they could do things better. But when they do finally take the plunge into active nationalism, oh, like a shock! They get a shock! You know, the real world hits them in the face, often quite literally! You know, and they are shocked and they re-emerge shuddering and shaking, bewildered at the consequences for their health, and their career, and their lifestyle, and all the things that they took for granted.

Now, this is human nature! People are like this, everywhere, the world over. We cannot alter it! It has to be accepted on it’s own terms. Most people are not self starters. They are not prime movers, they cannot lead, but they will FOLLOW!

But they will only follow good leaders. The better quality the man, the better the quality of leader he requires. So it is imperative on us to find, to create, to make such leaders! Leaders of all levels. And the Internet can help us do that.

Aahh! Then there are a minority of nationalists, very good nationalists, who do not crack under pressure! They may bend, they may get bad tempered, and have the old row, here and then. But they do not break! This is the gold in the furnace. Nationalists who become long term, super activists, organizers, leaders! And we can reach these potential people on the Internet, too.

[15:13]

The internet can even self select people. Because if you have a good website, or a blog, and there are some here today that have these very good sites. We organize very good good meetings. These people will come to you. The good people in our race will come to you and seek you out. You don’t have to go and find them, so much.

But, let’s cast our minds back a while, and let’s think about a time before the Internet.

Before the internet, it was far more difficult. Far more difficult. Now here’s a riddle for you.

“I am strong, though I do bend. I am your enemy. I am your friend. Who am I? ”

Spear! Right?

Before the Internet there was a magazine called “Sspearhead”! And it came out monthly, every month, except when he was in prison for political reasons. I think Christmas time was the other time.

Every month that magazine came out! Thirty pages from 1964 to 2005!

This magazine was edited by a man who knew the truth and told the truth! A man who did not crack under pressure! A man who was a full time, full on, firing on all cylinders, nationalist, activist organizer, editor, a publisher! And did so, not just for a few years, but for his entire life! Right up until the last day when he was editing this particular issue of the magazine! When he was called away to a better place. The last issue.

Now, most national leaders, and super activists, it has to be said, will last about ten years before dropping out and taking a break. And perhaps they’ll become a part time activist for a while. And they’ll write the odd article. Whatever doesn’t interfere with their lives. But for John Tyndal, fighting for his people, for the Anglo-Saxon say, his folk and xxxx, was his LIFE!

That’s the difference! He was a warrior, a true warrior! He had what they call “drans capa” [sp] the fearless warrior spirit! And it is very hard to think of any other such person in post-war British nationalism who did so much, who gave so much! You can even say that John Tyndal was post war British nationalism. Without him, what might have happened, I don’t know. He kept it going, he kept it going!

Forty one years that magazine came out! Every month! A magazine unique in nationalism! It was the prototype for all others, for inspiration in America, for National Vanguard, and nationalism today in this country. For Vanguard in this country, for Identity magazine. It had a wide range of articles, and a broad range of opinion. Articles on culture, economics, politics, activism, and importantly the back few people pages had a range of links to other groups nationally, worldwide. It had booksellers, publishing outlets, other journal, magazines, details of future meetings, etc., etc.

This was an extremely useful resource in the pre-internet days! And you see, Tyndal didn’t jealously guard his readership! He wasn’t into factionalism. He wanted his readers to learn, to seek out truth, to network!

He was involved really, with this magazine, what is now known as meta-politics. Culture is upstream from politics! You influence the cultural, you influence the politics! And Spearhead was a meta-political magazine before the word even existed.

It was read by a huge variety of people, not just a party members. They were a small fraction of them.

Many thousands of people subscribed to it, and they would hand it to their friends, people who didn’t want to subscribe. People on the subscription list, they would get the magazine and hand it around. I used to work in the library as a student. I worked in a library, I was a librarian for a while. So was Elvis Presley, he was a librarian [laughing]. And Giacomo Casanova, you know, good company!

But, you know, I noticed all these libraries would have to carry Spearhead. The Elysee library carried Spearhead. Oxford, Cambridge, all the good ones, you know. And I would read and there was like, black, black market pen linings on certain words. And I thought:

“What’s all this about? ”

Because my own copy came through the post and didn’t have of this on. So what would happen, is you get this big subscription service that would order ten Spearheads, per month, from Spearhead. And they would censor everything! Right? And then send it to the library. So you get said afterwards:

 

“What are they saying? What’s he saying here? I don’t know what this is all about? ”

Well, especially William Pierce’s articles, you know, American articles. So that gives you an idea of the people it got around to. People who read it.

And he edited and published that magazine, month after month, decades! As well as, leading a political party and doing all the important behind the scenes tasks, that a prominent nationalist has to do, that nobody talks about.

[20:28]

Yes, he’s had his critics. Who does not have critics? Most critics though are “do nothings” who criticize those who do, do things. And the more successful you are, the more critics you will attract. Xenophon himself, he had ten thousand Greek mercenaries fighting in Persia, and their leader was killed. The Persian usurper was killed; and they were stuck in Persia, and enemy armies all around them, trying to kill them, and Xenophon led these Greeks, ten thousand Greeks, to the Black Sea, in safety. And even he was being criticised … by these people he was trying to save, you know! There is an analogy there really, you know. He was leading his people to safety, and they were criticizing him, all the time he was leading them, and fighting off these enemy armies.

You see, it’s not the critic who counts! Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena! Whose face is marred by dust, and sweat, and blood! Who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again, and again, because there is no effort without error, and shortcomings!

A man who actually does strive to do the deeds, who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at the best knows, in the end: Triumph of high achievement! And at the worst, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly!

So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory, nor defeat!

So for our cause, for our movement, for our survival, there is NO magic bullet! There’s no magic weapon to wield, that will give us instant victory!

But we know we’re going to have a struggle on hands, we know that! The gladiator makes his plans once he’s in the arena. He knows there is going to be a fight, but he has to be in the arena, to fight.

Now in 2008, there was a banking crisis, and an opportunity was missed! Missed, to tell the world just who was behind it, and why!

In 2011 there was black riots, in London, in Birmingham, in every urban conurbation. And an opportunity was lost to highlight the real causes of such chaos! And today we have these terrorist outrages, where an opportunity is being lost, is being foregone, is being missed, to get White people to ask themselves:

“Who brought the Muslims here? ”

[clapping]

Opportunity my friends, opportunity!

Opportunity: It is the driving force of destiny!

Miss it, and one’s life is stuck in the shallows.

Seize it! —and the peasants can become kings!

Catching it, can propel one to triumph, victory, and glory, … But, we must be in the arena!

We don’t know precisely what the future will hold for us, what the conditions will be. But, keeping our aims in sight, not giving in to compromise, to expediency, betraying our principles, we can safely follow Napoleon’s dictum. His dictum on winning war, was:

 

“Maneuver according to circumstances! ”

The iron fist in a velvet glove — “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”.

Methods, modes, means – these all change — but the goal does not! Our yacht may have to run before the wind, it may have to avoid the storms. But our destination, the safe haven for which we aim, will never change! And that is for an ALL White Britain, where everything we hold dear, everything we care for is safe, and thrives. A happy country, where our people can be free to be themselves! That must never change!

[25:16]

We do not know what the future may hold, what the enemy will throw at us, but we must aim high! We must recruit the best, and attract the rest.

We must be steadfast in the truth, and we must maintain the highest of standards. We must be trustworthy, dependable, reliable, otherwise our people will not follow us.

We must behave like White men again, and White women!

Like White men and women should behave. We have to be Whiter than Whites. [murmers of assent/approval/agreement]

We must be wise! We must be brave! We must always think long term, never go for short term, little gains here and there, at the expense of long term goals. We must cultivate the qualities of hard work, of persistence, of perseverance. And for these commendable characteristics, on this July day, we can have no better role model, no better inspiration, than a man who dedicated his entire life to full-time fighting the “good fight”, and doing so on many simultaneous fronts.

For when, the great scorer comes to write your name, he’ll write not how you won or lost, but how you played the game!

So, a teller of truth, a speaker, a writer, a fighter! July 1934 to July 2005!

On this July day, please raise your glass to: John Tyndall!

[long and loud applause]

Thank you very much!

[27:16]

END

=================

PDF of post: Jez Turner at the JTMM – Three Essential Truths — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 6: Mar 12, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 5: Aug 5, 2017 — last 7 minutes proofed and errors fixed (with thanks to Helena). Added images. Added PDF for download. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!

Version 4: Aug 5, 2017 — First 20 minutes proofed. Fixed typos, errors.

Version 3: Aug 4, 2017 — First 15 minutes proofed. Version 2: Aug 3, 2017 — First 10 minutes proofed. Version 1: Aug 2, 2017 — Published post.

Version 2: Aug 3, 2017 — First 10 minutes proofed. Version 1: Aug 2, 2017 — Published post.

Version 1: Aug 2, 2017 — Published post.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-128766/TS-1034956.mp3

Click on the above link to listen to the audio.

See also:

http://age-of-treason.com/2015/12/08/talking-with-john-friend/

http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite/

The international Jew, the promoter and benefactor of both international Communism and capitalism, is a biological parasite. National Socialist Germany clearly understood this fact, and made moves to address the situation. Now it’s America’s turn.

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’ll be joined by Tanstaafl of Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the alternative, independent media today. In this podcast, we discussed the jewish problem and Jewish parasitism, the root cause of so-called “pathological altruism” prevalent in the White race today, the 2016 president campaign, and related matters. http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-tanstaafl-the-jew-as-a-parasite/

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00]

John Friend (JF): You are listening to the Realist Report. Here’s your host John Friend.

Tanstaafl (TAN): Hello John.

JF: All right folks. Welcome book to another edition of the Realist Report. I am your host John Friend. Today I have a very special guest, Tanstaafl from Age of Treason is joining me on the line. Tanstaafl is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful commentators in the pro-White media today. Particularly when it comes to the Jewish Question (JQ) or more accurately, the Jewish Problem (JP). A topic that we will be discussing at length today. So Tanstaafl, welcome to the Realist Report. Thanks for being with us today

TAN: Thank you for inviting me John. Glad to be here.

JF: Absolutely. Yes, for people that aren’t familiar with your work, I’m going to post a link to a radio program you did where you kind of go through your background and how you awoke to some of these issues and how you started your website and your radio program and whatnot. But for now can you just people the URL to your website? And any other details you want to give out about your website.

TAN: I think if you just search for “Age of Treason” you’ll find my site. It’s probably ranked high enough that you will see age-of-treason.com and it’s easy to find.

JF: OK, and I’ll have a link directly to your site when I post this program. And as I mentioned a link to a radio program where you talk about your background and whatnot. Well, anyway let’s just jump right into the discussion. And let’s start off, … Could you just explain to your audience, how you woke up to the Jewish Problem.

TAN: Well, it started by waking up to race, first. I went through most of my life pretending that race isn’t important, doesn’t exist. Looking back on it showed that the proper instincts that I knew, certain places and certain things were not safe and were not good.

But I didn’t, … Like most White people I basically didn’t think of myself as White, or having interests as a White person. And, I eventually, after one particular straw broke the camel’s back, … I realized and accepted that I was White and that Whites are under attack as a race. And that I was part of that whether I wanted to be part of it or not. And I, you know, to put it in terms that I later realized, “race” is a code word for White, basically.

What I saw and what I think what the straws that broke the camel’s back ultimately, were the double standards on race. The hypocrisy, the identity politics. And I didn’t understand this until later either. That identity politics as it exists now and as it has always existed as it was constructed is inherently anti-White.

The anti-White premise of it is built in. It not about all people organizing by race to advocate for their interests as a race, as a group. It’s all groups except Whites being allowed and even encouraged to organize racially. And jews first and foremost for that. The way that I was forced to confront the jews was that once I realized that race was important I realized that the attack on the White race was coming mainly from jews. That jews were the most vocal, the most vitriolic attackers of Whites.

JF: Hmm.

TAN: That is how it happened.

JF: Very interesting. Yes. And you made the point, you were sort of talking about how you were deracinated. You didn’t really think in racial terms prior to your racial awakening. I think that is how most, the vast majority of White are, certainly in America, but probably even in Europe, at this point.

TAN: Yes and it’s unnatural. It’s not just that we are not naturally interested in race. It’s actually propagandized to us in that way. We are indoctrinated with the idea that Whites specifically thinking in terms of race is WRONG! It’s EVIL!

JF: Yes, and you hear the leftists and the anti-White is going on, and on, and on, and on about how there’s still White supremacy in America. And if you look at Congress it’s all White people. And yes that is true to a certain extent. But these White people in Congress and these White people controlling our government, which, you know, is becoming increasingly non-White. But the White people that are in government in the media and whatnot, they do not think of themselves as White. They are not out there acting in the best interests of Whites. They are totally deracinated. And in many cases are working for the racial interests of other groups.

[05:12]

TAN: Yes, that is the dishonesty that you’re pointing out of that argument that we live in a White supremacist system because their are Whites in control of the universities, Whites have been, every president, up to till Obama, Whites run the banks, Whites run Hollywood. It’s really disingenuous, because even the Whites that are involved in those things don’t think of themselves as Whites, don’t have a positive identity as a White. Or, if they do, they keep it to themselves. They know that they have to keep it to themselves or, they will lose their position in any of those places.

