The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Leon Trotsky-Lev Davidovich Bronstein (1879-1940), 100 anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-2017
Leon Trotsky-Lev Davidovich Bronstein (1879-1940), 100 anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-2017

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Although I always had a great interest in history, I naively believed what I read in my textbooks, and therefore regarded American history as just too bland and boring to study.

By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world’s most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization, with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval, then suddenly reopened to the West during the Nixon Administration and under Deng’s economic reforms starting to reverse decades of Maoist economic failure.

In 1978 I took a UCLA graduate seminar on the rural Chinese political economy, and probably read thirty or forty books during that semester. E.O. Wilson’s seminal Sociobiology: The New Synthesis had just been published a couple of years earlier, reviving that field after decades of harsh ideological suppression, and with his ideas in the back of my mind, I couldn’t help noticing the obvious implications of the material I was reading. The Chinese had always seemed a very smart people, and the structure of China’s traditional rural peasant economy produced Social Darwinist selective pressure so thick that you could cut it with a knife, thus providing a very elegant explanation of how the Chinese got that way. A couple of years later in college, I wrote up my theory while studying under Wilson, and then decades afterward dug it out again, finally publishing my analysis as How Social Darwinism Made Modern China.

With the Chinese people clearly having such tremendous inherent talent and their potential already demonstrated on a much smaller scale in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, I believed there was an excellent chance that Deng’s reforms would unleash enormous economic growth, and sure enough, that was exactly what happened. In the late 1970s, China was poorer than Haiti, but I always told my friends that it might come to dominate the world economically within a couple of generations, and although most of them were initially quite skeptical of such an outrageous claim, every few years they became a little less so. The Economist had long been my favorite magazine, and in 1986 they published an especially long letter of mine emphasizing the tremendous rising potential of China and urging them to expand their coverage with a new Asia Section; the following year, they did exactly that.

These days I feel tremendous humiliation for having spent most of my life being so totally wrong about so many things for so long, and I cling to China as a very welcome exception. I can’t think of a single development during the last forty years that I wouldn’t have generally expected back in the late 1970s, with the only surprise having been the total lack of surprises. About the only “revision” I’ve had to make in my historical framework is that I’d always casually accepted the ubiquitous claim that Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1959-61 had caused 35 million or more deaths, but I’ve recently encountered some serious doubts, suggesting that such a total could be considerably exaggerated, and today I might admit the possibility that only 15 million or fewer had died.

 

But although I always had a great interest in China, European history was even more fascinating to me, with the political interplay of so many conflicting states and the huge ideological and military upheavals of the twentieth century.

In my unjustified arrogance, I also sometimes relished a sense of seeing obvious things that magazine or newspaper journalists got so completely wrong, mistakes which often slipped into historical narratives as well. For example, discussions of the titanic 20th century military struggles between Germany and Russia quite often made casual references to the traditional hostility between those two great peoples, who for centuries had stood as bitter rivals, representing the eternal struggle of Slav against Teuton for dominion over Eastern Europe.

Although the bloodstained history of the two world wars made that notion seem obvious, it was factually mistaken. Prior to 1914, those two great peoples had not fought against each other for the previous 150 years, and even the Seven Years’ War of the mid-18th century had involved a Russian alliance with Germanic Austria against Germanic Prussia, hardly amounting to a conflict along civilizational lines. Russians and Germans had been staunch allies during the endless Napoleonic wars, closely cooperated during the Metterich and Bismarck Eras that followed, while even as late as 1904, Germany had supported Russia in its unsuccessful war against Japan. Later, Weimar Germany and Soviet Russia had a period of close military cooperation during the 1920s, the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 marked the beginning of the Second World War, and during the long Cold War, the USSR had no more loyal a satellite than East Germany. Perhaps two dozen years of hostility over the last three centuries, with good relations or even outright alliance during most of the remainder, hardly suggested that Russians and Germans were hereditary enemies.

Moreover, throughout much of that period, Russia’s ruling elite had had a considerable Germanic tinge. Russia’s legendary Catherine the Great had been a German princess by birth, and over the centuries so many Russian rulers had taken German wives that the later Czars of the Romanov dynasty were usually more German than Russian. Russia itself had a substantial but heavily assimilated German population, which was very well represented in elite political circles, with German names being quite common among government ministers and sometimes found among important military commanders. Even a top leader of the Decembrist revolt of the early 19th century had had German ancestry but was a zealous Russian-nationalist in his ideology.

Under the governance of this mixed Russian and German ruling class, the Russian Empire had steadily risen to become one of the world’s foremost powers. Indeed, given its vast size, manpower, and resources, combined with one of the world’s fastest economic growth rates and a natural increase in total population that was not far behind, a 1914 observer might have easily pegged it to soon dominate the European continent and perhaps even much of the world, just as Tocqueville had famously prophesized in the early decades of the 19th century. A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.

Obviously, this entire landscape was totally transformed by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which swept the old order from power, massacring much of its leadership and forcing the remainder to flee, thereby ushering in the modern world era of ideological and revolutionary regimes. I grew up during the final decades of the long Cold War, when the Soviet Union stood as America’s great international adversary, so the history of that revolution and its aftermath always fascinated me. During college and graduate school I probably read at least one hundred books in that general topic, devouring the brilliant works of Solzhenistyn and Sholokhov, the thick historical volumes of mainstream academic scholars such as Adam Ulam and Richard Pipes, as well as the writings of leading Soviet dissidents such as Roy Medvedev, Andrei Sakharov, and Andrei Amalrik. I was fascinated by the tragic story of how Stalin outmaneuvered Trotsky and his other rivals, leading to the massive purges of the 1930s as Stalin’s growing paranoia produced such gigantic loss of life.

I was not so totally naive that I did not recognize some of the powerful taboos surrounding discussion of the Bolsheviks, particularly regarding their ethnic composition. Although most of the books hardly emphasized the point, anyone with a careful eye for the occasional sentence or paragraph would surely know that Jews were enormously over-represented among the top revolutionaries, with three of Lenin’s five potential successors— Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev—all coming from that background, along with many, many others within the top Communist leadership. Obviously, this was wildly disproportionate in a country having a Jewish population of perhaps 4%, and surely helped explain the large spike in worldwide hostility towards Jews soon afterward, which sometimes took the most deranged and irrational forms, such as the popularity of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Henry Ford’s notorious publication of The International Jew. But with Russian Jews so much more likely to be educated and urbanized, and suffering from fierce anti-Semitic oppression under the Czars, everything seemed to make reasonable sense.

 

Then perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, I encountered a rip in my personal space-time continuum, among the first of many to come.

In this particular instance, an especially rightwing friend of evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran had been spending long days browsing the pages of Stormfront, a leading Internet forum for the Far Right, and having come across a remarkable factual claim, asked me for my opinion. Allegedly Jacob Schiff, America’s leading Jewish banker, had been the crucial financial supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, providing the Communist revolutionaries with $20 million in funding.

My first reaction was that such a notion was utterly ridiculous since a fact so enormously explosive could not have been ignored by the many dozens of books I had read on the origins of that revolution. But the source seemed extremely precise. The Knickerbocker columnist in the February 3, 1949 edition of The New York Journal-American, then one of the leading local newspapers, wrote that “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews, and these days even so establishmentarian a source as Wikipedia’s entry on Jacob Schiff notes that he played a major role financing the Russian Revolution of 1905, as was revealed in the later memoirs of one of his key operatives. And if you run a search on “jacob schiff bolshevik revolution” numerous other references come up, representing a wide variety of different positions and degrees of credibility. One very interesting statement appears in the memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed, editor of The Times of London and one of the foremost international journalists of his era. He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts on behalf of their Bolshevik allies at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following the end of the First World War.

Even the very recent and highly skeptical 2016 analysis in Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 book Trotsky in New York, 1917 notes that U.S. Military Intelligence reports of the period directly made that astonishing claim, pointing to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers. In 1925 this information was published in the British Guardian and was widely discussed and accepted throughout the 1920s and 1930s by numerous major media publications, long before Schiff’s own grandson provided a direct confirmation of those facts in 1949. Ackerman rather cavalierly dismisses all of this considerable contemporaneous evidence as “anti-Semitic” and a “conspiracy story,” arguing that since Schiff was a notorious conservative who had never shown any sympathy for socialism in his own American milieu, he surely would not have funded the Bolsheviks.

Now admittedly, a few details might easily have gotten somewhat garbled over time. For example, although Trotsky quickly became second only to Lenin in the Bolshevik hierarchy, in early 1917 the two were still bitterly hostile over various ideological disputes, so he certainly was not then considered a member of that party. And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia, it seems perfectly possible that the $20 million figure mentioned by his grandson refers to the total invested over the years supporting all the different Russian revolutionary movements and leaders, which together finally culminated in the establishment of Bolshevik Russia. But with so many seemingly credible and independent sources all making such similar claims, the basic facts appear almost indisputable.

Consider the implications of this remarkable conclusion. I would assume that most of Schiff’s funding of revolutionary activities was spent on items such as activist stipends and bribes, and adjusted for the average family incomes of that era, $20 million would be as much as $2 billion in present-day money. Surely without such enormous financial support, the likelihood of any Bolshevik victory would have been far lower, perhaps almost impossible.

When people casually used to joke about the total insanity of “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” no better example was ever tossed around than the self-evidently absurd notion that the international Jewish bankers had created the worldwide Communist movement. And yet by any reasonable standard, this statement appears to be more or less true, and apparently was widely known at least in rough form for decades after the Russian Revolution, but had never been mentioned in any of the numerous more recent histories that shaped my own knowledge of those events. Indeed, none of these very comprehensive sources ever even mentioned Schiff’s name, although it was universally acknowledged that he had funded the 1905 Revolution, which was often discussed in enormous detail in many of those very weighty books. What other astonishing facts might they similarly be concealing?

When someone encounters remarkable new revelations in an area of history in which his knowledge was rudimentary, being little more than introductory textbooks or History 101 courses, the result is a shock and an embarrassment. But when the same situation occurs in an area in which he had read tens of thousands of pages in the leading authoritative texts, which seemingly explored every minor detail, surely his sense of reality begins to crumble.