JF: Now, getting back to the “Jewish Problem“, you said that you sort of woke up to race first and then you recognized the Jews as the primary adversaries of the White race, and I mean there is a long history that we can talk more about. But, I guess just generally speaking, how would you describe the Jewish Problem, or the Jewish Question? I think the Jewish Problem is a much more accurate, you know, description of this issue, you know, this issue with jews.

You know, we see all across the world today, especially America. But like, how would you describe the Jewish Problem to an average person? What are the most important points that people need to understand when it comes to this issue?

TAN: Right. Well it depends on where they are starting from. If they are starting from zero, where I trace my start from. That they are deracinated. You first have to talk to them about race. You have to get them to see this realization that we are under attack as a race, as a group. And that just because you are acting like it doesn’t matter to you, that is not going to protect you. You are not going to be safe because of that. But once you get someone to say that; race does matter, it’s important and I’m White and I’m going to do something about it.

Then you need to point out the jews to them. It doesn’t come automatically to most people. In fact a lot of people will try to continue the pretense that jews are White. And what you point out to them is that the jews control the banks, jews control the media, jews control the politics and jews rule, when it comes down to it. And if you don’t like what is going on in this country, as most White people don’t, you don’t like the jews. You just don’t, maybe, don’t realize it yet. That it is the jews. And maybe at some point in their brain, … And I think again looking book in my own travels, it wasn’t that I didn’t see the evidence of it. It’s that I refused to confront it for my whole life. It was not that I was totally ignorant of it.

So that is the first thing to do. To get them to acknowledge that there is, that all of this stuff is going on, right. Then you come to the Jewish Problem. And the Jewish Problem is really just the flip-side of the anti-semitism, right. It’s our, … It’s what the conflict of interests is called from a White point of view. It’s called the Jewish Problem. The jews call it anti-semitism. Or you could say, from a jew point of view it’s the non-jew problem. We non-jews call it the Jewish Problem. And historically it’s the problem that jews create for us.

The fact is the jews aren’t White. They are genetically distinct, so their DNA is different. They are ideologically hostile. This is even more important, that even if they were, … If you could get over the fact that they are genetically similar [different?] they are ideologically 180 degrees different Whites. They see themselves, … The core of their identity, if you pay attention to their blood libel narrative and the “Holocaust” narrative, is that Whites are the enemy. Especially when they get on their soapbox and lecture everyone about what the blood libel means to them, what the holocaust means to them. You can see it. They lay it out for you.

That their time amongst European is for two millennia has been nothing but them being victimized by European is. It’s nothing but an inversion of reality. They have lived among Europeans by their own choice. They came up from the Middle East to live amongst Europeans. And they come to live amongst Europeans and insist upon living upon us, amongst us, because they benefit from it. And they know they benefit from it. But they flip it around. It’s one of the psychological, one of the basic psychological tricks that they use, is that they flip it around and blame Whites for the conflict of interest, between the two groups.

[10:00]

JF: Yeah, it’s interesting, that the topic of anti-semitism, I mean it’s something that I’ve written quite a bit about on my website and it’s fascinating, … I mean literally, if you look at, I mean, I follow the jewish press and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL]. And when they talk about anti-semitism, they are basically talking about people who criticize jews and who make basic observations about jews. And people who literally quote Jews themselves. You know to demonstrate what sort of agenda they’re promoting and what these jews are up to. That is what anti-semitism is, it is telling the truth about the jews. I mean, it’s really incredible that they continue to really use this word as a weapon against us! I mean there’s other words, “racist,” and “White Supremacist” and there’s many others. But I think the jews have been very effective in weaponizing our political discourse and using it against Whites.

[Image] Ruben-vase.

TAN: Yes, yeah, and uh, the key is that it has to do with point of view. And it’s the relationship between Whites and jews specifically. It’s like one of those drawings that you can see from one of two ways. It’s actually called a “Ruben-vase”*. It’s the most classic example of that. Yeah, I just looked it up today to find out if there was a name for it. And it’s based on this, according to Wikipedia. It’s based on a Danish psychologist, who turns out, of course, to be jew. But, it’s, … From the jewish point of view, it’s just mindless, senseless, hate of jews for no reason whatsoever. And Whites, in typical fashion, we step outside of ourselves, we don’t even take our own side in this, we step outside of ourselves, see it objectively as a conflict of interests. And see it, as a struggle between equals.

And what I’ve come to realize over time, … Initially, that’s how I saw it when I first woke up to it, it’s like:

“Oh, well there’s a conflict here, between two groups, the jews have their own identity and Whites should have their own identity and we’re at odds with each other, at least, some of the time.”

And what I’ve come to realize is that it’s actually far worse than that. It’s Whites have no identity in large part because jews attack whatever sign we show of any sort of consciousness of our racial common interests. And they attack brutally! I mean, it’s just about everything that they accuse the Whites of doing to them, they are actually responsible for doing themselves, they’re basically projecting their own malice onto their enemies.

* [Rubin’s vase (sometimes known as the Rubin face or the figure–ground vase) is a famous set of ambiguous or bi-stable (i.e., reversing) two-dimensional forms developed around 1915 by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin. They were first introduced at large in Rubin’s two-volume work, the Danish-language Synsoplevede Figurer (“Visual Figures”), which was very well received.

Edgar John Rubin (September 6, 1886ing May 3, 1951) was a Danish psychologisted phenomenologist, remembered for his work on figure-ground perception as seen in such optical illusions like the Rubin vase.

Born of jewish parents, Rubin was born and raised in Copenhagen. Enrolling at the University of Copenhagen in 1904, he majored in psychology and finished his magister artium examination in philosophy in 1910.

Sources:

https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Edgartion Rubin

https: //en.wikipedia.orged wikied Rubintion vase]

JF: Right, and we see how Jews frame anti-Semitism as always some irrational, you know, crazed expression of just anti-Jewish hatred for no reason, there’s no evidence, or any points that these anti-Semites are making, they’re just these crazy individuals. And they’ve also just literally pathologized White identity to where if you actually recognize the fact that you are White and you care about the future of White people, you care about our history, our traditions, you are, again, crazy and irrational. I mean it’s just incredible what they’ve been able to do. And I think of, for example, Dr. Kevin MacDonald and the Culture of Critique really explains this all really, very, very well. And that kind of gets into my next question. What are some of the most important books you would recommend, or that you’ve read dealing with these topics?

TAN: Yeah, definitely Kevin MacDonald is the most important, I would have to mention first. And especially for someone who’s first waking up to race and the Jews. It’s a very detailed explanation of what’s been happening historically and largely cites Jews themselves, as a source of lots of quotes and facts about about the case. And, the Culture of Critique, of course, is a three-volume set, I’ve never read that cover-to-cover myself, I’ve actually gone beyond it. It’s definitely worth it if somebody wants to read it from cover-to-cover, and I’ve read large sections of it, as certain topics became of interest to me.

There’s one particular subset that he wrote about the jewish involvement in immigration into the United States that I forward probably once a month to somebody or another whenever immigration comes up and people act like it just happened out of the blue. What’s going on with our open borders. And I thought MacDonald made a great case there in that chapter that he wrote about that, and he made it available in a separate PDF*. Which is relatively short and easy to read.

• [Download of MacDonald’s PDF, Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy: Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy

[15:00]

He also wrote a lot of effective stuff about Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Franz Boas. So if you’re trying to figure out, you know, how did we get to this, state of race, and what happened to race science, then MacDonald is a great source for that.

He was inspired, …

JF: I’m sorry, real quick, … I was just going to say, I have read Culture of Critique, but I haven’t read, … I think there are two books that preceed Culture of Critique in the series. And I haven’t read those. But, I mean, that book is absolutely essential reading because it brilliantly and very scholarly explains and analyses the systematic Jewish assault on Western civilization from a cultural perspective, from an intellectual perspective, from a scientific perspective. I mean, these jews literally took over the West, you know, academically and even politically now, obviously, that is very obvious now.

But back in the 40s, 50s, as you mentioned, Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School, topics that MacDonald expertly addresses and gives a history of. You know, these radical Jewish intellectuals literally took over Western civilization. And has been undermining and destroying it ever since. And, you know, we can demonstrate this with ease, you know, these jews openly admit it. It’s how do we get people to actually understand all this, because there is a lot to it. And I think you can summarize it and break it down pretty simply. But if you want all the details you have to read Culture of Critique.

TAN: That is what I was getting at when I said, it depends on your point of view as to whether something is anti-semitism or not. And what MacDonald does, is he quotes Jews saying these things. And they say it as a good thing. And of course MacDonald is presenting in a way that puts it in a bad light, in a negative light. Bad for Europeans. That it has been destructive to European society, European civilization. And that is what makes it anti-semitism. If you are seeing it from a jewish point of view, well now, someone quoting all these jews, poisonous things about Whites and White civilization, [laughing] yes that is anti-semitism! From our point of view, it’s documenting the Jewish Problem.

JF: Right. Of the jewish genocidal agenda against the West. And that is absolutely what they are up to.

TAN: Right. And it is an agenda that is organized. It is conscious thing. Now, … You can see in the triolgy* MacDonald himself has talked about how he himself became more and more aware of just how deep this problem was. And how, I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but how negative it was. He started of just studying the jews abstractly, objectively and by the Culture of Critique how was basically making an argument in favour ointing the finger of blame at jews for what has happened, certainly in the last 200 years or so, I think is what he covers.

* [A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples.

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism.

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.]

[Image — Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.]

He was inspired by a book, in part he was inspired by a book he came across, I have read cover to cover, called, … It was John M Cuddihy, “The Ordeal of Civility”. [The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity] and the subtitle was, Marx, Freud and Levi Strauss. Focusing on three particular jews who were, that are iconic of what MacDonald calls, jewish intellectual movements. This gurus that lead whole troops of jews, mostly jews anyway. Part of what MacDonald documents is how jews put “goy” out front, several “goy” out front to basically be the face of the movement. But Cuddihy is far more objective, or at least comes across that way. As an Irishman he comes across at least sympathetic to the jews, to there outsider adversarial point of view, towards the West, and towards Anglo-Saxons in particular.

[Image — John M Cuddihy and his book (click image to enlarge).]

Although the thing is it’s not just the Anglo-Saxons that Jews don’t like. It’s the Germans they don’t like, it’s the Swedes they don’t like, it’s the American they don’t like. It’s really any host that they basically have to subdue in order to benefit from, in order to exploit. And that is, …, you know, MacDonald and Cuddihy are both hesitant to identify jews as an enemy or use any terms that go beyond an objective evaluation of the situation.

[20:00]

I mean, McDonald goes further than Cuddihy does in laying out the hostility and it speaks for itself when you lay it out that way, that they’re the enemy, that they think of us as the enemy. I do it myself when I describe how the jewish identity is centered on, the core of it is, identifying Whites or any host that they live amongst really.

But Whites are our concern, and the most recent host for them, as the enemy, and that Whites, if we have a failing at all, it’s in not recognising that, you know where part of the psychological trick they play is that they constantly accuse us of being stupidly, crazily blaming jews for everything. When, the real problem is that Whites, if you want to generalise about the problem, is that Whites don’t blame jews for enough. Whites under-estimate jews. They misunderstand jews. So it’s really a problem of under-estimating them.

JF: Yes, no, and I think that goes to the heart of our problems here in America and really the wider Western world, in that we have never really, well at least in America, we’ve never really dealt seriously with the Jewish Problem and it absolutely is a huge problem.

And guys, if you don’t believe me, I’m gonna have a link to the Renegade Tribune and it’s an article called “Quotes in support of White Genocide”. And it’s just a list of jews making just some of the most outrageous, truly genocidal comments about white people and, I mean, this is something that’s been going on for a very, very long time, certainly during World War II. That’s what World War II was all about. It was all about destroying the one man who actually did stand up to the jews and actually did expose and explain, even in simple terms, the Jewish Problem to his nation and that was Adolf Hitler’s Germany. That is really what all this boils down to, is that we are not real about race and even more importantly we’re not real about the Jewish Question, or the Jewish Problem, I should say.

TAN: Yeah, Hitler’s another one to mention. Mein Kampf, I haven’t read Mein Kampf cover to cover either, I’ve read large sections of it and there is nothing that Hitler has ever, in any translated speech I’ve ever seen or any tract of text that he’s written, nothing that I can find that he’s wrong about.

JF: Amen!

TAN: As far as I can tell he was telling the truth and he told it very well. He was very articulate, in expressing himself.

JF: I’m glad you mention that because by far the most powerful and impactful book that I read, especially waking up to racial realism and the Jewish Problem, you know, I was really into, I originally got started in all this and sort of woke up to the Jewish Problem by researching 9/11 and coming to the obvious conclusion that 9/11 was actually done by Israel and an international network of jewish criminals. And most certainly not Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs, you know, terrorist hijackers. What an absurd, ridiculous story that is! But that was my awakening to the Jewish Problem, but I didn’t really get, you know, into the racial issues until I read Mein Kampf and I mean everything really clicked once I read that book.

And it’s interesting, you know. I remember reading, I think it’s chapter, it’s like chapter 11, or maybe 12 and I think it’s called, “Nation and State” or “Nation and Race” maybe, I can’t remember the exact name of the chapter [Chapter 11: People and Race*] . But it’s really, in my opinion it’s probably the best chapter in the whole book. And he deals with race and he talks about how the White race, “the aryan man” I think he exactly says, is the founder of civilisation and the jews have always been parasites and the corrupters and subverters of civilisation. And I really just read that and was so blown away. I’d never really heard history articulated like that. Wow! Did White people really invent civilisation and all the technology we use today? And the more I thought about is the more obvious it became that absolutely it did. We are the founders of civilisation. No other races have accomplished anything even close to what we’ve accomplished. And I don’t think that’s wrong or supremacist for making that basic, factual observation.

*[Click here to see the post: Mein Kampf: Chapter 11 — Race and People]

TAN: Yeah. About 9/11, let’s talk about that in a little while.

JF: OK.

TAN: I have a difference of opinion with you on 9/11, but let’s talk about that in a bit.

JF: Yeah, sure.

TAN: Just to continue, the influential books that are worth reading, the influential people who have said things about Jews. Revilo Oliver is definitely one of the more recent and important. William Pierce, you could add to that. But Oliver’s “Jewish Strategy” is very good and highlighted just for me, just how far back in time this goes. That it’s an ancient, … The Jewish Problem is an ancient problem. It’s not something that started when Europeans started to wake up to the biological reality of race, in the 17th, 18th centuries.

[25:00]

JF: Right.

TAN: Arthur Gobineau is another one who, predated Hitler. And, by the way, that chapter you mentioned, that chapter 12, … I’m not sure of that is it, either. But race and nation where he talks about that, … But I get into that in some detail when I was discussing Francis Parker Yockley’s book, which is not worth reading, I don’t think.

JF: Hmm, that is, “Imperium”?

TAN: Imperium. And he’s a great writer and he got lots of things right, but I think on race he was wrong. And I can, … He dedicated his book to the hero of World War Two, and he did it just shortly after World War Two. He was writing when everybody else was, or most other people, were putting distance between themselves and the National Socialists and Hitler. He wrote a book about it and dedicated the book to Hitler.

But, what I pointed out, his views on race, … Yockey’s views on race were kind of wishy washy and kind of spiritual. He was against Rationalism and Darwinism because he saw those as some outgrowth of Jewishness, rather than as an outgrowth of Ayran objectivity. And I contrasted Yockey’s opinion on race and nation and the malleability and plasticity of biological attributes like skull shapes.

Yockey went into, or bought in the Boas fraud. Which was this idea that if you move a person from one place to the another the ground shapes them. Now this is funny because Darwinism is that theory. Darwinism explains it as taking generations. Generation after generation has to be shaped by it’s environment. That is the basic idea behind natural selection. But it was even more instructive to contrast what Yockey had to say with what Hitler had to say. His hero, …, you know, he apparently missed that chapter, I guess, …

JF: Right.

TAN: When trying to understand Hitler’s views about race. And Hitler’s views about race, I believe, come down from Arthur Gobineau. I don’t know if he read the book himself directly, but Gobineau’s, “Inequality of Human Races” describes a very popular view of the importance of race and the differences not just between Whites and blacks and yellows, whatever, the continental races. But the differences amongst Whites themselves, the differences, … Gobineau used the term “race” in a very fine-grained senses that used to be used for nation. What nation used to mean, subrace. A more narrowly group of people related natally. And Gobineau was talking really about the distinctions amongst European is. He saw at that time, he was writing in the 1850s, or so. Whites were just stomping all over the world, conquering and colonizing everywhere here and it seemed like everywhere here the Whites went the non-White races were sort of withering and dying away and he, … From his vantage point Whites were going to dominate the planet.

I think a criticism of Gobineau, is that in retrospect he didn’t appreciate the [danger of] jews. Like other European is in his time and up until today you had many European is that are just blind to the jews or consider them some sort of fossil people. I think Gobineau actually used that term, and later it was used by people like Toynbe, and Spengler also. And that attitude is just wrong! The jews are not a fossil people! Implying that they are just inert, and unchanging and ancient. They are a very dynamic and a very deadly force! Very much alive, very much active in what’s going on in the world.

And in the last influential source I would urge [listeners to look into] , is something that I just became aware of recently is a book called, “The Great Jewish Masque” which is, the author is unknown, … People have speculated about the it. It was published in, by Arnold Leese’s, … He had something to do with the publishing of it. From the way the text is phrased, it came out in 1920, I think or there abouts, … It seemed to me like it was Leese’s voice, from other things I have heard from or read of Arnold Leese.

[30:00]

What it is, it’s a, … Basically an exposure of the Jews as historic fraudsters. That the jewish narrative throughout history, the telling of history from a jewish point of view is a giant lie. It’s one, or it’s a series of lies. Things or elements of who they are, just made up. The subtitle is something like, “The Donkey in the Lion Skin”, or something, “The Ass in the Lion Skin” which is some ancient European fable that describes the jews as basically making themselves to be heroic and brave and great, when the reality is quite the opposite. That they are very secretive.

And this idea of jews using masks and disguising themselves is something you will find, … basically every insightful critic of jews have noticed, including MacDonald, including Revilo Oliver, Hitler, is that they use disguises. And MacDonald calls this “crypsis”*. And MacDonald come closest to putting a biological interpretation of what they are doing, closest to calling it out as parasitism, without calling it parasitism, at least until recently. He’s kind of shied away from that. But when you look up what “crypsis” is, and jewish crypsis is basically just this use of camouflage, disguising who they are. It’s a good word, it’s a technically sounding term to describe what they do.

* [In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms. It may be either a predation strategy or an antipredator adaptation, and methods include camouflage, nocturnality, subterranean lifestyle, transparency, and mimicry.]

One aspect about their fraud, which is the fraud about who they are. This is what this Jewish Masque book is about. It’s about the fraud of their history. Of course fraud and Jew go together in many ways. Financial fraud, scientific fraud and so on.

JF: Right. Now in Mein Kampf Hitler actually talks about the greatest jewish deception is that they are this religious minority rather than a hostile, foreign racial element undermining society. And I think that is what it really boils down to. That we have to understand that the jews are a foreign racial entity, not really a religious community, you know, a lot of people get confused and think:

“Oh, jews are Whites and they just have a different religion”.

And that is just not the case at all. I mean jews themselves, denounce their Whiteness and boldly proclaim their Jewishness, you know, what I mean, so?

TAN: Right. And that they are jews even when they are atheist and so forth. But, and you are right, … I skipped over that. When you are having that conversation with people who, maybe are awake to race but insist that jews are White. That is the kind of people that you have to have this heart to heart, you know, lay it on the table. That, no, Judaism is not what jews are about, it’s their people-hood really. That is the term they use for it. The European euphemism for race, that they use. They talk about the continuity of their people-hood and how important that is to them. And they talk about the evil of assimilation and intermarriage, two more kind of code words that they use.

Which is, … You know, if Whites were talking in the ways that jews talk about it, Whites would be accused of being horrible hater racists, you know, for thinking of things in racial terms. But the jews do it more or less openly, using this coded speech for it. They all know what they are talking about. And they all know that it’s their strength. So, and they know it would be their own undoing to say, “Open the borders of Israel to aliens”. Even the Syrians who are their next door neighbours, genetically close to them, they don’t want to open their borders to them. And it’s not because of religion.

JF: Right.

TAN: Religion is just an organizing principle for them. It helps them to maintain their racial integrity, their racial purity.

JF: Right, I completely agree. And that is the most outrageous aspect of the Jewish Problem is just their blatant, in your face, it truly is insulting hypocrisy. Where, for example, we have, wall to wall jewish support. I mean every single jewish organization in America, in Europe. They are all demanding that the West accept unlimited and totally unrestricted, you know, refugees from the Middle East. Quote, unquote “refugees”, I mean these people are invaders. And yet as you mentioned in Israel they are not taking in any refugees. And I mean there are other examples of jewish hypocrisy. But this one is so blatant and in your face and it is so relevant today, obviously with what is going on in Europe.

[35:00]

TAN: Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right?

Hypocrisy is mainly a point of view that appeals to Whites. It’s how we see the world as. The world should be fair and equal and whatever. We view it objectively, right? Objective groups in competition. We duke it out, man to man, and at sunrise with pistols, with swords, or whatever. That tradition, that mindset.

 Whereas the jews, … What’s behind this supposed hypocrisy, this double standard, is really just the single standard of what’s best for jews. And what’s best for the jews and Israel is different from what’s best for jews outside of Israel. Outside of Israel the jews want to be treated as one of many types of people where they can be free to foment division and exploit divisions amongst other people. And so having open borders everywhere here so that they can move freely about, and so that they can move other people freely about is what’s in their best interest. Whereas, in Israel, that is their home, that is their nest. They don’t want to screw that up.

JF: Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Now, I’m curious. Are you familiar with “Dispossessed Majority” by Wilmont Robertson?

TAN: Another book that I have not read cover to cover, but I’ve read large sections of.

JF: That is a phenomenal book actually, I think.

TAN: I like the book overall, but I think he minimizes the Jewish Problem. I think, for instance, he doesn’t state it as the Jewish Problem, he just lists Jews as one of the unassimmulatable minorities alongside Greeks, southern Italians and a few other groups that he, … He basically, … His language to me is where the weakness begins.

That this thinking of things in terms of majority and minority. Instead of saying White, he, … Another thing that I remember about his point of view is that he really disliked the term, “White“. And for good reason I think, because White and been used by the jews. They had basically shoehorned their way into America by making the argument that they were White. And being mistaken as White by amps who had control to exclude them at that point, on the basis that they weren’t White. You brought it up earlier that America, when it was founded, I think they thought that they were leaving the Jewish Problem behind in Europe. And that there wasn’t that many jews in America, and that there wasn’t going to be a problem with jews anyway because jews started off emancipated in the US. Whereas they still weren’t fully emancipated in Europe at the time. They just started off as equal and White in America, at least the Germanized, Western jews that were in America at that time.

But in the 1880s when the Eastern European jews started flooding into America, it was obvious that these were alien people with alien patterns of thinking and hostile to amps. And many amps pointed this out. But Wilmont Robertson was long past. He should have had the benefit of hindsight, writing in the 70s as he was., you know, to just sort of, … I don’t want to accuse him of pussyfooting, he used that term, or truckling, … That there were certain Whites in power at the time that obviously had some sort of racial consciousness, like Richard Nixon. And he was, … In fact the title of his book, “Dispossessed Majority” was a play on some term that Nixon used at the time. I forget what it was now.

But, the, … Back to the language of majority versus minority. Majority is not what makes us, us! We can be in the minority and White is still important. And even White, if you don’t like the term White because it let’s jews in, well, then that means that you have should be more explicit in saying: “No, jews are not White. They are the enemy of Whites”. And I understand that some people are very north western European, entirely

In their heritage and that they want to preserve that, so that they are very stand offish towards Whites that are further out on the fringes of Europe. Perfectly understandable, and perfectly defensible. They should just be able to say:

“This is our country. We created this country. We are north-western European is and we are not going to let you in, not because we are the majority, but because we are north-western European is. We are related to each other. We are more closely related to each other than we are to you!”

And so, I see no problem in, you know, having different gradations of, and different levels of clustering of race. Race, you know, is not a black and white thing necessarily. Of a particular group to exist it has to make a distinction between “Us” and “Them”! It’s a very basic biological distinction, and over time it’s what produces speciation.

[40:04]

Populations, even if they start out being totally related to each other, they cleave for some reason. Geography is often what’s to do with it, amongst humans or hominids it has to do with language and cultural differences, but then it’s like the law of entropy in physics. In species, speciation is the natural way of things. This constant dividing of different species into other species, into other separate groups that breed amongst each other exclusively. And if they do that long enough then they actually become incapable of breeding with each other over time.

JF: Hmm. Interesting. OK, I wanted to move on here and talk about this, … It’s sort about, … Well I guess in the past couple of years I hear people talking and writing more and more about it, and that’s this idea of pathological altruism. Which is put forth, … I mean, I’ve heard Dr. Kevin MacDonald write about it and talk about it., you know, all sorts of pro-white intellectuals and activists and what not.

Jared Taylor comes to mind as well. And, I mean, I think that there maybe is something to this idea of pathological altruism, but from the way that I understand a lot of their arguments, they seem to be basically saying that this is something that is innate, like an innate weakness in White people. And I don’t really agree with that. And after hearing some of your critiques of this idea of pathological altruism, I think that there is a root cause of pathological altruism. There is something that is making us this way. It’s not something that’s necessarily innate within us and I think that’s more of the argument that someone like Dr. Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor would be making. What are your thoughts on this? And maybe if I got anything wrong there, please go ahead and clarify.

TAN: Well I think I’m the main critic. I’m the one who basically started this. Because what I saw from my point of view, it started about two years ago, this talk about white pathology and it solidified ultimately into pathological altruism as the specific pathology that people were talking about. And it definitely has broad appeal. I saw it being echoed in many different places. But I didn’t like it from the beginning, because I thought, “White pathology?” That’s describing the symptoms, it’s not describing the cause. What is the cause? That’s my main critique of it, is if you’ve got a pathology, well, what’s the pathogen? Where’s the germ that’s creating this problem, as you’ve said?

JF: I’m sorry Tan, really quick. How would you describe “pathological altruism”. What are the main points of this argument? Just so people have an understanding of what we mean by, “pathological altruism”.

TAN: Right, it’s a technical term. Altruism as from biology and the study of all species, not just how humans behave. But in this case it’s specifically about White people. Altruism is when a person or an organism makes a personal sacrifice that benefits someone else. And it becomes pathological altruism when it’s benefiting your enemy or someone who’s totally alien from you.