ORDER IT NOW

In 1999, Harvard University published the English edition of The Black Book of Communism, whose six co-authors devoted 850 pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place. Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden, who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early years of their threatened regime, and even founded the first Soviet international bank.

 

When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there. The Ackerman book denounced the notion of Schiff having funded the Bolsheviks as “a favorite trope of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda” and just prior to those words he issued a similar denunciation of Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, a publication which would have meant almost nothing to me. Although Ackerman’s particular book had not yet been published when I began exploring the Schiff story a dozen years ago, many other writers had similarly conjoined those two topics, so I decided to explore the matter.

Ford himself was a very interesting individual, and his world-historical role certainly received very scanty coverage in my basic history textbooks. Although the exact reasons for his decision to raise his minimum wage to $5 per day in 1914—double the existing average pay for industrial workers in America—can be disputed, it certainly seems to have played a huge role in the creation of our middle class. He also adopted a highly paternalistic policy of providing good company housing and other amenities to his workers, a total departure from the “Robber Baron” capitalism so widely practiced at that time, thereby establishing himself as a world-wide hero to industrial workers and their advocates. Indeed, Lenin himself had regarded Ford as a towering figure in the world’s revolutionary firmament, glossing over his conservative views and commitment to capitalism and instead focusing on his remarkable achievements in worker productivity and economic well-being. It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.” Indeed, it was not unusual to see portraits of Lenin and Ford hanging side-by-side in Soviet factories, representing the two greatest secular saints of the Bolshevik pantheon.

ORDER IT NOW

As for The Dearborn Independent, Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a national basis not long after the end of the war, intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to Jewish misbehavior, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets. I had been aware that he had long been one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America, but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper, previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national circulation of 900,000 by 1925, ranking it as the second largest in the country and by far the biggest with a national distribution. I found no easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue, but apparently the anti-Jewish articles of the first couple of years had been collected and published as short books, together constituting the four volumes of The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, a notoriously anti-Semitic work occasionally mentioned in my history textbooks. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me, so clicked a few buttons on Amazon.com, bought the set, and wondered what I would discover.

Based on all my pre-suppositions, I expected to read some foaming-at-the-mouth screed, and doubted I would be able to get past the first dozen pages before losing interest and consigning the volumes to gather dust on my shelves. But what I actually encountered was something entirely different.

Over the last couple of decades, the enormous growth in the power and influence of Jewish and pro-Israel groups in America has occasionally led writers to cautiously raise certain facts regarding the untoward influence of those organizations and activists, while always carefully emphasizing that the vast majority of ordinary Jews do not benefit from these policies and actually might be harmed by them, even leaving aside the possible risk of eventually provoking an anti-Jewish backlash. To my considerable surprise, I found that the vast majority of the material in Ford’s 300,000 word series seemed to follow this same pattern and tone.

The individual 80 chapter-columns of Ford’s volumes generally discuss particular issues and events, some of which were well-known to me, but with the vast majority totally obscured by the passage of almost a hundred years. But as far as I could tell, almost all the discussions seemed quite plausible and factually-oriented, even sometimes overly cautious in their presentation, and with one possible exception I can’t recall anything that seemed fanciful or unreasonable. As an example, there was no claim that Schiff or his fellow Jewish bankers had funded the Bolshevik Revolution since those particular facts had not yet come out, only that he had seemed to be strongly supportive of the overthrow of Czarism, and had worked toward that end for many years, motivated by what he regarded as the hostility of the Russian Empire towards its Jewish subjects. This sort of discussion is not all that different from what one might find in a modern Schiff biography or in his Wikipedia entry, though many of the important details presented in the Ford books have disappeared from the historical record.

Although I somehow managed to plow through all four volumes of The International Jew, the unrelenting drum-beat of Jewish intrigue and misbehavior became somewhat soporific after a while, especially since so many of the examples provided may have loomed quite large in 1920 or 1921 but are almost totally forgotten today. Most of the content was a collection of rather monotonous complaints regarding Jewish malfeasance, scandals, or clannishness, the sort of mundane matters which might have normally appeared in the pages of an ordinary newspaper or magazine, let alone one of the muckraking type.

However, I cannot fault the publication for such a narrow focus. A consistent theme was that because of the intimidating fear of Jewish activists and influence, virtually all of America’s regular media outlets avoided discussion of any of these important matters, and since this new publication was intended to remedy that void, it necessarily required coverage overwhelmingly skewed toward that particular subject. The articles were also aimed at gradually expanding the window of public debate and eventually shame other periodicals into discussing Jewish misbehavior. When leading magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Century Magazine began running such articles, this result was cited as a major success.

Another important goal was to make ordinary Jews more aware of the very problematical behavior of many of their community leaders. Occasionally, the publication received a letter of praise from a self-proclaimed “proud American Jew” commending the series and sometimes including a check to purchase subscriptions for other members of his community, and this achievement might become the subject of an extended discussion.

And although the details of these individual stories differed considerably from those of today, the pattern of behavior being criticized seemed remarkably similar. Change a few facts, adjust the society for a century of change, and many of the stories might be exactly the same ones that well-meaning people concerned about the future of our country are quietly discussing today. Most remarkably, there were even a couple of columns about the troubled relationship between the earliest Zionist settlers in Palestine and the surrounding native Palestinians, and deep complaints that under Jewish pressure the media often totally misreported or hid some of the outrages suffered by the latter group.

I certainly cannot vouch for the overall accuracy of the contents of these volumes, but at the very least they would constitute an extremely valuable source of “raw material” for further historical investigation. So many of the events and incidents they recount seem to have been entirely omitted from the major media publications of that day, and surely were never included in later historical narratives, given that even such widely known stories as Schiff’s major financial backing for the Bolsheviks were completely tossed down George Orwell’s “memory hole.”

With the volumes long out of copyright, I have added the set to my collection of HTML Books, and those so interested may read the text and decide for themselves.

 

ORDER IT NOW

As mentioned, the overwhelming majority of The International Jew seems a rather bland recitation of complaints about Jewish misbehavior. But there is one major exception, which has a very different impact upon our modern mind, namely that the writer took very seriously The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Probably no “conspiracy theory” in modern times has been subjected to such immense vilification and ridicule as the Protocols, but a voyage of discovery often acquires a momentum of its own, and I became curious about the nature of that infamous document.

Apparently, the Protocols first came to light during the last decade of the 19th century, and the British Museum stored a copy in 1906, but it attracted relatively little attention at the time. However, all this changed after the Bolshevik Revolution and toppling of many other long-standing governments at the end of the First World War led many people to seek a common cause behind so many enormous political upheavals. From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control. Admittedly, there were many shrewd insights into politics or psychology, notably the enormous power of the media and the benefits of advancing political front-men who were deeply compromised or incompetent and hence easily controllable. But nothing else really jumped out at me.

Perhaps one reason I found the text of the Protocols so uninspiring is that over the century since its publication, these notions of diabolical plots by hidden groups have become such a common theme in our entertainment media, with countless thousands of spy novels and science fiction stories presenting something similar, though these usually involve far more exciting means, such as a super-weapon or a powerful drug. If some Bond villain proclaimed his intent to conquer the world merely through simple political subversion, I suspect that such a film would immediately die at the box office.

But back one hundred years ago, these were apparently exciting and novel notions, and I actually found the discussion of the Protocols in many of the chapters of The International Jew far more interesting and informative than reading the text itself. The author of the Ford books seems to appropriately treat it as any other historical document, dissecting its content, speculating on its provenance, and wondering whether or not it was what it purported to be, namely an approximate record of the statements of a group of conspirators pursuing mastery over the world, with those conspirators widely believed to be an elite fraternity of international Jews.

Other contemporaries seem to have taken the Protocols very seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure, and I’ve read that more copies were published and sold in the Europe of that era than any other book save the Bible. The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.

Although The International Jew concludes that the Protocols was probably genuine, I doubt that likelihood based upon the style and presentation. Browsing around on the Internet a dozen years ago, I discovered quite a variety of different opinions even within the precincts of the Far Right, where such matters were freely discussed. I remember some forum writer somewhere characterizing the Protocols as “based upon a true story,” suggesting that someone who was generally familiar with the secretive machinations of elite international Jews against the existing governments of Czarist Russia and other countries had drafted the document to outline his view of their strategic plans, and such an interpretation seems perfectly plausible.

Another reader somewhere claimed that the Protocols were pure fiction but very significant nonetheless. He argued that the very keen insights into the methods by which a small conspiratorial group can quietly corrupt and overthrow powerful existing regimes arguably ranked it alongside Plato’s The Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince as one of the three great classics of Western political philosophy, and earned it a place on the required reading list of every Political Science 101 course. Indeed, the author of Ford’s books emphasizes that there are very few mentions of Jews anywhere in the Protocols, and all the implied connections to Jewish conspirators could be completely struck from the text without affecting their content whatsoever.

In any event, this short work is now available as one of my HTML Books, making it quite convenient for reading and text-searching.

 

Some ideas have consequences and others do not. Although my introductory history textbooks had often mentioned Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic activities, his publication of The International Jew, and the concurrent popularity of the Protocols, they never emphasized any lasting political legacy, or at least I don’t recall any. However, once I actually read the contents and also discovered the enormous contemporary popularity of those writings and the huge national circulation of The Dearborn Independent, I quickly came to a very different conclusion.

For decades pro-immigration liberals, many of them Jewish, have suggested that anti-Semitism was a major factor behind the 1924 Immigration Act that drastically reduced European immigration for the next forty years, while anti-immigration activists have always heatedly denied this. The documentary evidence from that era certainly favors the position of the latter, but I really do wonder what important private discussions may not have been set down in print and entered into the Congressional Record. The overwhelming popular support for immigration restriction had been successfully blocked for decades by powerful business interests, which greatly benefited from the reduced wages of the resulting labor-competition, but now matters had suddenly changed, and surely the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia must have had been a powerful influence.

Russia, overwhelmingly populated by Russians, had been governed for centuries by a Russian ruling elite. Then, heavily Jewish revolutionaries, drawn from a group amounting to just 4% of the population had taken advantage of military defeat and unsettled political conditions to seize control of the country, butchering those previous elites or forcing them to desperately flee abroad as penniless refugees.