It’s one thing to be altruistic towards your kids or, sorry, your sibling’s offspring, towards your nieces and nephews. They’re not directly your offspring, but you still share some genes with them and you still share some interests with them biologically, culturally. So it makes sense and likewise to the people around you in your race. They are all within the same gene pool with you, they are much more likely to share cultural and political interests with you, than complete strangers, complete genetic, biological aliens.

So pathological altruism is this idea, as you said, you put it very well, what I sensed in it too, in my critique of it is that it’s basically an accusation that Whites are born losers. That we’re born to just give away and born to just be suicidal. That’s what I immediately connected it to was my previous critique of people who looked at what’s going wrong, they sense that something’s wrong, they look around and then they’ve got these people who tell them it’s suicide. Europeans are just killing themselves. I hated that before White pathology came along. As far as I’m concerned White pathology is basically the, “Suicide Meme 2.0”. It’s a refinement.

[45:00]

JF: It’s a more intellectual variation of it.

TAN: Yeah, but like I say, it’s an explanation supposedly for people who are deciding that’s somethings wrong, that they want to know what’s wrong. It’s an answer to their question. And White pathology is more specific than suicide. Pathological altruism is more specific that White pathology.

So, if you think, … Remember, this idea comes from Jared Taylor. He’s the main proponent of this White pathology, this pathological altruism idea. The thing about Jared Taylor is that he presents himself as pro-White, but he also at the same time says, “jews are White”, that they look White to him. He talks about race very explicitly, but for him race means black and White or black and White and brown and yellow. But jews are a totally separate problem in his opinion, that it’s unrelated.

He mentioned one time, when he was put on the spot about this, that he doesn’t want to be, “considered a crank on two issues at one time”. And I thought, that’s really curious, because race and the Jews are intimately related to each other. They’re basically the same problem. The reason why anti-racism exists is because the jews drive it. The jews are the one attacking Whites, calling us racists, psychopathologising us for even thinking in terms of race, it’s the jews doing that! Now, I don’t know how Jared Taylor could think about race, day in and day out, and not realise that the jews are genetically distinct, that they have this hostility, ideologically and politically to Whites and that it’s a historic problem, it’s been going on for millennia.

At first I was very charitable toward Jared Taylor because I saw him as a pro-White voice. He’s out in the open under his own name organising activity, writing very eloquently and speaking very eloquently. But on this issue of the jews, he is dishonest at the very least. I don’t think that he’s self deceiving himself. I don’t think that he really thinks that this is some sort of clever strategy that he’s gonna sneak up on the jews, because if he does, he’s a fool.

You can’t sneak up on the jews. The jews are far more racially conscious than any White person I’ve ever read. Even Hitler talks about how he was naive about the jews and learned about the jews only later in life. And that’s the general trend with Whites, that we only wake up to this late in life, if we wake up to it at all. Whereas jews are teaching their young that the Amalekites* need to be genocided. That the anti-semites need to be hunted down. That the Nazis need to be not tolerated, killed.

* [There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the existence of the Amalekites; all sources mentioning them are either directly based on the Hebrew Bible, or of a far later date than the presumed time of their existence.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or semi-nomadic people who inhabited ancient Israel. They are commonly considered to be Amalek’s descendants through the genealogy of Esau. This is probably based on the association of this tribal group with the steppe region of the Negev and the area of Kadesh (Genesis 14:7). As a people, the Amalekites are identified as a recurrent enemy of the Israelites.

In Judaism, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the jews. In the jewish folklore the Amalekites are considered to be the symbol of evil.

Source: Https: ed / en.wikipedia.orged wikied Amalek]

JF: The Klan, racists, yeah.

TAN: They are trained as soldiers from the get go. From the time that they can first speak. They go to special jewish schools for that purpose. Whereas Whites go to schools where jews are the teachers, teaching them that Whiteness is bad. Racism. Giving us the complete opposite story.

JF: Exactly! And they’re forcing our kids to go to school with Negroes and all sorts of other non-Whites and we’re taught that Whites are the most evil people on the face of the planet and we’re responsible for slavery and the “Holocaust” and genocide. You name it, it goes on and on and on.

TAN: That’s how pathological altruism comes in.

JF: Yeah. I was gonna say real quick [that] I agree with most of what you just said about it. This idea that White people collectively as societies, our governments for example, and other White institutions and organisations, the Catholic Church and some of these other mainstream Christian organisations, the idea that they are literally putting the interests of other racial groups of hostile alien racial groups ahead of their own. That is obviously what is going on, that’s public policy in the United States. That’s how many organisations operate in the United States.

But I don’t think that it’s really something that’s innate within us, I think it’s a result of propaganda. I think it’s a result of the White race being entirely deracinated, you know, at least collectively. And fundamentally I think that it is a result of the Jews, of the parasitic, subversive nature of the jews and what they do to us when we don’t recognise them as the alien, hostile race of people that they really are.

[49:53]

TAN: Right. They have agency. They are very, very active. They are very, very conscious. They are more conscious than Whites are as to their interests as a group, their existence as a group and what they need to do to not only survive, but thrive. And Whites are not. And part of the reason why Whites are not, the largest part, the proximate cause, as a lawyer would say, is jews. That is the first approximation, that is the number one cause of this. Now, my critique of pathological altruism, … What really set me off was when I noticed that every time it came up, the specific examples that I saw being offered, …

“What is pathological altruism exactly, can you point to something concrete?”

It was always things like “cat ladies” or people who adopt alien babies from Africa or Asia. And, you know, basically they would previously said White liberalism. You know, what is “liberalism”? It’s a vague term. But these are specific examples, this, “cat lady” and alien adoption thing. And what I noticed about this is, … This is not a cause. This is a symptom of the poisonous media that is what’s presented by this jewish media as good and right is this kind of stuff. And it’s no wonder that people go and do it!, you know, people naturally do what they look around and they everyone else clucking about, either in favor of or against.

And so we have stopped being a racially conscious group where we talked about miscegenation as if it was a bad thing. Now we are talking about “miscegenation as a bad thing” as a bad thing! Because of the jews. It wasn’t as if White people decided to that on our own.

JF: Right! It’s a direct result of jewish propaganda.

TAN: Of enemy activity. Yes! If the enemy drops bombs on your city, do you blame yourself of letting your city burn? No! The enemy dropped bombs on you. You fight the fires, but you don’t lie to yourself that you caused the fires!

JF: Right. So what I think it boils down to is that the root cause of pathological altruism, you know, among White people is two interrelated factors. Number one is the denial of race. The denial that White people have interests and that we need to be concerned about them and to think racially. But also sort of, you know, obviously very much related to this, is the Jewish Problem!

TAN: Yep.

JF: And what the Jews are up to and what their agenda is. So I mean, if with continue to deny these realities that we need to deal with, then we are going to continue to suffer this “pathological altruism”. And we are going to continue to watch our countries and our nations to crumble.

TAN: Yes. So as far as MacDonald goes, he has taken up this White pathology and pathological altruism argument. He got it from Jared Taylor. I think he parrots it because he respects Jared Taylor as a colleague, another academic intellectual type who has pro-White intentions. I think he is mistaken there. But, MacDonald is responsible for taking it a step further. MacDonald has actually tried to come up with a thesis that literally roots it in our genes.

He argued that, this pathological altruism is inborn and comes from our Ice Age hunter gather ancestors. That because of the climate in which White people evolved for 15,000 years during the Ice Ages. That, that laid the pattern in our genes, that with are genetically programmed to be egalitarian and tolerant and that we have moral, that we form moral groups rather than ethnic groups. That we have groups based on ideas rather than family relations like Middle Easterners do, like the jews do.

And I think that, you know, that could all be very true, … But I think, …

JF: I was going to say, I think, I think there is something to a lot his arguments. But maybe we just interpret them differently.

TAN: Well, one problem is this., you know, he points to Sweden as the epitome of the White pathological altruism, White pathology. And the problem with that is, … He says it’s because Northern Europeans are the most hunter gatherer of all the different European is. They have the most hunter gatherers. They also have the most Ayran in them genetically. And the Ayran mindset is completely at odds with squishy, wishy washy liberal attitude. There are some similarities.

I haven’t really written about this before, but I thought about it, how, you know, egalitarianism is not purely a hunter gatherer thing. You can see elements of it in this “band of brothers” peer type attitude that even the Ayrans had. That they were amongst equals of the nobility at least. That they saw an aristocracy. They saw differences and the need for a hierarchy. But amongst the people at the top, the Aryans at the top who were running whatever society they conquered, they saw themselves as a band of brothers, as equals in a way within that group.

[55:08]

JF: Yeah, and I think some of these qualities and characteristics that MacDonald talks about and, you know, sort of ties it to evolution and how Whites evolved throughout the ice age and what not and the geography that we were living in, and what not. I think that there is something to these arguments, but I think that what’s even more important is that the Jews sort of recognise these traits and exploit them to the hilt. I mean really, they understand our psychology. They have really studied these things. Look at Bernays* and all these other Jewish propagandists. They know how to do this stuff scientifically.

* [Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the ‘herd instinct’ that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis’s award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.

Born 1891 in Vienna to jewish parents, Bernays was nephew to psychoanalyst pioneer Sigmund Freud. His father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud’s wife Martha Bernays. His mother was Freud’s sister, Anna. In 1892 his family moved to New York City. In 1912 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in agriculture, but chose journalism as his first career. He married to Doris E. Fleischman in 1922.

In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, he sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom”. On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers. The New York Times (one April 1929) printed: “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom’”. This helped to break the taboo against women smoking in public. During this decade he also handled publicity for the NAACP.

Source: Http: ed / en.metapedia.orged wikied Edwardtion Louistion Bernays]

TAN: Yes. Manipulative. They are manipulative and they’re ruthless in the manipulation. They are hyper aware, hyper sensitive and willing to do whatever they have to do to manipulate their host to behave however they need it to behave. The thing about MacDonald is you can use his own arguments that he makes in Culture of Critique and he’s made since. He went on, … He had two recent interviews with Nordfront that were very, very good. I recommend to anyone who likes MacDonald. And he himself lays out that he thinks culture is very important and that it’s critical. That’s why he wrote a book about the culture of critique.

And yet, as I say, the jewish influence in recent history is the proximate cause for the degeneracy that we see around us. All the stuff that people point at and say, “That’s pathological altruism”. Well, the jewish finger prints are all over it! The jewish control and dominance of the media and the sick messages that they send out, portraying this degeneracy as normal, as heroic, as something to celebrate! That’s the number one cause of the degeneracy that you see. It’s people ingesting that poison and it’s no wonder that people get sick and die from that kind of stuff.

JF: Yes. Very well said, and I want to talk more about the jewish media here in a few minutes. Really quickly, you mention this idea of White suicide and this is something that I have heard Jared Taylor talk about this idea of White suicide, how Whites are literally committing suicide and implementing policies that are suicidal in nature.

And again I think that is a very flawed argument because I think they are not suicidal, I think they’re genocidal and they are coming from the organised jewish community and their puppets., you know, their goyim puppets in key positions of power and influence in America, certainly. And you know, what’s incredible is really, most important positions in the federal government, in Congress in the Obama Administration are actually controlled by jews themselves. So it’s certainly not suicidal if the jews, a racial foreign element, are implementing policies that are destructive to us. That’s not suicide, that’s genocide.

TAN: That’s right. That’s right. They don’t identify positively with Whites, in fact they identify negatively. They see Whites as the enemy. So, yes, it’s not suicide. The number one tip off is that suicide is a very personal decision. You consciously decide, “I’m gonna end my life” for whatever reason and you do it. That’s suicide.

What’s happening is the people who actually control the levers of power or at least have some sort of influence over it. They are the figure heads, for instance the President of the United States, the President of various other countries in Europe. They are not suicidal, they are almost the polar opposite. They are so concerned about themselves and their own personal interests and that’s really what the problem is, is the over-concern for personal interests and a complete lack of consideration for their race, for the larger group. They think that they can live without their larger group.

JF: And that to me is the epitome of this idea of Whites being deracinated. There’s a disconnect between Whites as individuals and Whites as a wider community, a wider racial community.

TAN: Right.

JF: And we have to understand that. We have to understand that we are part of a wider community and we have to start thinking in these terms if we want to compete and eventually retake our countries. I think that is happening. I think there are more people realising these sorts of things. Go ahead.

TAN: Beyond merely competing, we have to go beyond seeing the jews as yet another group that wants to exploit us. That’s when we come to what is a better thesis for understanding the relationship between Whites and jews, is parasitism.

[60:02]

That if you look at it in biological terms, and the Jews are constantly dropping hints that you should look at it in biological terms. When they talk about ant-semitism, they talk about it as a disease. They talk about it as an infection. As a virulent thing. And the reality is, … If you look up virulence you find out, … What does virulence mean? Virulence is the technical term for the damage that a parasite causes it’s host. That’s what virulence is. The more virulent a parasite is the more damaging it is, the more deadly it is to it’s host.

And actually, the Nordfront guys brought up a point that a true parasite basically can co-exist with it’s host for an extended period of time, whereas a parasite-like entity that kills it’s hosts is called a parasitoid.

JF: Interesting!