Trotsky and a large fraction of the leading Jewish revolutionaries had been living as exiles in New York City, and now many of their Jewish cousins still resident in America began loudly proclaiming that a similar revolution would soon follow here as well. Huge waves of recent immigration, mostly from Russia, had increased the Jewish fraction of the national population to 3%, not far below the figure for Russia itself on the eve of its revolution. If the Russian elites who ruled Russia had been suddenly overthrown by Jewish revolutionaries, is it not obvious that the Anglo-Saxon elites who ruled Anglo-Saxon America feared suffering the same fate?

The “Red Scare” of the 1919 was one response, with numerous immigrant radicals such as Emma Goldman rounded up and summarily deported, while the Sacco-Vanzetti murder trial in 1921 Boston captured the attention of the nation, suggesting that other immigrant groups were violent radicals as well, and might ally themselves with the Jews in a revolutionary movement, just like the Letts and other disgruntled Russian minorities had done during the Bolshevik Revolution. But drastically reducing the inflow of these dangerous foreigners was absolutely essential since otherwise their numbers might easily grow by hundreds of thousands each year, increasing their already huge presence in our largest cities of the East Coast.

Sharply reducing immigration would certainly cause a rise in worker wages and hurt business profits. But considerations of profits are secondary if you fear that you and your family might eventually end up facing a Bolshevik firing squad or fleeing to Buenos Aires with just the clothes on your backs and a few hurriedly-packed suitcases.

A noteworthy bit of evidence in support of this analysis was the subsequent failure of Congress to enact similar restrictive legislation curtailing immigration from Mexico or the rest of Latin America. The local business interests of Texas and the Southwest argued that continuation of unrestricted Mexican immigration was important for their economic success, with Mexicans being good people, politically docile workers, and no threat to stability of the country. This was a clear contrast with the Jews and some other European immigrant groups.

The much less familiar early 1920s battle over restricting Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League may have been another consequence. In his magisterial 2005 volume The Chosen, Jerome Karabel documents how the very rapid growth in Jewish numbers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other Ivy League colleges had by the early 1920s become an enormous concern to the Anglo-Saxon elites which had established those institutions and always dominated their student bodies.

As a result, a quiet war over admissions broke out, involving both political and media influence, with the reigning WASPs seeking to reduce and restrict Jewish numbers and the Jews struggling to maintain or expand them. Although there seems no paper-trail of any direct references to the enormously popular national newspaper and books published by Henry Ford or any similar material, it is difficult to believe that the academic combatants were not at least somewhat aware of the theories of a Jewish assault on Gentile society then being so widely promoted. It is easy to imagine that a respectable Boston Brahmin such as Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell regarded his own moderate “anti-Semitism” as a very reasonable middle-ground between the lurid claims promoted by Ford and others and the demands for unlimited Jewish enrollment made by his opponents. Indeed, Karabel himself points to the social impact of Ford’s publications as a significant background factor to this academic conflict.

At this point in time, the Anglo-Saxon elites still held the upper hand in the media. The very heavily Jewish film industry was only in its infancy and the same was true for radio, while the vast majority of major print outlets were still in Gentile hands, so the descendants of America’s original settlers won this round of the admissions war. But when the battle was rejoined a couple of decades later, the strategic political and media landscape had completely shifted, with Jews having achieved near-parity in print influence and overwhelming dominance in the more powerful electronic media formats such as film, radio, and nascent television, and this time they were victorious, easily breaking the hold of their longtime ethnic rivals, and eventually achieving almost complete dominance over those elite institutions.

And ironically enough, the most lasting cultural legacy of the widespread anti-Jewish agitation of the 1920s may be the least recognized. As mentioned above, modern readers might find the text of the Protocols rather boring and bland, almost like they had been cribbed from the extremely long-winded monologue of one of the diabolical villains of a James Bond story. But it wouldn’t surprise me if there were actually an arrow of causality in the opposite direction. Ian Fleming created this genre in the early 1950s with his string of international best-sellers, and it is interesting to speculate about the source of his ideas.

ORDER IT NOW

Fleming had spent his youth during the 1920s and 1930s when the Protocols were among the most widely read books in much of Europe and leading British newspapers of the highest credibility were recounting the successful plots of Schiff and other international Jewish bankers to overthrow the government of Britain’s Czarist ally and replace it with Jewish Bolshevik rule. Moreover, his later service in an arm of British Intelligence would surely have made him privy to details of that history that went far beyond those public headlines. I think it is more than pure coincidence that two of his most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre, a secretive and mysterious international organization hostile to all existing governments. The Protocols themselves may be half-forgotten today, but their cultural influence probably survives in the Bond films, whose $7 billion of aggregate box-office gross ranks them as the most successful movie series in history when adjusted for inflation.

 

The extent to which established historical facts can appear or disappear from the world should certainly force all of us to become very cautious in believing anything we read in our standard textbooks, let alone what we absorb from our more transient electronic media.

In the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, almost no one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event, nor their similar preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For example, former British Minister Winston Churchill in 1920 denounced the “terrorist Jews” who had seized control of Russia and other parts of Europe, noting that “the majority of the leading figures are Jews” and stating that “In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing,” while lamenting the horrors these Jews had inflicted upon the suffering Germans and Hungarians.

Similarly, journalist Robert Wilton, former Russia correspondent of the Times of London, provided a very detailed summary of the enormous Jewish role in his 1918 book Russia’s Agony and 1920 book The Last Days of the Romanovs, although one of the most explicit chapters of the latter was apparently excluded from the English language edition. Not long afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish bankers such as Schiff and Aschberg were widely reported in the mainstream media.

Jews and Communism were just as strongly tied together in America, and for years the largest circulation Communist newspaper in our country was published in Yiddish. When they were finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, a remarkable fraction of America’s Communist spies came from that ethnic background.

A personal anecdote tends to confirm these dry historical records. During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent computer scientist, with whom I’d become a little friendly. While talking about this and that, he happened to mention that both his parents had been zealous Communists, and given his obvious Irish name, I expressed my surprise, saying that I’d thought almost all the Communists of that era were Jewish. He said that was indeed the case, but although his mother had such an ethnic background, his father did not, which made him a very rare exception in their political circles. As a consequence, the Party had always sought to place him in as prominent a public role as possible just to prove that not all Communists were Jews, and although he obeyed Party discipline, he was always irritated at being used as such a “token.”

However, once Communism sharply fell out of favor in 1950s America, nearly all of the leading “Red Baiters” such as Sen. Joseph McCarthy went to enormous lengths to obscure the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combatting. Indeed, many years later Richard Nixon casually spoke in private of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were Jewish, and when this tape became public, his alleged anti-Semitism provoked a media firestorm even though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.

This last point is an important one, since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as “conspiracy theories.” Indeed, even today the ever-amusing pages of Wikipedia provides an entire 3,500 word article attacking the notion of “Jewish Bolshevism” as an “antisemitic canard.”

I remember in the 1970s the enormous gusts of American praise for Solzhenitysn’s three volume Gulag Archipelago suddenly encountered a temporary headwind when someone noticed that his 2,000 pages had included a single photograph depicting many of the leading Gulag administrators, along with a caption revealing their unmistakably Jewish names. This detail was treated as serious evidence of the great author’s possible anti-Semitism since the actual reality of the enormously large role of Jews in the NKVD and the Gulag system had long since disappeared from all the standard history books.

As another example, the Rev. Pat Robertson, a leading Christian televangelist, published The New World Order in 1991, his fiery attack on the “godless globalists” whom he considered his greatest enemy, and it quickly became a massive national best-seller. He happened to include a couple of brief, somewhat garbled mentions of the $20 million which Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff had provided to the Communists, carefully avoiding any suggestion of a Jewish angle and providing no reference for that claim. His book quickly provoked a vast outpouring of denunciation and ridicule across the elite media, with the Schiff story seen as conclusion proof of his delusional anti-Semitism. I cannot really fault these critics since in pre-Internet days they could only consult the indexes of a few standard histories of the Bolshevik Revolution, and finding no mention of Schiff or his money, naturally assumed that Robertson or his source had simply invented the bizarre story. I myself had had exactly the same reaction at the time.

ORDER IT NOW

Only after Soviet Communism had died in 1991 and no longer was perceived as a hostile force were academic scholars in America once again able to publish mainstream books that gradually restored the true picture of that past era. In many respects, a widely praised work such as The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine, published in 2004 by Princeton University Press, provides a narrative quite consistent with long-forgotten works by Robert Wilton but marks a very sharp departure from the largely obfuscatory histories of the intervening eighty-odd years.

Until about a dozen years ago, I had always vaguely assumed that Henry Ford’s The International Jew was a work of political lunacy and the Protocols was a notorious hoax. Yet today, I would probably consider the former as a potentially useful source of possible historical events otherwise excluded from most standard accounts, while at least understanding the argument of why the latter might deserve a place alongside Plato and Machiavelli as a classic of Western political thought.

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 906 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. ‘…A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia…’

    Indeed. I forget where, but I have read that the German General Staff had calculated that after 1916, Russia would be unbeatable. While I disagree with the rather widespread belief that Germany was particularly responsible for World War One, it may well have been the case that once the ball started rolling, many in the General Staff calculated that it would be better to have it out now than to wait.

    Incidentally, to digress, I feel that while it was above all the situation and the paradigm of the times that brought World War One about, if anyone should be held culpable, it would be France and Serbia, while — in contrast to your opinion — I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    As I feel that the subject of German responsibility for the outbreak of WW1, relevant for the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, will be attacked with gusto, I suggest to keep in mind firmly the fact that Germany was the first to declare war on Russia. The reason was indeed the fear that Russia by 1916 would be unbeatable and all the objectives of the 'Weltpolitik' of Germany, which would have been at a certain point in time opposed and countered by Russia. To refresh your memory, the date of the calculations was 1912. Just a few words for orientation (from Wikipedia):

    "The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire. Meeting at the Stadtschloss in Berlin, they discussed and debated the tense military and diplomatic situation in Europe at the time. As a result of the Russian Great Military Program announced in November, Austria-Hungary's concerns about Serbian successes in the First Balkan War, and certain British communications, the possibility of war was a prime topic of the meeting...
    [Kaiser Wilhelms'] opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does… then war would be unavoidable for us, too,” and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". Moltke "wanted to launch an immediate attack"...
    Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years” because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy’s prerequisites for war. The British historian John Röhl has pointed out the coincidence that the date for completion of the widening of the Kiel Canal was the summer of 1914, but a reading of the report of the conference shows no agreement as to a war in 1914. However, Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly."...

    The 'controversial' book of Fritz Fischer "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War), will certainly come into the discussions. He devotes a large chapter to the subversive operations of the Germans in Russia in order to provoke the revolution and the exit from the war with the help of the Jews and Social-Democrats (both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).
    , @anon
    Quite, man quite. the British Banksters would send your sweat ass to their London Tower for a neck stretching ceremony should they over hear Blasphemy suggesting "Britain was not strongest and most powerful promoter of WWI".

    the case begins in earnest in 1896, Switzerland, Hertzl, Zionist Congress.
    The failure of the theme British and French and Russian Banksters(generally known as the Jewish controlled Entente) forced on the Congress (basically to orchestrate successfully the overthrow the whole of the oil and gas rich Ottoman Arab world. The plan was to replace the Ottoman system with a Colonial Rule of Law System, to enable Zionist producers of oil and gas access to Ottoman oil and gas). Revolution after revolution was initiated throughout the Balkans and Macedonia all designed in one way or the other to bring about this change..
    When regime change failed, plan B was initiated.. that plan involved using the highly distributed small groups of Jewish Populations to migrate into the Ottoman Territory. communicating the messages and propaganda to these distributed groups was a Jewish Network task. Immigration was weaponized and used to gain political control over the Ottoman Territory.. hence WWI purpose: get that control of Ottoman oil and block German and Russia competition for the Ottoman oil.
    British and French Palestine.. the result.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I would like to see elaboration and justification of that apparently careful formulation of Ron's that "a crucial underlying [sic] cause of the First World War was Britain's belief [sic] that only a preventative war could forestall [sic] Germany".

    Maybe Jilles Dykstra who makes the extraordinary claim that Britain, France and the Czar conspired to get up the war might pitch in.

    Rational consideration, absent any evidence, would star with the demographics. Unlike Germany and Russia the birth rates of France and Britain had become quite modern and sustainable. Consistently with its traditional balance of powers policy it made sense for Britain to make an alliance with France to deter Germany from attacking the latter and, in particular from occupying the Low Countries - an interest of Britain since at latest 1588. Germany would have to concentrate its resources on its army so its naval building program did not loom up as more than a cause of expense to the British taxpayer as Britain stepped up its shipbuilding program accordingly. In a world of no permanent friends what was it that made Britain turn the alleged belief into some action, not mentioned, to precipitate a war against Germany - especially when it must have known that Russia wasn't yet ready. Or is there some record somewhere of Britain calculating that 1914 was the perfect time to ensure parity of German and Russian losses?
    , @James Charles
    " I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war."

    Here is someone that thinks that Britain was the main instigator of the war?

    Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich
    by Guido Giacomo Preparata
    , @Slobodan Cekic
    ".. A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia. ..."

    This is a very well written and insightful article, and what charms me additionally is the description of how the author experienced this 'tear in the fabric of reality' as he got to know about the background facts no history told us anything about. Namely, I had very similar feelings about it.

    But no wonder that the quotation above attracted the attention of us both, Mr. Wright. It is on that still very contentious theme, whodunit and started the WWI.

    I am slightly reserved on the order in this sentence of Mr. Unz here, because I hold his secondary cause for the primary one. Germany has brought itself into a blind alley by trying to reach the military supremacy over the array of European powers much stronger in the terms of the GDP and population. Germany started the armaments race in Europe long before the outbreak of the war.
    Seeing the Russians preparing for the general modernization of the armed forces in 1912, the German army chief Moltke demanded in Dec. 1912 already the war ASAP, and right then at best.
    The reasoning was simple - the Russians are going to be unbeatable by 1917, and they are going to do then what Germany had in mind all the time - attack when stronger!

    The Kaiser supported Moltke here, and first reason the war did not break out right then - was the British clear notice that they are not going to stay neutral. Would the British do that if they wanted a preventive war? Anyway, Moltke kept pestering the Kanzler Bethmann-Hollweg for the war ASAP many times after this Dec. 1912 session of the Imperial War Council.

    The second reason was the opposition of the navy - they wanted no war before the Kielkanal (connecting Baltic and North Sea south of Denmark) was finished. It was finished third week June, 1914. Ominous, isn't it? And there are other reasons to suspect, Germans knew about Sarajevo event before it happened.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Seraphim says:

    Should we expect the same tsunami of comments like for the previous post of American Pravda? I bet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Should we expect the same tsunami of comments

    You can only jump the shark one time.

    After that, commentary will mostly appeal to the clueless and those who love tragicomedy.
    , @Wally
    Said by a hasbarist / Zionist who hates free speech.

    And yes, that tsunami is coming whether you like it or not.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Paw
    The insanity after 1917 revolution NOW moved and OBSESSES THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD.
    Clearly as the consequences of the 2001 revolution..Neocons and their power and billions.
    You can see the difference between the BIBLE and the Capital /K.Marx/, the Protocols ,as they seems to by an ideological ,revolutionary ideas, to profit the same people.
    Now the connections from the Reserve Bank of the USA/Schiff too was there/,, the World crisis, 1929, fascism of Hitler and the communism of Lenin and Trockij...Is worth of a notice...
    Further there are many details of ordinary life in the East and the Middle, South Europe that are significant to these days.. As from there from anonymity other ,came all..
    Why leave out those brothers NOBEL ,a powerfull goodness of their dynamite, removing the Russian raw materials, and providing needed employment , for revolutionares /Stalin , and others /?
    And many helping Russians and other magnates of utmost richess...Paying for the future hopefull robbery of the all Russia richess.
    As these bolsheviks terrorist did not existed and lived from the air only.
    So why good president Roosewelt Ted ,sent commissions to Russia in order to investigate , crimes against them, recruitment for the coups, and revolutions, financing underground terrrorism against the Tzar and the Russian people, , around 1900, Mr.UNZ .
    Why the star of the TV and the Fake Media , Usama Bin laden in his hatred , did not consider the possibility of crushing into the WALL STREET , as it would, put the USA to its knees economically and stopped, or at least postponed for long time , his end !!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Dan Hayes says:

    Mr. Unz,

    With last week’s essay and this week’s discussion of Schiff, Ford, The Dearborn Independent and The Elders, it looks like it’s Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead.

    What Forbidden Topic will be discussed and what Sacred Cow will be dissected next week?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I got $50 on the holocaust
    , @Anonymous
    I'd be interested in a review of the history of pogroms in Eastern Europe, perhaps combined with Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Nah. It will be: How the Russians are really to blame for the Bolshevik Revolution.

    The Russians seem to be the explanation for everything these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Unfortunately the Jew has throughout history been Pogromed. The inevitable leftist turn and they are mostly responsible for it, in this country will bite them in their ass. Democratic Socialism is on its way. And the victomology that is such a big part of its core loves the Palestinian. Its gonna be a long next 100 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    What 'pogroms' do you refer to.
    Please present proof.

    Thanks.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "Democratic Socialism is on its way."

    It's already here in the form of a mixed economy. What we need to fear is the new breed of elites, Trotskyite racialists who have prospered in the capitalist game and now want world revolution, at the behest of the Babylonian supremacist cult.
    , @MBlanc46
    Jews are seen as white and Palestinians are seen as people of color. That probably doesn’t bode well for the Jews.
    , @siberiancat
    Landowners throughout history have been pogromed as well, oftentimes alongside the Jews who were their tax farmers, estate managers etc.

    Isn't it the evidence of Anti-Landownerism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Sean says:

    .

    And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia,

    Whoa, that puts the stories about 1918 in a very different light.

    Other contemporaries seem to have taken the Protocols very seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure,

    I once looked up the text of that article by perusing the relative edition of the Times on microfilm and it was rather different in tone to what later authors such as Norman Cohn asserted .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    If so, then what exactly did that "microfilm text" say?
    And citation, please.

    www.codoh.com

    , @Anonymous

    Whoa, that puts the stories about 1918 in a very different light.
     
    How so? I can't tell if that is sarcasm.

    What was the tone of the Times article?
    , @anon
    Russo - Japan was the occasion that Schiff used to destroy or attempted to destroy Czar 's Russia . He forced America not to provide the loan to Russia . He forced US to tilt to Japan militarily .
    , @anon
    "However, German counter-intelligence had penetrated part of the socialist revolutionary network and upon reading his writing in the socialist press during the Russo-Japanese War, found Parvus had

    predicted that Russia would lose the war
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    resulting in unrest and revolution. When this proved to be the case, Parvus' prestige among his socialist and other German comrades increased. Thus, German intelligence soon estimated he would be useful in efforts against the Russian Empire."
    Wikipedia

    How the heck did he predict?


    Here lies the value of the conntivity- insider information.
    , @Patricus
    The "heavy pressure" that caused the London Times to retract the Protocols was, as I understand, the research of one of the Time's reporters published in 1922. He was based in Istanbul and he comprehensively debunked the Protocols, proving it was a fraud produced by Russian secret police. It was also plagiarized, to a large degree, from a publication earier in the century called Dialogues from Hell, a debate between Napolean and Machiavelli. Many passages are nearly word for word. The inmates of hell supposedly elaborated on how a society can be undermined via central banking and manipulation of the media, etc. (I have not yet found this publication).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    lol

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Sean says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Yes id like to see Unz take a run at anthony suttons work which strikes me probably true but all these things so hard to get to bottom when memory holed by powers that be
    , @Old fogey
    Many thanks for the link to Antony Sutton. I will need to read his books. He had scathing things to say about the Hoover Institution, by the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Dan Hayes says:

    The cited “eminent computer scientist” (obviously John McCarthy) was used as a token as was Carl Jung.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sarz
    No, my money for "the eminent computer scientist" is definitely on Claude Shannon, whom I ran into a couple of times in the 60s at the house of a Jewish friend and mentor of mine with whom he used to play chess. I knew about his communism, but not about his Jewish mother. The main thing about him, of course, was that he had pioneered information theory.
    , @Anonymous
    How do you know they were deliberately used as tokens?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I’d note that associations between Jews and revolutionary socialism in America weren’t just the product of observing events in Europe.