TAN: I thought that’s interesting. A fine distinction. They’re parasitic basically and that’s the best way, I think, to make sense of all of it. All of the pieces fall into place when you understand it that way.

Many, many people, even people who aren’t racialists have written about the financial parasitism of the banker class or the donor class or whatever. That they are behaving in a parasitic way, financially. Well, financial [parasitism] is just one aspect of the whole thing. The Israel lobby in Zionism, is another, more, … It’s related to money, but it’s also about sovereignty, it’s about redirecting the resources of many other nations to the benefit of Israel. Shipping them money, shipping them arms, making promises to protect them. The leaders of the United States and European countries say things in defence of jews and Israel that they would never say about even defending their own countries that they run! And, you know, Trump is a good example of that.

JF: Right. That was actually the next topic. I mean, this idea of, … Really the most accurate way of viewing the Jew is as a parasite, right? I mean, that is really [true] in my opinion. And I think you’ve elaborated on this in great detail on some of your radio shows about this reality. I mean, that is the way, you know, we have to understand these people.

Again, this is something that the Germans talked about, you know, the National Socialists clearly understood this and wrote about it. And, you know, made it a central aspect of what they were trying to communicate to the German people.

As you mentioned there’s many forms of this parasitism, financial, obviously political. Look at the holocaust industry. This is in my view the most outrageous and truly infuriating and blood boiling, … I mean, I cannot stand these jews and this fake “Holocaust” story. And the way they just exploit us financially, emotionally, culturally. You can’t avoid the “Holocaust” in the West today.

TAN: That’s right. The elements of the parasitism that came to me, that stood out to me were the infiltration, the manipulation, the exploitation. This pretty much covers all of what the Jews do, how they do it and that all points to parasitism. They are exploiting secretively, furtively, they are exploiting a host. They do whatever they can to subdue our defences, in fact what the jews have done is they’ve hijacked our defences, they’ve actually turned our defensive mechanisms, our defensive institutions into institutions that benefit them. That protect them, within our own countries. And the “Holocaust” is a big part of that.

JF: Yes, and that kind of gets into the next topic. And that’s this “cuckservative” meme that is a relatively phenomenon. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you write and talk about this subject, but I’m curious. What are your general thought on it? And the idea that it expresses, because I think it’s a very powerful, devastating critique of American politics.

TAN: It is devastating. I think most of the people who use the term are not even really fully conscious of just what it is they’re implying. I think many people are talking about it in terms of the inter-racial sex fetish. That cuckolding fetish. But it really traces back, … The root of the whole concept is the exploitation of a parasite, of its host and the cuckoo bird. You know, how the cuckoo bird is this giant bird, comes lays this giant egg in some smaller birds nest and then that giant egg hatches into a giant, screeching, demanding chick, …

JF: Just a disgusting bird.

[65:00]

TAN: It hatches early. It’s genetically different than the bird it’s parasitising and it kicks out their eggs and then screeches at the top of it’s lungs to be serviced by the other bird. And if you dig deeper into even that, and I haven’t heard anybody but Jews really go into this, … There’s one jewish biologist that wrote about this. How a cuckoo bird, actually… There is a struggle between the cuckoo parasite and it’s host. The host that tries to defend itself, by say, knocking the cuckoo bird egg out, the cuckoos will come and punish that bird by destroying it’s nest.

And so, there’s a give and take, there’s a push back and forth. And I see that even, … I haven’t dug into the details of it yet. There’s still lots to do with demonstrating the Jewish parasitism of Europeans over the course of millennia. But one of the elements that you should see if it is parasitism is you should see some attempts by Europeans to sort of adapt and do something to defend themselves. In fact, you could see all of the expulsions that Europeans have done over the centuries as one bit of evidence in that Europeans have tried to defend themselves. It’s not suicide, they’ve repeatedly tried to defend themselves but they are never able to achieve full consciousness and they just end up kicking the problem next door.

It’s like, if you’ve got roaches in a motel and you just gas one apartment, the roaches move next door to the other apartments and then ultimately they filter right back in to the apartment that was cleaned out and that’s what, … The Jews have actually adapted to that kind of treatment of them over time too. They’ve counter-adapted to being expelled. It’s part of their life-cycle now, being expelled. They’ve made it into their narrative.

The holocaust narrative is really just the most recent example of the narrative that they’ve been telling for two thousand years, about how they’ve been horribly oppressed by every host that they’ve ever tried to exploit, and it’s become the story that they tell. George Lincoln Rockwell wrote a great metaphorical story about it, “The Ducks and Geese”. The parable of the ducks and geese.[Actually it’s, “The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens“]

JF: And we see how, not only how important this fake holocaust story and just this narrative of jewish persecution is. We see how central this is to their over all agenda. But, I mean, it’s just something that defines them as jews, it’s a central aspect of their jewish identity. There’s public polls, the Pew Research Center does research on different ethnic groups in America. And the most important aspect of jewish identity, when you ask jews and when you poll jews, whether it’s in America or anywhere really in the whole world, is their identification with this fake “Holocaust” story. And that they’re victims and that their people have this history of oppression and the whole world hates them. It’s a central aspect.

TAN: Right. That is the number one answer that they provided as to what it was that made them identify as jews. That is the number one thing that they cite themselves. Jews polling jews or Pew polling jews about it.

JF: Exactly. You know, another interesting aspect of jewish parasitism and just how effective it’s been and how out of control it is in America, is again, going back to this idea of a cuckservative. We have these mostly White guys in the GOP, in the Republican party, who portray themselves as these great American patriots. When in reality all they are doing is serving the interests of Jews, on every single key aspect of public policy. Whether it’s foreign policy, domestic policy, they always bow down to the Jews; and yet they’re able to effectively present themselves as these American patriots and American heroes.

TAN: Right. Yes, they’re not cat ladies. They’re selling out their own kind, either consciously or unconsciously for their own personal benefit. For power, for fame, for fortune, whatever it is that drives them to do it. Or, … There’s also an angle to it of vicarious racial identity. That they know they can’t identify as White. I think of this when I think of people like Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity, although less. I think they’re waking up to it a little bit themselves, but in the past it seemed to me like, they, … People like that take a certain joy out of talking about jews, like they’re this people to sympathise with and to defend and to give your life in their defence. [It] just makes you the most wonderful person in the world. And the cuckservative thing cuts through all that! And even more specifically, “kikeservative”, emphasises the fact that what they’re doing is sick.

[70:00]

If you want to talk about White pathology, that’s the number one evidence of White pathology is when people actively identify with their enemy, and talk about their enemy in these glowing, positive terms. You’ve got to be mentally ill.

JF: Yeah, they literally are servicing their own racial enemy. The racial element that wants to destroy everything that they stand for. I mean it’s amazing.

TAN: I don’t mean to cop out and say:

“Oh, they’ve got to be crazy!” because I think that’s what it is.

When people say:

“My enemy is stupid” or, “My enemy is crazy” what that really is, is they are copping out saying, “I can’t explain it” or, “I don’t want to explain it so I’m just gonna call it stupid or crazy”.

The reality is that I think there is a way to make sense of what these people are doing. Which is that they just don’t care about their race. They in fact think that their race is a liability and they need to cut the chord with their race in order to progress, to make their career, or to at lest maintain their career. That they have to act like they don’t care. They have to show that they don’t care.

It’s becoming more and more obvious, this, “Black Lives Matter” thing and what happened at Mizzou (University of Missouri). Where you’re basically now being pressured if you’re in any form of position of power as a White man, or White woman, to renounce your race and accept guilt for your race.

That’s part of what I didn’t like about White pathology also, is it’s basically related to that, what White liberals do, denouncing their Whiteness. When White racialists talk about White pathology and pathological altruism, what are they doing? They’re not saying they, themselves, are born pathological, that they are behaving pathologically. No, it’s those other Whites! It gives them a sort of boost in their brain to say:

“Oh yeah, I’m not broken, but all those other Whites are.”

It’s taking responsibility in the most dishonest way, of not really taking responsibility yourself, personally, but saying somebody else is responsible for it. And the funny thing about that is when I made this critique, the very first thing and the loudest criticism of me, that comes at me was:

“Oh you just want to blame the Jeeews for everything, you want to shift all the blame to the Jews”.

It’s a stupid argument. It’s simplistic and it’s easy to take it apart. What I’m actually arguing is that there’s two here, there’s at least two parties involved, jews and Whites, and they’re in conflict. And it’s not that it’s just the jews or just Whites. It’s the people who say it’s suicide that are really saying that there’s no jews involved:

“Don’t pay any attention to those jews behind the curtain”.

JF: Exactly, it’s all dumb Whitey’s fault. Now, there’s a couple other topics that I wanted to wrap up with here and one of them is, two of the most important issues in my opinion. Two issues that are central not only to the White struggle but just the struggle for truth and honesty and decency and some sort of integrity in our society is being honest about the true history of World War Two, so “Revisionism”. And then 9/11 truth. You know, being honest about 9/11 and what really happened and who was really behind it. And it sounds like, based on your comment earlier in this interview, you might disagree with me on 9/11.

But I’m just curious, what role do you see for Revisionists, for people that are doing critical research into World War Two, into World War One, into this alleged jewish “Holocaust” story? Which in my view has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked once and for all. We have the evidence and proof to explain everything that we’re saying about this event, this alleged event. So I’m curious, what are your thoughts on these two important topics?

TAN: I think different things, different issues appeal to different people, because of where they’re coming from, where their background is. I think in general, what you’re getting at is there are these other, sort of related movements that are on the periphery of the White struggle, what you called, … Is being pro-White, having a racial identity and fighting for your race and those other things attract truth seekers. That’s the general description you could give to it. There are people that sense there is a problem. They don’t accept the mainstream narrative, the mainstream explanation for what the problems are.

[75:00]

As I’ve pointed out many times the mainstream explanation of what’s wrong is racism! Whites, White supremacy! Those are the problems according to the Jewish mainstream narrative. And there are people who that doesn’t compute with. I mean they look at things like 9/11, they look at things like the “Holocaust”, … Other things that I could think of that are similar, … Men’s Rights or even the Counter Jihad people. They are all coming at it from different angles. It reminds me of that cartoon or parable of the elephant, the wise men, … The blind wise men and the elephant. They all feel a different part of the elephant, they all describe it in a different way. But it’s all connected and it’s all, you know, the Jews are all behind it.

[Image] The jewish elephant and the blind wise men.

The problem with these other things, whether it’s 9/11 truth and maybe to a lesser extent “Holocaust” revisionism, but certainly with Men’s Rights and certainly with Counter Jihad is that it’s full of jews. There are Jews trying to derail you. There are jews trying to get you stuck just there, … Don’t go any further! Don’t think about White racial consciousness. A lot of the people involved aren’t White or are only half White. And there are a lot of half jews or part Jews are there to. Who are pretending to be White. And there are a lot of gate keeping going on. So it’s a two edged sword.

Those other related areas, 9/11 included, are ways in which people see that there is something wrong with the system. And for them different things are the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and hopefully they then proceed through the gate to full racial consciousness, to full truth of it all.

See: The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

JF: Absolutely! And in my opinion, I mean, the racial issues are by far, you know, the most issues that I’m dealing with. But I do think that revisionism and 9/11 truth, and just being honest about the nature of the media and the Jewish media and how it’s being used to deceive us and what not. Just being, you know, being honest about all these subjects. I think it’s important and critical for our success.

But I do agree with you, there are a lot of people in 9/11 truth that really kind of get bogged down and they, you know, they don’t continue to progress to where we are at, where we are talking about these issues.

TAN: I’ve read people that have come through 9/11 truth. Mike Delaney is one that I think of that have pointed out that there’s lots and lots of jews. They are creating disinformation. So they sense that there is something there that needs to be covered up. They sense that it’s a weak point. And they flood in there as gate keepers, as charlatans to keep people busy poking around all the different theories there.

JF: Right.

TAN: My own opinion about 9/11 is, “I don’t know” I wasn’t there. I’m not involved with it directly, I don’t know anyone directly, … Well, actually I knew a few people who were involved, who were at Ground Zero, … I don’t know anybody who was directly killed, they wouldn’t be able to tell me anything anyway. But, the thing is it’s, it’s some, … Whatever happened there is, … The argument that I often hear is, the argument that you laid out pretty well. The jews or Israel did 9/11. And we can be certain of that.

And I would only say to that, is we can’t be certain. I don’t know that for certain that it was the president of Israel or a bunch of Israelis that planned the whole thing and did it. You get into these gradations of argument where you can argue endlessly. Just how much did Israel do? Did they, at the very least, … And what I’m comfortable with accepting is that they know that there were Muslims that were doing it. And that they didn’t in any way communicate to United States security that, that this was going to happen. So they didn’t prevent it. And you get finer, more and more gradations all the way to a surreal, … It was all just crisis actors, … It didn’t really happen. It was just a Hollywood production.

And I understand why people can go that far, because they see Hollywood productions, … But, they see what the jews are capable of putting up on the screen, you know, that they can manufacture things that look real, … But, to me that is not necessary. I don’t even need to dig into the details of 9/11. By the time people told me that I should look into 9/11, I was well past that. I already understood that, … I understood race, and I understand that the jews are the enemy.

So, once you understand that, I think that is really what the important thing is. This other things, 9/11, the “Holocaust”, all the details of the “Holocaust”, arguing that amongst each other, Men’s Rights, Counter Jihad, … All that stuff just becomes peripheral, once you realize that race is real, the White race is what is important to you, … And the Jews are the biggest enemy of that, … Then yes, you could say that the jews are capable of just about anything.