    I read an interesting book called More Powerful than Dynamite that describes the social unrest and pre-revolutionary agitation that gripped New York City in 1915-1916. The author appears genuinely unaware of the fact, but a very large proportion — half? two-thirds? — of the figures he names are Eastern European Jews. For whatever reason, a completely disproportionate percentage of these people came boiling out of their shtetls absolutely possessed by revolutionary fervor. Was it hatred of Tsarism? A reaction to being freed from the rule of their traditional communities and rabbis? I don’t know — but it’d be interesting to read about.

    More mundanely, I read Frederik Pohl’s memoir of the early science-fiction scene, The Way the Future Was. In it, he discusses his membership in the Young Communists League or some such thing in New York City in late thirties — and notes that although he didn’t find the fact significant, the membership was indeed disproportionately Jewish.

    It’s a bit like blacks and basketball. Not all basketball players are black, but they disproportionately are. Ditto for Jews and Communists — both in Europe and here. As a rough rule, they seem to have been overrepresented by a factor of between ten and a hundred. I think that seeing Communism as a Jewish plot is a paranoid over-simplification — but it is equally unreasonable to see no connection at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dieter kief
    Add to that the tight connection between jews and the secret police and spys and - you know: intelligence services of all kinds in Eastern Europe. It's said, that they were heavily dominated by Jews - one of the rather solid reasons for anti-semitism there after the implosion of the Eastern Block.

    Later famous German literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki for example was one of those secret service men in London after he had survived the Third Reich in a hideawy in Poland.

    , @Daniel Rich
    Westerns on TV would have Native Americans burn down everything within sight [and mostly without any logical reason].

    But when you start looking at who're behind such scenarios [writers, directors, producers], you'll discover a projection of pogroms [quite often by Jews with an Eastern European background].

    And, yes, I fell for it too.

    The Hollywood Indian - Link to Wikipedia [this being a Wikipedia entry, don't expect to find the full and naked truth]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton’s list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    You are hereby debunked.
    , @ploni almoni
    Anarcho-Supremacist? What bunk dedunk.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    Was it debunked by Snopes, perchance?
    , @Kratoklastes
    People who say things like "[X] has been debunked" without giving any evidence of the debunking of [X], debunk themselves.

    It takes about ten seconds to buttress a claim of 'debunking' by typing in a reference to the work that supposedly does the debunking.

    I know this isn't a graduate seminar or a think-tank tea-room, but given Unz's preparedness to disclose his previous naïveté (and the process by which the scales fell from his eyes), it would be good form to make counter-arguments rather than what amounts to a content-free tweet.

    Give Unz some credit: he has the training to discriminate between sources, and seems genuinely committed to figuring out what things are true and what are not. To assert that his process is retarded (which is what you're doing by dismissing a source so flippantly), without any obligation to buttress your assertion, makes you immediately suspect.
    , @Bierstiefel
    You lost me at anarcho. Anarcho-supremacist? Grow up you silly man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. As to the reality and extent of China’s famine during the Great Leap Forward, I strongly recommend you read Yang Jisheng’s Tombstone: the Great Chinese Famine 1958-1962. It was real — and fully as bad as advertised.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    Did you read the critique, Ron's link?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Q; … 15 million or less dead…

    R: That’s still the entire population of 161 individual countries around the globe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Cyrano says:

    According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews.

    Thanks to the capitalist system, many of them have managed to become enormously rich – some would say thanks to their genetic predisposition towards greed, which of course is unique only to them.

    Well then it makes a perfect sense to me that they would be the ones to finance a revolution in Russia that would bring a system which pretty much doesn’t allow anyone to get rich.

    Wouldn’t it have made more sense if members of the Jewish community have financed a capitalist – sorry – “democratic” revolution in Russia, which will allow them to prosper financially like they did in the west?

    Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? What is the logic here? They did it because they are evil? How did the Jewish financiers of the October revolution knew that Stalin will come along and pervert the idea of Socialism (to a certain degree), and turn it into one massive orgy of pogroms (according to some) against anybody and everybody.

    The whole idea is pure nonsense. The only way that it will make sense to me is that the Jews financed the October revolution because they expected that their people will get more equal treatment under that system than in Czarist Russia. Not because they wanted to unleash something evil on this world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Just a doin' a what comes nachurally.
    , @Wally
    said:
    "Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? "

    Please present proof for these alleged "pogroms".

    said:
    "According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews."

    You surely mean "capitalism" where Jews play by a different set of self serving rules.

    www.codoh.com

    , @ohmy
    ... "According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews."
    "Thanks to the capitalist system, many of them have managed to become enormously rich – some would say thanks to their genetic predisposition towards greed, which of course is unique only to them".

    The problem with the capitalist system is not capitalism per se, rather the problem is, it's their system.
    FACT ... if you're a Jew, and in good standing with the Synagogue you may file bankruptcy in State Court, then trot right over to the local temple, and get a loan from the Tribe. Then change your name and shingle. Presto your still in business, and never missed a beat. A Jew can do this 3 times.
    If my memory is correct the check will have 3 small 6 pointed stars near the top border. If you aren't a Jew and are unfortunate enough to file bankruptcy you're out of luck. Just get in line with the other goyim at your local bank. The wait is about 7 years.
    , @cassandra
    "The only way that it will make sense to me is that the Jews financed the October revolution because they expected that their people will get more equal treatment under that system than in Czarist Russia."

    The simplest, most direct, strategy is to simply seize power. Why would the Jews worry about establishing favorable economic or political systems for themselves if they could wield power directly? In financial terms, why be the czar's middleman tax collector when you can keep the take for yourself? Only catch is, how do you con the population into accepting a program which will only benefit a few %. For this it's necessary to provide some plausible ideology, to psychologically propagandize the masses to accept what's going on, long enough for a secret police to be established. Then control is firm, and the ideology just morphs into slogans, and when circumstances devolve, into tyrrany (this happened in Germany). The hazard is that another party might seize these levers of power, so carefully established established, in a coup. I think that is what Stalin managed, but I'm not competent to address the main problem for this scenario, namely, how did he wrest power from the Jewish cabal when they had so much international support? Perhaps Jewish control was never decisive in the first place. After all, ethnic Lithuanian Dzerzhinsky was the one who controlled the GRU and the Cheka, and Krupskaya and others maintained substantial political influence.
    , @Thirdeye
    There's a gap to fill in between Schiff, Warburg et al. financing the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and them financing the October revolution, which would validate the thesis that they financed the Bolsheviks. The 1905 and February 1917 revolutions were led by Mensheviks following a Social Democrat strategy. The Bolsheviks were marginalized in both cases and their leaders were imprisoned after the February revolution. Jews didn't have a dog in the fight as far as Bolshevik or Menshevik rule was concerned. Their enemy the Tsar was gone from power and Jews were prominent within the Menshevik faction and the Kadets as they were within the Bolsheviks. American Jewish bankers might actually have preferred the Mensheviks for maintaining a capitalist economy. Germany, however, wanted Russia to quit the war and the Mensheviks were not doing that. Spiriting Lenin back into Russia from Switzerland and supporting the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks was their strategy to get Russia out of the war. Germany's role in supporting the October revolution is definite; the foreign Jewish role is iffy.

    IMO Jewish affinity for dissident movements is a thing of the past. It was in their interests to support them when they were outsiders excluded from power structures. Now they are firmly ensconced in the power structure and are arguably at the top of the power structure. What passes for support from the power structure for dissidents is actually co-optation to prevent dissent from threatening the status quo, which suits Jews just fine, thank you.
    , @Anon
    Germans sent Lenin to Petersburg, soon to become Leningrad. Politics makes for odd...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. BenKenobi says:

    And here we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And here we are.

    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/2860987.jpg

    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/259686.jpg

    http://j387mediahistory.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/2/2/6422481/1173394.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Heros says:

    This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.

    Having grown up watching every Bond movie as they came out, I never considered jew villains as an element of the plot, and I have still never had until I read this article. I guess the parallels the mob, where the front men were all italians but the real mob was Spiegel, Lansky and the Rothschilds.

    The Bond film series illustrates how deep jewery has penetrated our lives, and how it is almost always hidden, or crypto. As I have become woke over the last decade, I find that every rock in our history that I overturn, greedy jews pop out. Where ever Jews are involved in groups greater than one, throughout history, they always appear to lurking around following secret agendas that uniformly work counter to the interest of their Christian hosts and especially their children.

    We know from the murders of Sikorsky and others to cover up Katyn, from the creation of Bnai Brith, ADL and SPLC to cover up Blood Sacrifice, from the genocidal theft of Palestine and the murder of its people continuing today, that jews go to incredible lengths to cover up their tracks from goyim.

    So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a “tsk”.

    The truth is that when we discuss history, no text written by a jew or crypto jew can be trusted unless it is indirectly exposing jewish guilt or malfeasance. They ALL have to be thrown out the window if we are seeking truth, because all of them are filled with deliberate misdirections and lies. We should treat jewish documents the same way jews treat Mein Kampf, only as evidence of jewish guilt.

    The fact the Bolsheviks made possession of the protocols an instant death penalty, and for the 10 closest family member, is alone proof of its veracity in their eyes, and also the true forces motivating them. We see this same jewish double goy jeopardy with the holocaust denial laws, where denying jewish lies can get you thrown in jail faster than an SS soldier was murdered by the Ritchie boys after surrender.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kolo, Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Anonym
    So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a “tsk”.

    I think within the last few weeks Ron has shown immense courage. Ron is an agent of reform and I am thankful he exists.

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
    , @James N. Kennett

    This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.
     