[80:00]

The Jews give the commands to our government. Sure, Jews rule! I mean, if not directly occupying the office of the President, they are the ones who narrate our imaginations. Using their control of the media, they put the ideas in our heads as to what is good and what is bad and with that power, it’s like the power to print money, there’s almost infinite spill-over from that into other things.

I want to say, though, that it’s not infinite. The Jews do not have infinite control and that’s what makes me sceptical about elaborate things, like 9/11 or some of these other things that people say are just hoaxes, entirely. Even when they say the “Holocaust” was a hoax, or the “Holocaust”, the Germans had camps. They put Jews in those camps. They distinguished Jews from themselves racially, biologically. That is real. The hoax part is the soap and the lamp shades and the six million, …

JF: And the gas chambers, yeah.

TAN: … and all of the exaggerations that the jews tell about it. But it goes deeper than just the “Holocaust“, even. It’s questioning the jews on any aspect of their history. Take disagreeing with the jews about the fact that they are victims, historically. That’s as bad as “Holocaust” denial. It maybe doesn’t have a word for it other than anti-semitism, anything more specific than that. But that is really what you need to do is realise that the whole thing is a lie. Not just the “Holocaust”, but their whole history from their point of view, is a lie.

And this is another point to make, is history itself is a story from a certain point of view. People like to describe history as having an objective basis in reality. And yes, there are facts upon which given history is based. Events happen. But even when you have something that happened recently. If you have two people involved and you both of their stories you’re gonna get two different versions of what happened. Which one is true? It’s hard to tell. And even you standing outside of it listening to both sides, you create a third opinion, a third view of what happened. I’m not trying to say that it’s all relative but it’s more relative I think than most people give credit to. I’m a rational, logical person. I believe in reality based, … I believe in science. I’m grounded in that way and I’m sceptical of arguments based on just hand waving and assertion, you know, saying:

“You’ve got to believe this otherwise you’re stupid”.

And that’s one of the things that’s left a bad taste in my mouth about 9/11, is when people come and make an argument like that to me:

“Oh, you believe that 12 Arabs or 19 Arabs did 9/11? You’ve got to be an idiot!”

Actually I just don’t know. And I know I don’t trust my government, I know I think my government answers to jews and serves jews more than it serves it’s own citizenry. I know that that’s a fraud. I know (Franz) Boas was a fraud. What more do you need to know other than jews are the enemy. Why dig into the details?

JF: That’s fair enough, I understand where you’re coming from.

TAN: I’m not opposed to the people who want to spend their life digging into the details of 9/11 or the “Holocaust” or any of the other aspects. That research is valuable because then you can, like MacDonald’s books, you can point at it, you can say:

“OK, I can build from there. I can stand on the shoulders of those giants and I can do something beyond that. Something meta. Taking their results and all the detailed arguments that they’ve laid out and going beyond it”.

JF: Yeah, OK, that’s fair enough. I have a much clearer perspective of where you’re coming from on these issues, so thanks for clarifying all that. And I totally hear what you’re saying, it’s a good argument although, obviously I’d probably disagree slightly.

Now to wrap up here I just wanted to get your take on Trump, on Donald Trump especially and just the Presidential campaign in general. I’ve been frankly very impressed with Donald Trump. I’m not trying to say he’s some kind of White nationalist or anything like that, but I think he’s saying a lot of very important things and I do find him to be a genuine person and I think he’s running a brilliant campaign. So, what’s your take?

TAN: He’s definitely creating an earthquake and several earthquakes, a daily earthquake, you know:

“What did Trump do today to turn things upside down?”

JF: Right!

[85:00]

TAN: And in that respect it’s good. I think, first of all, though, Trump is an example, a physical example of how the Jews infiltrate, how they intermarry with the non-jewish elite and form alliances with them and together how this goes forward. You know, Trump as unlikely as he is to say:

“I’m a proud White man and I’m gonna do what’s best for White people.”

He does say things that come very close to that about jews. How he’d be a good President for jews because he’d defend Israel a thousand percent and all that stuff. So he’s a good example of how jewish influence actually works. But I think on the flip side, on the good side for Trump is that he exposes this Judeo-Liberal democracy for the fraud that it is. That basically, it’s pretty obvious that the people behind the curtains are jews, because of the way that Trump is so obsequious to Jews and Israel, but also how they react. How jews are very, very much trying to incite fear and loathing of Trump. How they compare him to Hitler, even though the comparison is laughable. In their minds it’s real! That’s a measure of how hyper sensitive they are, the old joke about:

“Your broken leg is a comedy and my hang-nail is a tragedy”.

Everything is another tragedy, another holocaust about to happen from a jewish point of view. That’s part of the secret of their success, they don’t let any detail slide. And when it comes to Trump, they did the same thing with Obama. They complained that he was a horrible anti-semite and every little thing he did that they didn’t like:

“Obama is a horrible anti-semite”.

So this is becoming, I think, more obvious to more Whites more quickly than it ever has in the past and Trump is, he’s not doing it on purpose. I think, … The way I understand Trump is that he is just a pragmatist. He wants to be President and he knows that all he has to do is say things that are popular. And he doesn’t care if other candidates wouldn’t say those things. They know what is popular too. They know shutting down the border, building a wall, deporting them all, all of that stuff, “Make America great again”, they try to mimic him to the extent that they can but they all answer directly to jewish donors.

The jewish donor class that funds their campaigns and who would destroy them in the media if they were to say those things that Trump is saying. Well Trump is saying it and the media is trying to destroy him, the jewish media, but he’s using Twitter and Facebook to go directly to the people. It’s the first candidate who’s really done that himself. I mean, candidates have in the past had those social media accounts, but Trump actually communicates mostly that way and most of the jews media tearing down at him is reacting to what he’s doing.

JF: Yeah, and that’s what I mean by he’s running a very effective campaign and that he’s genuine because he is himself out there operating his own Twitter account. And he speaks very well in front of crowds I think. Again, the issues that he’s bringing up are very important and resonating very deeply with, well, sort of, most of America! Well, I think a lot of his views on the border, for example, are mainstream amongst many Americans.

TAN: And even many non-Whites. He’s actually more popular with non-Whites than the media. That was one of the things that they tried on him first is:

“Oh no, he said this horrible stuff about Mexican immigrants, and that’s it, he’s lost the Mexican vote”.

The assumption being that Mexicans vote as a block and they all vote pro-immigration and the reality is different than that. And Trump has demonstrated that.

I think the other main point about Trump to keep in mind is that we’ve seen this pattern before, in fact it’s been the pattern of White politicians for a hundred years, at least the last fifty, where they promise things like Nixon did with his, “silent majority” quote. That was the thing that the “dispossessed majority” that we were talking about earlier, … Nixon talked about the “silent majority” and he talked in private with Billy Graham about that it was the jews that were the enemy and attacking him although he didn’t seem to really, fully appreciate just how much of an enemy they were. How implacable they were.

But we’ve seen it with Schwarzenegger in California. You should be familiar with that. Maggie Thatcher in Britain did it. They “dog-whistle” on race, that’s what the left calls it, dog-whistling is saying things in code like Trump does that are popular and they know are popular. But then when they get into office they don’t actually deliver.

[90:00]

When they get into office they don’t actually deliver, they do the the opposite, in a lot of cases, in fact, like Thatcher did, like Reagan did, or Nixon, uh, Trump would be a change from the normal if he were to get into office and actually try to do what he’s said he’s going to do, … Building a wall, and everything, and he said he’s going to build a wall, but he also said he’s going to have a great big door in it. That’s evidence that Trump understands that he can say whatever he wants to get elected. He tells one group of people I’m going to build a giant wall and for the benefit for the other people who are skeptics or don’t want to hear that, he says I’m going to have a big fat door in it, and he’s trusting that people are too stupid to put those two together and see that they contradict each other.

JF: Um hmm, …

TAN: And, for the most part, I don’t think it is stupidity. I think it’s just people, they want to hear, … they want leadership, certainly. White people, are just thirsty for somebody to push back against this smothering, downward spiral, that even if they don’t think in terms of race, they think in terms of their country. Their country is going to hell and they want to take their country back. Often times they don’t think any further than that – they don’t think to themselves, take if back from who? From the Mexicans? It’s not the Mexicans who let themselves in here. They don’t want to confront the fact that it’s race and it’s the jews that are the enemy.

And on Trump, the ones who are cheering for Trump, at least half of them are in that camp. They’re cheering for Trump because he’s saying things they want to hear. But they aren’t thinking beyond that to – can I really believe this guy? Is he really going to do what he’s saying? He says he loves Israel and he loves jews – his daughter’s married to one, he does business with them, … Can I really trust him to fight the enemy?

JF: Yeah, I know, those are all good points and very well taken, I think, um, we’d be fools to simply assume that Trump is just going to get in there and do everything that he’s now saying. And, as you mentioned with his comments about he wants to have a big door to let people in through the border are a little bit troublesome, yeah.

But, I mean, definitely we should hold his feet to the fire as best we can. And that my strategy has always been that as soon as he got into the campaign was to really try to reach out to his supporters, to people who are paying attention to Trump – your tea party types, your traditional conservatives and old time Republicans, and to sort of draw them into our camp. Into the race realist camp, into the quote, unquote, “anti-Semitic camp”, which, as we talked about, is just being honest about jews. And maybe that’s been effective to a certain degree, maybe not, I don’t know. But I really think we have the potential to reach out and get more and more people into our way of thinking as a result of what Donald Trump is doing with his campaign.

TAN: Yeah, it only takes a little bit of nudging because the evidence is right there for people to see, if they see it in the right way. They can see, for instance, that for the last several election cycles, Whites have been psycho-patholgized by the jewish media, that not liking, disliking and distrusting Obama is just a sign that Whites are racist. And not voting for Obama:

“You’re a racist, just because you’re White.”

You don’t even have to say that it’s because you’re White. The tea partiers are a good example of that – where they formed and the jewish media psycho-pathologizes them for being racists, and when they bend over backwards to demonstrate that they’re not racist. Meanwhile, you have jews openly expressing their dislike for Obama, even though they ended up voting for him. And their distrust for him. And they’re doing the same thing with Trump this time around and the narrative for that, is this is just jews looking out for what’s best for the jews and it makes sense.

JF: Right.

Tan: To me, that’s one of the things you can point to your mom or pop, or neighbor next door, as something very obvious: That jews are not White, they’re not treated to the same standard politically as Whites. The jews can organize like any non-White group for their own best interest, do it openly, and there’s no problem. In fact the problem only starts if YOU say there’s something wrong with it, then you’re a racist hater.

Meanwhile, Whites, just the rumor of Whites starting White student unions is this unthinkable disaster from the Jewish media’s point of view. They can’t stand the idea that Whites might actually organize. Even if it’s just a rumor – and I don’t think it is just a rumor, I think there actually is a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having, that it’s not going well and I think there’s a nugget, a growing awareness that Whites are having that, this is not going well and it’s because they’re White, that they’re going to have to face this at some time or another. The jew thing I think will come after that, for some people the jew thing comes first and then they discover Whiteness. It depends.

JF: Right, obviously both of them are interrelated and connected and very, … They are easy to piece together once you start thinking about these things.

TAN: Right, the opposite of what Jared Taylor said, is that they’re two separate things, they’re not related to each other.

JF: And anybody being honest should recognize that. Hey, Tanstaafl, we are going to go ahead and wrap up now, this has been a very interesting discussion for sure and I just want to thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day to join me here today.

TAN: Well, I thank you John for having me on, you’re very knowledgeable, you understand things very well and you articulate yourself very well, you put it very well. Whenever I hear you speak about these issues, I’m always impressed.

JF: Thank you, I appreciate that, that certainly means a lot coming from you, because I’ve learned quite a bit over the years from reading your site and listening to your radio program. So I really do appreciate that!

TAN: Thank you.

JF: OK. Thanks Tan and thanks everybody.

[96:00]

END

 See Also:

The Realist Report Interviews TANSTAAFL — 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report – Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite — TRANSCRIPT

Luke Ford – JQ Debate with Age Of Treason – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

The Balfour Declaration

William Pierce

[Image] Arthur Balfour

 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/background-to-treason-the-balfour-declaration/

Editor’s Note:

The following text by William Pierce is an excerpt from a longer text, “Background to Treason: A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Part 1: From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration.” I simply removed everything before the discussion of the Balfour Declaration. Pay no mind to Pierce’s passing reference to the now thoroughly discredited Khazar account of the originals of Ashkenazi Jewry.

The middle of the 19th century saw a growing restlessness in the Jews of eastern and central Europe. The Industrial Revolution and all the changes in trade, transportation, and life-styles that came with it had broken up old patterns and created new opportunities, and the Jews began reorganizing themselves to take advantage of these.

They created two new movements: one, preaching internationalism and class warfare was directed primarily toward the Gentiles. It was Communism, and its principal founder was the Jew Karl Marx.

The other, directed toward the Jews only, preached Jewish nationalism and solidarity It was Zionism, and one of its first proponents was Moses Hess, a close associate and friend of Marx. Hess’s book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, was one of the seminal documents of the Zionist movement.