    When presenting controversial material, IMHO it is best to minimize offense to everyone, so that the material can speak for itself. Do not give one's opponents an excuse to label the article as anti-semitic or anti anything else. Do not give them an excuse to avoid thinking about the subject matter. Present the facts.

    I think the American Pravda series strikes the right tone, and each article surprises me with vital historical information that has been memory-holed.

    , @Anon
    Bond is empire vs empire. Bond is a tool of imperial power than of freedom.

    Also, those villain names could just be taken for German.

    More interesting than Bond is THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST and Harry Palmer movies. esp IPCRESS FILE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL2Qj_h_d-o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc1LAGUG9j0
    , @Paw
    What they the Fake Media capitalize on is to deny connections between the events.
    In 1921 the Polish and international army defeated the Bolsheviks and then massacred , yeas massacred them as they had no arms....over one million of the Russian war prisoners.
    It is no secret that Stalin had a very big thirst for HIS REVENGE.
    15-20 thousands at Katyn was not enough for him by far. And he was proud a hecertainly did not want it , to stay that secret ..
    Sikorski was killed , but by accident only ,as his Czech pilot was very experienced and he and others who stayed alive confirmed it as the fact , when it was investigated...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Books I do not see mentioned:
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
    Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955
    Horace Meyer Kallen, ‘Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology’, New York, 1921
    Elisabeth Dilling, ´The Roosevelt Red record and its background’, 1936, Chicago

    And I have a consolation, the murder of Rabin by an orthodox jew after the Oslo Accords made me wonder if zionist jews did want peace, being retired I had the time to investigate, and found about about fairy tales such as 'land without people for people without land'.

    Sept 11 was the next investigation trigger, once I could no longer prevent the conclusion that it had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.
    How could our liberator of WWII have become an evil state ?
    I found out about Baruch and FDR, etc.
    Had there been no Baruch, I wonder if there would have been a WWII.
    As Hitler in 1939 threatened jewry 'if they again caused a world war …'.

    I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.

    However, the blackmail of the Balfour Declaration, jews do seem responsible for the German defeat in 1918.
    Without USA military interference Germany would have won in November 1917.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon

    I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.
     
    The evidence is there already by 1903 in Zionist co-founder Max Nordau's stirring speech that year to Zionists in Paris:

    Litman Rosenthal:

    "About a month later [~Sept. 1903] I went on a business trip to France. On my way to Lyons I stopped in Paris, and there I visited, as usual, our Zionist friends. One of them told me that this very same evening Dr. Nordau was scheduled to speak about the Sixth Congress"
    [...]
    "When we reached the hall in the evening we found it filled to overflowing and all were waiting impatiently for the great master, Nordau, who, on entering, received a tremendous ovation. But Nordau, without paying heed to the applause showered upon him, began his speech immediately, and said:"


    ‘You all came here with a question burning in your hearts and trembling on your lips, and the question is, indeed, a great one, and of vital importance. I am willing to answer it. What you want to ask is: How could I—I who was one of those who formulated the Basle program—how could I dare to speak in favor of the English proposition concerning Uganda, how could Herzl as well as I betray our ideal of Palestine...'
     
    “The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau’s beautiful, truly poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the hearers with an almost sensual pleasure. For a few seconds the speaker paused, and the public, absolutely intoxicated by his splendid oratory, applauded frantically. But soon Nordau asked for silence and continued":

    ‘Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people, offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion and never will be Zion.'
    [...]
    '...let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.'
     

     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_14
    , @cassandra
    Another "missing" book, recently published by describing this era, is Gerd Schulze-Rhonhof's "1939-The War That Had Many Fathers". From the start, the book gives the impression that Western Europe (specifically England, in this case) doesn't want Eastern Europe (in this case Germany) to become an equal player on the world stage. The fanatical pre-WWI propaganda campaign against Germany, documented here, eerily resonates with contemporary media demonization of Russia, another Eastern country whose transgression is trying to stand on its own feet and claim some respect.
    , @Seraphim
    A book you would hardly find is:

    Netchvolodow A. - L'Empereur Nicolas II et les Juifs
    Essais sur la révolution russe dans ses rapports avec l'activité universelle du Judaïsme contemporain
    Traduction du Russe par I. M. Narischkina - Paris : Chiron, 1924

    Many data about the role of Jacob Schiff by a contemporary.
    , @j2
    "I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy."

    WWI was still set up by Freemasons as 1) the war that ends all wars, 2) for destroying three monarchies (Germany, Russia, Austria), 3) raising the USA to a world power, 4) as a part of the pre-Zionistic plan (to get Palestine from Turkey to either Germany or England), but there were interests and longer term plans by financial backers of these Masons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. One important historical figure who is unknown in the west is Alexander Parvus, aka Israel Helphand. He was the man who persuaded the German Generals to send Lenin to Russia in the sealed train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus#Russian_Revolution

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Waitemata says:

    Thanks for this article. I have just reread Ford’s ‘My Life and Work;’ my father’s old (1926) edition. Have also read Robert Wilton’s ‘Last Days of the Romanoffs’ several times so appreciate references to these two authors. I hope Wilton has been republished in this year of the anniversary of the cruel martyrdom of the Russian Imperial family by the Bolsheviks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Very interesting article.

    Here’s a fascinating quote from “The International Jew.”

    In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war.

    If you replace “Germany” with “Russia,” perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. Interestingly enough, modern Jews seem to really like Germany these days.

    What are your thoughts on the refugee crisis in Europe? Given how much Jewish currency trader George Soros has done to encourage refugee migration into Europe, do you think there’s some sort of Jewish conspiracy at work here?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The plans to destabilise the ME originate in Israel.
    If part of these plans was to destabilise Europe too, possible, but I never heard of it.
    Soros' indoctrination scheme for open society has been running for many decades.
    , @Anonymous
    Soros thinks he's a god:

    It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. "I fancied myself as some kind of god ..." he once wrote. "If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

    When asked by Britain's Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."
     
    ... and not a benevolent one. The "philanthropist" persona is fake:

    Despite his reputation as an international philanthropist, Soros remains candid about his true charitable tendencies. "I am sort of a deus ex machina," Soros told the New York Times in 1994. "I am something unnatural. I'm very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I'm not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I've very much self-centered."
     
    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4

    So there it is. The lizard himself gave you some basic truths. Now you're free to connect the dots of his various "philanthropic" projects and see the common thread (white genocide).
    , @LSJohn
    "If you replace “Germany” with “Russia,” perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. "

    Simpler than that: Russia supports Iran and Syria, which each support Hezbollah, Public Enemies #s 1, 2, and 3 of you-know-who(m),
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon[341] • Disclaimer says:

    During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent computer scientist, which whom I’d become a little friendly.

    With

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Bukowski says:

    Article by Mark Weber – The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime – can be found here.

    https://codoh.com/library/document/2487/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paw
    It is now the USA turn, to go through its revolution no matter how you call it.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the ‘socialist utopia’ was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of “Let’s get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals,” in Schiff’s thinking.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger’s disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now ‘above all that primitive, backward thinking.’

    Jews who think this way keep saying, “Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge.” This is a bunch of coded wording for, “If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we’re different and special,” without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

    At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they’re still too blinded by their egos to see it.

    Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger’s, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again.

     

    No, the reason is so that the masses will welcome the police state for their own protection.
    , @anon
    Disclaimer, this is exactly the kind of real thinking I like and find to be rare. Please join my TALTRA group on facebook.
    , @jsm
    his is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence,

    Why do you assert that Jews insist criminal blacks be let out because they honest to go think scolding will work...

    ...as opposed to...

    that the Jews insist blacks be let out because they are parasites who want to weaken their White host?

    What makes YOU an expert in what goes on in Jews' minds?
    , @Anonymous

    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the ‘socialist utopia’ was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of “Let’s get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals,” in Schiff’s thinking.
     
    Lol no!

    The "socialist utopia" angle was clearly designed to appeal to the poor Russian goyim. Did I miss the part where Schiff abandoned his treasures and moved to Russia to bask in that utopia?

    The "revenge" angle was the goal. Obviously. He poured money into "utopia propaganda" and into "revenge". Only one of them worked as advertised. Imagine my shock.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic ...
     
    Haha, save that shit for Yahoo Answers or Wikipedia.

    https://i.imgtc.com/27zrqiA.jpg
    , @Svigor

    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the ‘socialist utopia’ was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of “Let’s get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals,” in Schiff’s thinking.
     
    I don't see much difference between them and the ilk who actually made the "socialist utopia" into a "bloody failure" with their own two hands...

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger’s disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.
     
    This seems like projection (or designed to appeal to that tendency). Jews have a very convenient form of "Aspergers" that, instead of seeking consistency, consistently papers over inconsistency. GLARING, IMPOSSIBLE-TO-MISS inconsistencies like being the world's foremost anti-colonialists when it comes to the white goyim, and the world's foremost colonialists when it comes to the Jewish state.

    White men project autism onto the Jews because most white men can understand autism, but not Jews - I think it's something else. The "Jewish babe in the woods" thing doesn't work, IMO. I've stood there and waved the truth under too many Jews' noses and watched them dismiss it without a further thought to believe that explanation. Jews' ignorance is far too STUDIOUS.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. I read The International Jew about five years ago. Well, I tried to read it, but gave up before getting half way through. As Ron said, it became quite monotonous and too much of the discussion was focused on obscure events of the day. I might have persevered, but eventually the numerous speculative conspiracy-theory-style reaches in explaining contemporary and historical events got to me.

    As for the Protocols, neo-nazis often claim that the important thing about it isn’t whether it was a ‘hoax’ or not, but whether it explains the present. I suppose that’s true in the sense that it gives an insight into the mindset of the people who were concerned about the growth of Jewish influence before that influence became a fact. I haven’t read the whole thing, so I can’t comment on Ron’s claim that it deserves to be a considered a classic of political theory.

    Another neo-nazi point which I also think is partly correct is that “Jews are the skeleton key to history.” Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, but the basic point has to be granted: that an understanding of certain historical events will always be incomplete without sufficient consideration of the Jewish role.

    It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.”

    This makes it sound like the Russians coined “Fordism.” Did they? I don’t know. But modern historians and social scientists with a leftist bent routinely refer to Fordism, both as a management theory and as a social structure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, ..."

    Please tell us what alleged 'neo-Nazi' "weird and wonderful conspiracy theories" that it "leads" to.

    www.codoh.com

    , @MarkinPNW
    Wasn't "Fordism" the official state religion in Huxley's "Brave New World", with the symbol of the capitol T in honor of the Ford Model T automobile replacing the Christian Cross (resembling the lower case t) as the primary religious symbol?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous[283] • Disclaimer says:

    A fascinating piece, Ron. Thank you.

    In the passage about the Ivy League admissions debate, would it add or distract to include the proportion of Jewish representation at some of those institutions at its height, when the debate was getting underway?

    You mentioned your interest in China. Did any Jews participate in the communist revolution there, or in the government?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

    Although it is widely believed Ho Chi Minh was Jewish, he was not. However, General Vo Nyugen Giap was, making the Vietnamese communist takeover tricky.

    This Asian is obviously Jewish. We can only hope she starts a revolution.

    https://youtu.be/V6O92PE551I

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Thanks Ron for another true life thriller. I cannot say of this latest illustration of the American Pravda theme that I have yet come across anything on TV’s serious channels such as “History” or the National Geographic” which in any way suggests that a wider conception of MSM would qualify your main point about the memory hole and the diggers of it.

    I thank you too for reminding me of that very smart half Irish scientist who stayed with me in Australia many years ago. I mention him in the hope that your archive project might ensure, if it hasn’t been done by the university on whose campus he lived, that access to his major and minor writings will be available. (Cf. the Francis Galton archive – which comes to mind because I like linking to his 1864 letter to The Times headed “Africa for the Chinese” – like you c. 1980 he had already formed a favourable sociobiological view of the Chinese :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. A possible consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution was the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany. In Munich refugees from the Russian Empire met members of a new German Nationalist party, the NSDAP. The interactions between these people are believed to have resulted in the adoption of extreme anti-semitic policies by the NSDAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_Vereinigung

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    German antisemitism began around 1870.
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.

    There was possibly another cause,-Britain’s fear of Russian expansion in East Asia and towards Persia and India. It has been argued that the British sought to redirect Russia towards Constantinople and the Balkans, thus bringing the latter into conflict with Austria-Hungary and Germany. http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-silk-roads-to-great-war.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The last thing GB wanted is that Russia got control of the Straits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world’s most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization,

    A bit of a whopper from a man of Mr Unz’s Classical background. Chinese writing goes back to about 1250 BC, but Mycenaean Greek writing goes back to at least 1450 BC. And if you accept the hypothesis that Hurrian and Urartrian were merely the official languages of an essentially Armenian people, you can push Armenian civilisation back well beyond 2000 BC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frankie P
    Do you know what "continuous" means?
    , @Anon
    There’s more to a civilization than writing. For instance, Stonehenge was finished a thousand years before 1450BC. That required a complicated and very well organized civilization with advanced tools and mechanical means to move and place those stones upright.

    Chinese domestication of animals, rice growing and the complicated systems of terraces and irrigation to grow rice 6000 BC and silk weaving 4,000 years ago are as much of an indication of civilization as writing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it’s worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks’ main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather “colorful” too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    I recently discovered that his son is rather “colorful” too.

    Grandson, I believe.
    , @Sean
    At comment 7 above is an interview with Antony C. Sutton. From his book.

    http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch3.html
    Brockdorff-Rantzau's ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. [...]

    A subsequent document5 outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed "Russian troops to move into India"; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program. Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 1916, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia.6

    Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter.
     

    The German-Jewish Economic Elite (1900 – 1933) was central to the German effort to help Lenin.
    , @Hans Olav Brendberg
    Robert Aschberg is not the son, but the granson of Robert Aschberg. He was central in Swedish maoism in the seventies, then turned to journalism. He has been a driving force in the "anti-extremism"-movement in Sweeden. Not just the Swedish Institute, but also the Expo - a Swedish branch of the ADL/SPLC "antiracist" network.
    , @utu

    That said, it’s worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year.
     
    But we do not know how much money Schiff put into the project of revolution. We know that he put a lot of money into Japan:

    http://nda-repository.nda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/11605/91/1/1-2_人文科学抜刷_村岡先生.pdf
    By the end of 1905, Kuhn, Loeb&Co., to the surprise of many, floated a bond issue in the sum of $200 million – equivalent to some $4.5 billion in today’s money. Schiff’s loans were an important factor—and his extensive financial involvement, a deciding factor—in bringing victory to Japan.
     
    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?
    , @renfro
    The Aschberg Diamond---from the Crown Jewels of Russia

    https://www.internetstones.com/image-files/ashberg-diamond-amber-coloured.jpg


    Olof Aschberg clamed he bought the diamond in 1934, when a Russian trade delegation visited Stockholm during that year.
    I seriously doubt he 'bought' it....a lot of valuables 'fell off the truck' and into the hands of those like Aschberg as the Bolsheviks looted Russia.

    , @Anonymous
    Ahh, but who in Germany was in charge at that time and what interests did they have?

    Anatoly conveniently forgot to fill in the (((blanks))) on that one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. iffen says:
    @Seraphim
    Should we expect the same tsunami of comments like for the previous post of American Pravda? I bet.

    Should we expect the same tsunami of comments

    You can only jump the shark one time.

    After that, commentary will mostly appeal to the clueless and those who love tragicomedy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Frankie P says:
    @Verymuchalive

    By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world’s most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization,
     
    A bit of a whopper from a man of Mr Unz's Classical background. Chinese writing goes back to about 1250 BC, but Mycenaean Greek writing goes back to at least 1450 BC. And if you accept the hypothesis that Hurrian and Urartrian were merely the official languages of an essentially Armenian people, you can push Armenian civilisation back well beyond 2000 BC.

    Do you know what “continuous” means?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    None of the civilisations mentioned has been continuous in the sense of unconquered. All have been subject to foreign conquest, partition and warring states at various times. The last continuous civilisation was the Japanese, until their defeat in 1945.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jon Halpenny

    A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.
     
    There was possibly another cause,-Britain's fear of Russian expansion in East Asia and towards Persia and India. It has been argued that the British sought to redirect Russia towards Constantinople and the Balkans, thus bringing the latter into conflict with Austria-Hungary and Germany. http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-silk-roads-to-great-war.html

    The last thing GB wanted is that Russia got control of the Straits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    In 1915 the British made a treaty promising Constantinople to the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    Very interesting article.

    Here's a fascinating quote from "The International Jew."

    In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war.
     
    If you replace "Germany" with "Russia," perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. Interestingly enough, modern Jews seem to really like Germany these days.

    What are your thoughts on the refugee crisis in Europe? Given how much Jewish currency trader George Soros has done to encourage refugee migration into Europe, do you think there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy at work here?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

    The plans to destabilise the ME originate in Israel.
    If part of these plans was to destabilise Europe too, possible, but I never heard of it.
    Soros’ indoctrination scheme for open society has been running for many decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Destabilize might not be quite the word for it. Pulverize and dilute the various indigenous national identities? Yes.

    One other related maneuver that is underway is that the Jews are giving Muslims territory in Europe and the United States in exchange for the Jews' having taken Palestine. It's a form of pacification, of letting the pressure out. It distracts the Muslims with the fruits of capitalism and other material wealth and political power (in Europe and US). It also clears potentially resistant young men out of Israel's neighborhood. I suppose one could also view it as payment of compensatory damages.
    , @Paw
    Recently very ferocious explosion of Trump against the Iran , show for the fact , that he too serve the Izrael interests only.
    Netanjahu wants to provoke the war , where the Usa Army would have to attack and destroy Iran and then shall come the BANKERS and Izrael to steal the huge Iran riches !!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Jon Halpenny
    A possible consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution was the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany. In Munich refugees from the Russian Empire met members of a new German Nationalist party, the NSDAP. The interactions between these people are believed to have resulted in the adoption of extreme anti-semitic policies by the NSDAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_Vereinigung

    German antisemitism began around 1870.
    Ismar Schorsch, ‘Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wasn't Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?
    , @ploni almoni
    Dear Innocent in Paradise: German "Anti-Semitism" was the invention of a Jewish journalist, Wilhelm Marr (yes, he was Jewish, and Karl Marx was a Lutheran) hired by the Zionists to prepare the way for the coming of the Millennium. Anti-Semitism was at that time already invented in Russia by a respectable doctor, Leon Pinsker, who said Anti-Semitism is thousands of years old, hereditary and incurable. Dr. Pinsker MD was an early front man, a public spokesman for Zionism, who already adopted Hatikvah as the anthem, before Herzl was hired. And yes, Theodore Herzl was also a hired journalist, a front man, an employee, who did as he was told, until he was disposed of. And yes, the Dreyfus Affair was a gimmick, a phony Psy-Op like 9/11. And yes, Emile Zola was another hired journalist. And yes, the pogroms, including the Kishinev pogrom, were just riots. The people killed were rioters. That the pogroms were Anti-Jewish is pure spin, like what you watch on television. Goyim are hopeless and helpless, muscle bound but dumb, a little like cattle or beasts of burden. Give them a peanut, and they are grateful. You can dance circles around them. You can tell them everything, and they just grunt. And then you can lead them by the ring in their noses because they were not endowed with free-will and can't think for themselves.
    , @Miggle
    From Bernt Engelmann's "In Hitler's Germany" it appears that there was no Judeophobia in Germany outside Nazism, or a small group. He describes Jews fighting for Germany in WW1, among the most heroic and patriotic German troops. He describes high levels of intermarriage, a high level of integration generally, warm social relations between "non-Aryans", meaning Jews and "Aryans". Don't take something called "Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism" as an authority, particularly if it was written by a Jew. If there were occasional, rare, minor incidents, they would be blown up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia...'

    Indeed. I forget where, but I have read that the German General Staff had calculated that after 1916, Russia would be unbeatable. While I disagree with the rather widespread belief that Germany was particularly responsible for World War One, it may well have been the case that once the ball started rolling, many in the General Staff calculated that it would be better to have it out now than to wait.