[Image] Moses Hess

The Zionists wanted to establish an exclusively Jewish national state, from which they could direct the activities of the Jews spread throughout the Gentile world — and eventually direct the Gentile world itself Toward this end groups of Jews from Europe began buying up land in Palestine and establishing Jewish colonies there in the 1870s and 1880s.

This colonization activity inevitably provoked the fear and resentment of the Palestinians, and in response the Turkish administrators took measures to limit the activities of the Zionists in Palestine. The Jews countered by seeking political allies among the Gentiles in England and Europe and looking for ways to bring pressure against the Turks.

To coordinate their moves they organized a Zionist Congress, which held its first meeting in August 1897, in Basle, Switzerland The leading figure at the first Zionist Congress was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), whose book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), published in Vienna the year before, contained a cogent summary of the Zionist position.

 [Image] Theodor Herzl

According to Herzl:

“Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic…. Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.”

He saw this anti-Semitism, which arose naturally wherever the Jewish presence made itself felt, as a blessing, because it kept the Jews conscious of their unique status, prevented their assimilation, and united them in their efforts to overcome their Gentile hosts:

“… [T]hus united, we suddenly discover our strength…. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”

Even before the Zionist Congress met, Herzl had been attempting to persuade the Turks to give the Jews free rein in Palestine. First he tried blackmail, hinting that he and his fellow Jews, by using their influence, could either silence or intensify the agitation against Turkey then being carried on in various European capitals by Armenian expatriates, who had their own grievances.

When the blackmail didn’t work, Herzl’s thoughts turned to war. He told his fellow Zionists at Basle that they might be able to achieve control of Palestine through a European war, if they played their cards right:

“It may be that Turkey will refuse or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.” [1]

The other Zionist leaders fell in with Herzl’s war plans — which, it is well to note, were proclaimed to world Jewry 17 years before the actual outbreak of the war. As it turned out, the Jews were able to use the war just as they had hoped: from it they finagled a promise by the government of Great Britain to secure Palestine for them.

This promise, the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” has an especially interesting history, for it not only throws light on the crucial period during which the Jews first secured the control over the foreign policy of the United States which they still wield — that is, the period during which the American people lost their sovereignty, unknowingly yielding to an alien minority in their midst the power to choose which nations would be America’s friends and which her foes; to decide when there would be peace and when war, and how each war would be waged, whether to win or lose or draw — but it also brilliantly illuminates the general modus operandi which the Jews, spread out as they are among many nations, have long used in playing off one nation against another in order to attain their own ends.

It would hardly be possible to relate here every Zionist move in the 20 years between Herzl’s speech to the first Zionist Congress and the British government’s offer of Palestine to the Jews, even if all the moves were known. It must suffice, in laying the background, to mention a few key developments which made the Balfour Declaration possible.

First, the years immediately following the first Zionist Congress saw an enormous influx of Jews into the United States. Although U.S. immigration statistics prior to 1899 do not reveal the race or religion of immigrants, we know that in 1897 the total Jewish population of the United States was approximately 800,000 — and nearly half of those had arrived in the preceding decade. By 1914 the number had more than tripled, to some 2 1/2 million. The majority of the new immigrants came from Russia, where the Zionist movement was especially strong.

[Image] The Jewish Immigrant publication

This tidal wave of Jewish immigrants made itself felt very soon in the economic and political life of the United States. Jewish ambition and energy, not to mention a predilection for those endeavors yielding quick gain, resulted in a phenomenally rapid growth in the financial power wielded by Jews in the country, and this power was put to immediate use in acquiring a political influence disproportionate to their numbers. Already in 1896, the year before Herzl’s speech, the New York Times fell into Jewish hands, with its purchase by Adolph Ochs. Thirteen years before that Joseph Pulitzer, the Jewish father of yellow journalism, had purchased the New York World. And in the years between 1897 and 1917 the Jews continued their acquisitions, building a very strong bridgehead in the news media for furthering their long-range goals.

[Image] Adolph Ochs

Just as the Palestinians had reacted to the Jewish colonization of Palestine, so did White Americans react to the Jewish colonization of America. The politicians responded with their typical timidity and ambiguity to White demands for a halt to the flood of Jews. In 1897 the U.S. Congress enacted a law requiring proof of literacy before immigrants could be admitted to the United States. The law would have kept out most of the Jews from Russia and other parts of eastern Europe then pouring into the country, but it never had a chance to accomplish its aim, because President Cleveland vetoed it.

As the growing Jewish presence became more obnoxious to Americans, the pressure on the reluctant politicians to do something grew. Jewish political influence had also grown apace, however, and the Jews were able to counter every effort at legislation intended to keep them out of the country. President Taft vetoed another immigrant-literacy law early in 1913, just before leaving office, and President Wilson did the same thing in 1914.

 [Image] Jewish immigrants leaving Ellis Island, 1915

The second major development leading to the Zionists’ triumph in 1917 was the election of Woodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912, and then his reelection in 1916. Wilson was entirely their man. From the time he took office in 1913 until he left it in 1921, he made hardly a decision without consulting his counselor and confidante, Louis Dembitz Brandeis.

 [Image] Louis Dembitz Brandeis

Wilson was an ineffectual man, who, after failing to make a career for himself as a lawyer, retreated to the academy, teaching political science first at Bryn Mawr, then at Wesleyan, and finally at Princeton. He was also less than brilliant as an academician, but he possessed a rhetorical flair which he used to promote a hodgepodge of confused, liberal notions, thereby gaining for himself the backing of the liberal element among the Princeton faculty, who eventually boosted him into Princeton presidency. He was never very strong, and he suffered several major breakdowns, even in the relatively sheltered life of a professor.

Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), an enormously wealthy and successful Boston lawyer, was the son of Jewish immigrants from Bohemia. He was also the leader of the Zionist movement in the United States. In 1912 he headed the group which invited Nahum Sokolow, the Zionist leader from Russia, to speak in the United States. In 1914 he organized and became the chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. But his Zionist leadership was something kept between himself and his fellow Jewish nationalists.

To the American public and the Democratic Party’s politicians he was a very clever advocate of “democracy,” who was involved in a number of celebrated legal cases on behalf of labor unions. His left-wing admirers in the press nicknamed him “the people’s lawyer.”

[Image] Woodrow Wilson

Wilson had also achieved something of a reputation as a champion of equality and democracy when, as president of Princeton University, he became embroiled in a fight to abolish Princeton’s exclusive student eating clubs, which he regarded as elitist and undemocratic. The ruckus caused by Wilson’s opposition to the eating clubs brought him to the attention of New Jersey’s Democratic Party political bosses, and they chose him as their gubernatorial candidate in 1910. They also introduced him to Brandeis, who took the weak, vain, professorial Wilson firmly in hand and guided him in all political matters (and many private matters as well) thereafter.

When Wilson became President he immediately offered Brandeis a position in his Cabinet, but the clever Jew chose instead to remain in the background, where his influence over Wilson would not become compromised by public scrutiny. Indeed, Brandeis was very wise in this decision, because when he did accept an appointment to the Supreme Court from Wilson in 1916, there was a great deal of public opposition.

Nevertheless, Brandeis became the first Jew to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he did so without giving up his informal post as counsel to the President and general political “fixer,” as recent research has revealed. [2]

The third development which was essential to Zionist aims was the war itself and the impasse it had reached in the autumn of 1916. We dare not become involved in a history of the First World War here, but the main points relevant to our following of the Zionist trail are these: The principal antagonists were Britain and Germany One of the many countries fighting on the British side was Imperial Russia. One of the several countries on the German side was Turkey. In the west the antagonists were stalemated, facing each other in opposing trenches which stretched across the continent from north to south and unable to gain very much ground on either side without enormous losses.

The German Verdun campaign of 1916, the longest and bloodiest “battle” in the history of warfare, had failed to achieve any significant advantage for the Germans, and it was to cost them and their French opponents half a million casualties each before it finally petered out. The Franco-British Somme offensive, which followed the ebb of the German offensive at Verdun — and which cost the British 19,000 dead on the first day — proved equally inconclusive.

[Image] The battle of the Somme took place between 1 July and 18 November, 1916, The British Expeditionary Force and the French Army conducted a joint offensive against the Germans, who had held much of the territory since 1914. When the battle had ended, the allies had advanced almost 10 km but were still 5 km from their major objective. More than one million casualties were suffered.

On the eastern front the Russian Brusilov offensive cost the Czar a million men and left him so weakened that the Germans thereafter held the advantage.

At sea German submarines were claiming an increasing toll on British shipping, and Britain was feeling the strain. The only hope British leaders could see for ending the stalemate was to bring America into the war. Otherwise, to continue the war would bankrupt them; they would be obliged to accept a compromise peace, without achieving their aim of crushing Germany as an industrial-commercial rival. The public sentiment in America was strongly against intervention in the war, and Wilson won reelection in November by campaigning as a pacifist. His campaign slogan was, “He kept us out of war.”

Thus was the stage set. Now enter the Zionists.

The Jews had three principal aims: First, to break the Turkish hold on Palestine. Second, to obtain from whichever power replaced Turkey in Palestine the concessions they had been unable to obtain from the Turks. Third, to destroy Russia, an object of special hatred to them.

Until the fall of 1916 it was the third of these aims which manifested itself most noticeably in the Jews’ policy. It is well to remember that it had been Rus warriors, under Sviatoslav the Great, who in 965 had utterly smashed the Khazar Empire, and the Ashkenazic Jews, who made up virtually all of the Zionist leadership, had long memories. Even today Jews celebrate annually their triumphs over enemies thousands of years ago.

Furthermore, a parallel Jewish movement, Bolshevism, had made great strides in Russia, and Jews throughout the world, of whatever persuasion, wanted to see the Russians weakened to the point that the Bolsheviks could seize the nation. It was with this purpose in mind that Jacob Schiff, America’s richest Jew, financed Trotsky and his fellow Jewish Bolsheviks to the tune of $25 million. Later, after the downfall of Russia, Schiff opened his coffers to the Zionists.

[Image] Jacob Henry Schiff (born Jakob Heinrich Schiff; January 10, 1847 – September 25, 1920)

[Image] Leon Trotsky born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (7 November 1879 – 21 August 1940) was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Soviet politician, and the founder and first leader of the Red Army.

Toward the end of 1916, however, it was clear that Russia was in terminal condition. Although she still had vast armies in the field and even vaster reserves of manpower at home, from a strategic viewpoint Russia was whipped, and the Germans were already beginning to withdraw troops from the eastern front in order to bolster their strength in the west.

A good share of the credit for the Russian collapse belonged to the Bolsheviks, who were working furiously to undermine morale in the trenches and in the factories. They spread pacifist and defeatist leaflets among the troops and carried on in Russia’s cities much as they did more than 50 years later in America’s cities during the Vietnam war.

Until this point then, it had behooved the Jews to back Germany, and they did. Ultimately, however, their plan called for Germany — or, at least, Germany’s ally Turkey — to lose. So it was that in October 1916 the Jews made their offer to the British government: We will bring America into the war, if you will take Palestine away from the Turks and give it to us.

The story of this offer, its acceptance by the British government, and its aftermath has been told in several places and hinted at in many. Not in any of the “approved” history texts dealing with the First World War which are used today in American colleges and universities, of course, or in any “popular” treatments of the war to be found in newsstand paperbacks, but the interested reader can nevertheless find a number of unimpeachable, firsthand accounts, if he is willing to dig a bit in a large library. For example, Malcolm Thomson, the biographer of David Lloyd George, Britain’s wartime prime minister, writes on pages 273-74 of David Lloyd George, the Official Biography (London, 1949):

[Image] David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British Liberal politician and statesman.

. . . In the autumn of 1916, when the question of strengthening sympathy with the Allied cause was growing acute, an Armenian Jew, James A. Malcolm, who was giving expert help and advice to the Government about Middle Eastern matters, approached [Foreign Office Undersecretary Sir Mark] Sykes and urged that the Allies should capture the sympathies of American Jewry — at that time tending to favour Germany — by a declaration of support for the Zionist cause. Sykes saw the possibilities of the suggestion, and laid it before Lord Milner, who took it up with the Cabinet.

. . . Secret assurances were given to the Zionist leaders through Sykes that the British government would support their cause if the consent of their Allies could be obtained. A message to this effect was sent to Justice Brandeis, the American Zionist, who was a close friend of President Wilson, and the help of leading Zionists in all the Allied countries was mobilized.

Samuel Landman, secretary to Zionist leaders Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow in 1916, and later general secretary of the World Zionist Organization, narrates the events from firsthand knowledge in his booklet Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine (London, 1936). [3] On pages 4-5 he writes:

During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French demarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the  Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Gout of the Quai d’Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews, by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentleman’s” agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will [sic] would represent or rather misrepresent.

An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the “gentleman’s” agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorised by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organisations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.

[Image] Samuel Landman’s booklet (98 pages) Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine (London, 1936).

Landman tells the same story in other places: for example, in a lengthy letter titled “The Origin of the Balfour Declaration” published in the  Jewish Chronicle (London, February 7, 1936; page 33).

A much more detailed account of the negotiations between the Jews and the British government in October 1916 is in Two Studies in Virtue (London, 1953), a biography of Sir Mark Sykes by his son, Christopher Sykes, who drew extensively on his father’s diaries and letters of the period. A few paragraphs excerpted here from pages 180-188 of that book suggest the essentials:

 [Image] Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, 6th Baronet (born Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes; 16 March 1879 – 16 February 1919) was an English traveller, Conservative Party politician and diplomatic adviser, particularly about matters respecting the Middle East at the time of the First World War.

. . . One day in October of 1916 a certain Mr. James Malcolm came to visit Mark Sykes.. . . Sykes . . . [said] that he could see no end to the war. In France there was a military deadlock. At sea the power of the [German] submarine was growing; on land that of the Russian armies failing. . . . A decisive victory, or indeed a victory of any kind, seemed impossible without American participation on an enormous scale, and of that he saw little likelihood. . . . At this Mr. Malcolm took occasion to harangue his friend on the principles which should govern British foreign policy regarding the Jewish world. . . . He proceeded to tell him about Zionism. . . .

Mr. Malcolm . . . then told Sykes of a very curious and powerful influence which Zionists could exert. One of President Wilson’s closest advisers and friends was Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a Jew. . . . It was believed . . . that Wilson was attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness. . . . It followed that . . . a Zionist policy was in truth the way to capture American sympathy [for the Allies]. . . .

. . . [Malcolm then said:]

“The question is, do you want the help of the Jews of the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists.”

. . . [After the British had agreed to the Zionist terms, the leader of the Zionist delegation, Nahum] Sokolow made a simple request, namely that the Zionist Committee should have facilities for communications abroad. He pointed out that since they were an international body this was especially needful to them, and he suggested that they should be granted governmental privileges, since they could thus attain their object while subjecting themselves to the needs of secrecy and censorship.

The next morning . . . [Sokolow] got what he asked for: it was agreed that the War Office and the Foreign Office would send Zionist letters and telegrams by way of [British] Embassies. . . . The news was given out to Jewish communities all over the world that in return for certain services the British Government . . . would satisfy the Jewish longing for Palestine . . .

A more general account is given by Professor H. W. V. Temperley in his six-volume work,  A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (London, 1924). Of the Balfour Declaration he writes (vol. vi, pp. 173-174):

“That it is in purpose a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry represented by the Zionists is beyond question. In spirit it is a pledge that in return for services to be rendered by Jewry the British Government would ‘use their best endeavours’ to assure the execution of a certain definite policy in Palestine.”

As Samuel Landman notes above, once the deal had been struck and the word sent out to American Jews;

“the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favor of joining the Allies in the war was surprisingly rapid.”

President Wilson, without blushing or skipping a beat, changed his tune from;

“I kept us out of war” to “We must destroy German militarism in order to make the world safe for democracy.”

[Image] Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.

A detailed examination of the chicanery used by the “American” press and President to coax a reluctant nation into sending its sons off to die in Flanders’ fields and a thousand other foreign places, in order that, unknown to them, the Jews could satisfy their side of their deal with the British government, would take us far beyond the scope of this article. The various pretexts used for abandoning neutrality — such as Germany’s submarine blockade of Britain and the so-called “Zimmermann telegram” — are treated exhaustively in the “approved” textbooks on the war (although they are treated with utmost seriousness rather than as pretexts).

In brief, it was a matter of Wilson’s talking peace, even sending his personal factotum, “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, on supposed peace missions to the various belligerents, while actually seizing every opportunity to fan the flames of war. The scheme was to present an appearance to the public of his being forced, much against his will, to go to war in order to defend America’s honor. Because the war provided plenty of real opportunities for international “incidents” to occur, especially when Wilson took pains to see that Americans would be in harm’s way as often as possible, it was not overly difficult to generate the desired impression in the public mind.

For example, when a German submarine sank the British ship Laconia [4] on February 25, 1917, with the loss of three Americans who were aboard, Wilson and the press put on a great show of moral outrage at this act of German “barbarism,” treating it as an intolerable affront to American sovereignty.

[Image] RMS Laconia was a Cunard ocean liner built by Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson, launched on 27 July 1911.

It was a matter of exaggerating incidents which could have been ignored — or avoided altogether — if Wilson really had wanted to preserve American neutrality. The German submarine blockade of Britain was milked for all it was worth to generate anti-German sentiment among the American people, while the far more ruthless British blockade of Germany was quietly ignored. Wilson connived to assure that the former would yield pretexts for intervention, while he took measures to prevent American ships and citizens from running afoul of the latter. [5]

In any event, it is clear that Mr. Ochs’s investment in the New York Times yielded a handsome dividend to world Jewry, as did Mr. Brandeis’ years of patient counsel to the fawningly grateful and ever more dependent Woodrow Wilson.

The British formalized their intention to satisfy their side of the deal with the Jews by issuing the Balfour Declaration, which was in the form of a letter, dated November 2, 1917, from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to “Lord” Lionel Rothschild, who was recognized as the leader of the Jewish community in Britain. The brief document merely stated a resolution which had been approved by the British Cabinet:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

[Image] Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, OBE (25 January 1882 – 28 January 1942) was an English banker and Conservative politician.

The last provision, added at Jewish insistence, reveals the Zionists’ intention that Jews everywhere should be uniquely favored by being permitted to enjoy the citizenship, with full rights and privileges, of both the Gentile country in which they happen to reside at the moment and of their “national home” in Israel.

The reservation about not prejudicing the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” was, under subsequent Jewish pressure, eventually ignored.

The Balfour Declaration provides an especially interesting example of the hypocritical cant which has characterized the statesmanship of both of the great English-speaking powers during the 20th century. Pious concern for the rights of the non-Jews in Palestine is expressed in a document which, in effect, is a promise by the British government to secure for the Jews land which belonged neither to it nor to the Jews. How did Mr. Balfour imagine that his government could accomplish that dubious feat without prejudicing the rights of the current owners of the land, who were in no mood to give it up willingly?

One is reminded of the British government’s claim in September 1939 that it was declaring war on Germany in order to protect the freedom of its ally Poland, which had been invaded by Germany — a claim which conveniently overlooked the fact that the Soviet Union had also invaded Poland. In 1945 the same British government, its earlier expression of concern for Polish freedom buried under a bushel of new cant about democracy and peace, obligingly agreed to its ally becoming an unwilling vassal of the Soviet Union.

Nothing, however, can quite match the unabashed brazenness of the hypocrisy Woodrow Wilson displayed in engineering the entry of the United States into the First World War — unless it was that displayed a generation later by Franklin Roosevelt, when he too talked peace and plotted war, at the behest of the same people Wilson had served.

Wilson’s campaign propaganda for the 1916 election emphasized his stance of non-intervention in the war then raging in Europe. Most of the press and the public were also against intervention. Then, after Wilson’s reelection — and the British-Zionist deal, concluded just a few days before the election — the press began a “surprisingly rapid” shift toward an interventionist stance. Wilson followed, calling for a declaration of war against Germany just five months after his reelection.

[Image] A New York Journal headline marks the entrance of the United States into World War I, April 6, 1917.

Even before that, however, he and Brandeis had been planning war, and it was their secret assurances that the United States would be brought into the war that led British leaders to reject Germany’s peace offer of December 12, 1916. If that offer had been accepted, the lives of some three million White soldiers — including 115,000 Americans — Which were consumed in 1917 and 1918 would have been spared. Furthermore, the Second World War, which grew out of the unjust conditions imposed on Germany after the Allied victory, would have been avoided. And if Russia could have had peace in December 1916, she probably would have had time to stamp out the Bolshevik virus being spread among her soldiers and workers by the Jews, and Communism would have suffered a setback from which it might never have recovered. All of the grim and bloody consequences of Wilson’s switch in foreign policy stem from the Zionist influence in the U.S. news media and politics, which had been built up over the preceding two decades.

[Image] WILSON’S campaign propaganda for the 1916 election emphasized his stance of non-intervention in the war then raging in Europe. Most of the press and the public were also against intervention. Then, after Wilson’s reelection — and the British-Zionist deal, concluded just a few days before the election — the press began a “surprisingly rapid” shift toward an interventionist stance. Wilson followed, calling for a declaration of war against Germany just five months after his reelection.

Even before that, however, he and Brandeis had been planning war, and it was their secret assurances that the United States would be brought into the war that led British leaders to reject Germany’s peace offer of December 12, 1916. If that offer had been accepted, the lives of some three million White soldiers — including 115,000 Americans — which were consumed in 1917 and 1918 would have been spared.

Furthermore, the Second World War, which grew out of the unjust conditions imposed on Germany after the Allied victory, would have been avoided. And if Russia could have had peace in December 1916, she probably would have had time to stamp out the Bolshevik virus being spread among her soldiers and workers by the Jews, and Communism would have suffered a setback from which it might never have recovered.

All of the grim and bloody consequences of Wilson’s switch in foreign policy stem from the Zionist influence in the U.S. news media and politics, which had been built up over the preceding two decades.

Upon reflection, may we not conclude that lying cant is what should be expected of any government which has degenerated to the point that it consists mainly of lawyers? And is not that the kind of government which must inevitably devolve under a system which gives the franchise to the credulous and the gullible?

It is the historians and the teachers, however, who most deserve our scorn. Everyone expects lawyers to lie; word trickery is their stock-in-trade. No lawyer committed to the truth could hope to earn a living. But historical scholars are supposed to be different. They are supposed to be indifferent to popular myths, always seeking the reality which lies beneath the facile explanations of governments and politicians.

The explanation for the reluctance of modern historians to write about the Zionist role in the First World War is this: In the immediate postwar years, the Zionist responsibility for America’s entry into the war was a valid topic for historical investigation and discussion, with even the Zionists freely admitting their actions. After all, America and Britain had won the war, and Germany was down and out. How could the truth hurt anyone?

Then in 1933 Germany, under Adolf Hitler, began getting back on its feet. Suddenly any discussion of the truth about the Zionist role in the last war became “anti-Semitic.”

One man who was privy to every detail of that role was David Lloyd George. In 1938 the former British war secretary and prime minister wrote a two-volume book,  The Truth about the Peace Treaties. In that book he described the way in which Jews all over the world — in Germany and Russia as well as in America — immediately switched from a pro-German to an anti-German stance after the deal between his government and the Zionists was made. He pointed out the fatal consequences this switch had for the German war effort. And on page 1140 he noted:

“The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering today for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies.”

Since the Second World War, any criticism of the Jews has been taboo, and even the historical scholars have feared to tread on ground where their discoveries might reveal the Jews in a a bad light. The consequences of this cowardice have been very costly indeed.

From National Vanguard magazine (December, 1982),  transcribed by Michael Olanich

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/background-to-treason-the-balfour-declaration/

Notes

[1] American Jewish News (New York), March 7, 1919. A photographic reproduction of the pertinent sections from that publication and other Zionist documents may be found in Issue No. 48 of National Vanguard.

The reader should note that Herzl uses the expression “the nations,” both in this speech and in the excerpt quoted above from his book, as a code phrase: He gives it the same meaning it has in the Old Testament, as in, “I have this day set thee over the nations… to root out and to pull down and to destroy ” (Jeremiah 1:10) That is, “the nations” means “the goyim.”

Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, New York, 1959), has the entry: “nations, a term used by Hebrew writers for non-Israelites, outsiders, Gentiles, heathen.”

[2] The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, by Bruce Murphy (Oxford University Press, 1982). Murphy, a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University, discovered an extensive file of correspondence between Brandeis and a Jewish law professor at Harvard University, Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965). From the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1916 until his retirement in 1939, Brandeis paid Frankfurter to serve as his messenger and errand boy, so that Brandeis could secretly maintain all of his political contacts behind the cloak of judicial impartiality.

[3] http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73443578.pdf

[4] RMS Laconia was a Cunard ocean liner built by Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson, launched on 27 July 1911, delivered to the Cunard Line on 12 December 1911, and began service on 20 January 1912. She was the first Cunard ship of that name.

On the outbreak of World War I Laconia was converted into an armed merchant cruiser in 1914 and based at Simon’s Town, South Africa in the South Atlantic, from which she patrolled the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean until April 1915. She was then used as a headquarters ship for the operations to capture Tanga and the colony of German East Africa. She continued to serve on the East Africa station, before returning to Britain with a convoy in June 1916. She was handed back to Cunard in July 1916 and on 9 September resumed service.

On 25 February 1917 she was torpedoed by SM U-50 6 nautical miles (11 km) northwest by west of Fastnet while returning from the USA to England with 75 passengers (34 first class and 41 second class) and a crew of 217 commanded by Captain Irvine. The first torpedo struck the liner on the starboard side just abaft the engine room, but did not sink her. 20 minutes later a second torpedo exploded in the engine room, again on the starboard side, and the vessel sank at 10:20 pm. 12 people were killed, six crew and six passengers, including two American citizens, Mrs. Mary Hoy and her daughter, Miss Elizabeth Hoy, who were originally from Chicago.

Chicago Tribune reporter Floyd Gibbons was aboard Laconia when she was torpedoed and gained fame from his dispatches about the attack.

[5] The chicanery involved in the way Wilson and the press dealt with the blockades the belligerents imposed on one another is revealed especially well in Colin Simpson’s excellent and thoroughly documented book The Lusitania (Boston, 1972). That book in turn refers the interested reader to a number of other valuable sources.

Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/06/background-to-treason-part-1/

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download (1.7 MB). >> Background to Treason – The Balfour Declaration Ver 2

Version History

Version 3: Aug 25, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Dec 16, 2017 — Improved formatting.

Version 1: Published Jun 27, 2014