    Incidentally, to digress, I feel that while it was above all the situation and the paradigm of the times that brought World War One about, if anyone should be held culpable, it would be France and Serbia, while -- in contrast to your opinion -- I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war.

    As I feel that the subject of German responsibility for the outbreak of WW1, relevant for the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, will be attacked with gusto, I suggest to keep in mind firmly the fact that Germany was the first to declare war on Russia. The reason was indeed the fear that Russia by 1916 would be unbeatable and all the objectives of the ‘Weltpolitik’ of Germany, which would have been at a certain point in time opposed and countered by Russia. To refresh your memory, the date of the calculations was 1912. Just a few words for orientation (from Wikipedia):

    “The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire. Meeting at the Stadtschloss in Berlin, they discussed and debated the tense military and diplomatic situation in Europe at the time. As a result of the Russian Great Military Program announced in November, Austria-Hungary’s concerns about Serbian successes in the First Balkan War, and certain British communications, the possibility of war was a prime topic of the meeting…
    [Kaiser Wilhelms'] opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does… then war would be unavoidable for us, too,” and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion “a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better”. Moltke “wanted to launch an immediate attack”…
    Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years” because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy’s prerequisites for war. The British historian John Röhl has pointed out the coincidence that the date for completion of the widening of the Kiel Canal was the summer of 1914, but a reading of the report of the conference shows no agreement as to a war in 1914. However, Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded “only reluctantly.”…

    The ‘controversial’ book of Fritz Fischer “Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany’s Aims in the First World War), will certainly come into the discussions. He devotes a large chapter to the subversive operations of the Germans in Russia in order to provoke the revolution and the exit from the war with the help of the Jews and Social-Democrats (both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).

    Read More
    • Disagree: L.K
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...“The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire..." '

    Yes, but...

    I think all the great powers were making preparations and calculations in the same way.

    Against this must be set the fact that Germany was essentially a 'satisfied power' at the time. As even your quote implies, she sought no change in the status quo, but on the contrary, feared such a change.

    It was other powers that threatened to bring about that change: France, with her incessant scheming and machinations to create a coalition that could avenge 1870, Serbia, with her pathological belligerence towards everyone, Russia, with her Slavophile pretensions that, in the upshot, led her to support a Serbia that was manifestly in the wrong. Here, too, France played an apparently key if obscured role in egging both Serbia and Russia on, and then in the case of Russia, making sure she didn't back down.

    I am not arguing that Germany was innocent. I am merely insisting that (a) it was above all the underlying paradigm that made an eventual explosion probable, and that (b) other powers were more at fault.

    There's a lot to be said about it. For example, it's been argued that if Austria hadn't delayed and sought the support of Germany, but rather, had promptly attacked Serbia, then the other powers wouldn't have found themselves taking up the positions that made general war inevitable. Of course, this makes the rather dubious assumption that Austria could in fact have quickly beaten Serbia, but it is an example of how the blame for the greater conflagration shifts depending on how one looks at it.

    Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. However, if there was any one nation that could have prevented the war from breaking out, it would have been France. Absent her activities, a great war becomes discernably less probable. Serbia would never have dared to have engaged in the provocations she did, and isolated and without encouragement from France, Russia would have been more likely to seek security in an accord with Germany and Austria rather than hostility towards them. After all, for Russia above all, a great war objectively offered nothing. Finally, theories about British bankers notwithstanding, I see Britain as less guilty than any other player. She didn't even have an immense conscript army. She was the only player who had refrained from building one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Colin Wright
    As to the reality and extent of China's famine during the Great Leap Forward, I strongly recommend you read Yang Jisheng's Tombstone: the Great Chinese Famine 1958-1962. It was real -- and fully as bad as advertised.

    Did you read the critique, Ron’s link?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Did you read the critique, Ron’s link?'

    I scanned it. It seemed to rely on (a) an a priori assumption that Mao was a wise and benevolent leader, and (b) a belief that Edgar Snow could be relied upon to give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the situation. This is a bit like consulting Hitler and Goebbels in 1943 and concluding that Germany's got it in the bag.

    Conversely, Tombstone is a carefully researched and painstakingly reasoned book that leads inexorably to the conclusion that while no exact total can even be established, the number was indeed in the region of thirty five million deaths plus forty million fewer births.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Jake says:

    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for Ron Unz, who persists in telling far more truth than the powers that be normally allow to be expressed without arranging the ‘accidental’ death of the speaker/writer.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @jilles dykstra
    The last thing GB wanted is that Russia got control of the Straits.

    In 1915 the British made a treaty promising Constantinople to the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Never heard of this treaty.
    If you just read the introduction you understand that it never was.
    If you understood anything of geopolitics you would know that never would Britain allow Russia free access to the Med.
    The movement of grain ships from Russia to the Med interrupted for two days, already Russia could not pay the interest on her foreign debt.
    So the Straits were perfect for controlling Russia.
    It of course may have been that perfidious Albion held out a herring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Anon
    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger's disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now 'above all that primitive, backward thinking.'

    Jews who think this way keep saying, "Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge." This is a bunch of coded wording for, "If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we're different and special," without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

    At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they're still too blinded by their egos to see it.

    Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger's, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again.

    No, the reason is so that the masses will welcome the police state for their own protection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Dr. Doom says:

    What is “taboo” to Zion Pigs? They have no morals. Certainly no religion. Their religion is a set of scrolls purchased in Khazaria. Named for their ancient chieftain Khazar, I believe. They are horribly inbred due to a nasty habit of molesting their own children, and they have the genetic disorders to prove it. Their great pretense of “racial purity” is hiding a horrible little secret. They are the whores of Asia. The steppes is where every marauding horde from Asia goes through to raid Europe. They are a polyglot of a sea of semen gang bangs by every horde that rode through. The biggest and lowest mongrels in the Whole World.
    Followers of Babylon and every vice. The homosexuality comes from kneeling to their horde guests and being Ben Dover at their service. The ultimate cuckold of the World. Their Yentas have inherited their foremothers propensity to lie back and take a train. The ones that didn’t submit DIED. A selected breeding down that has manifested in some nasty habits even to this day apparently.

    Dirty Laundry on the Line. The Fake Religiosity and History hides it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wow
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Anatoly Karlin
    A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather “colorful” too.

    Grandson, I believe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anonymous
    A fascinating piece, Ron. Thank you.

    In the passage about the Ivy League admissions debate, would it add or distract to include the proportion of Jewish representation at some of those institutions at its height, when the debate was getting underway?

    You mentioned your interest in China. Did any Jews participate in the communist revolution there, or in the government?

    Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

    Although it is widely believed Ho Chi Minh was Jewish, he was not. However, General Vo Nyugen Giap was, making the Vietnamese communist takeover tricky.

    This Asian is obviously Jewish. We can only hope she starts a revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

     

    You mock, but in fact there WERE Jews along with Mao. Which is another topic for Ron some day, perhaps.

    https://forward.com/schmooze/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/

    https://jewishjournal.com/news/world/179731/
    , @Anon
    Johnny Rico is too sarcastic to print here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. JackOH says:

    Ron, extraordinary, provocative stuff in your American Pravda series. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Unz Review is my impression that this is how big-shouldered people of goodwill and genuinely liberal disposition used to talk a century ago. I don’t know squat about The Protocols except as it’s referred to by others, almost always prefaced as “anti-Semitic”. The Unzian approach: “Let’s read the damned thing”, seems to me superior and more grown-up.

    BTW-a childhood friend of mine and her husband, both Jewish and one of them observant, retired and now live in the Carolinas. Their occasional stories of elderly neighbors, call them Morris and Sheldon, returning from prison after having served time for white collar crimes such as tax evasion or improprieties on government contracts are sort of unintentionally funny. Looks like they missed the memo on how to be the world’s wire-pullers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    WAYWARD JEWS

    I've known a few Jewish ex-cons, big tough druggies or con men.

    In jail, all the historical differences go right out the window. Its a black and white world in there.

    Usually Jewish ex-cons have a bunch of skinhead friends from jail with Swastika tattoos who will basically concur that "Some Jews are cool".

    The toughest Jews will all be friends with the Nazis because they've done time with them.
    , @Anonymous
    "the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” - Henry Ford


    “There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish”.- the Protocols

    Before you read "the damned thing”, you may read an interesting article by Mr Israel Shamir:

    The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm
    , @Anonymous
    Well put, deserved praise of Ron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Influenced by Maxim Gorky, he and his nephew Nikolai Pavlovich Schmit[e] were significant financial contributors of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party including the newspaper Iskra.[12][13]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savva_Morozov

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Jake says:

    “From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control.”

    That sounds exactly like traditional WASP rule of non-WASP peoples, exactly the way, for example, that Brit Empire businesses set about arranging for revolution of New Spain against Spain, and then of Mexican mestizos and Indios against Mexican criollos (meaning full of nearly full European blood).

    Of course, Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Juarez served the purpose of evicting the French. Criollo rule continues to this day, exemplified by my Hibernian brother Vicente Fox.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. From pages 390-1 of Henry Wickham Steed’s Through Thirty Years:

    ‘The gulf that severed Western Europe from Russia during the latter half of the 19th century was dug and kept open chiefly by Jewish resentment of Russian persecution of the Jews. Yet that resentment sprang also from Jewish detestation of the Russian Holy Synod and of the Russian Orthodox Church. … Against Russian Christian fanaticism was ranged an intense Jewish fanaticism hardly to be paralleled save among the more militant sects of Islam. This Jewish fanaticism allied itself with the anti-Russian forces before and during the earlier years of the war. It abated only when the Russian Revolution of March 1917 and the subsequent advent of Bolshevism, largely Jewish in doctrine and in personnel, overthrew the Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church. The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions—a joy, moreover, in which the Vatican shared, as its attitude towards the Bolshevist delegates to the Genoa Conference of April, 1922, significantly indicated.’

    The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the ‘joy of Jewry’ looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West’s largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions ...

    The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the ‘joy of Jewry’ looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West’s largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.
     
    Good observations. However, the degenerate Western "elites," whose degradation was caused to a large extent by decades of Zionist blackmail and corruption, are unable to mount another serious challenge to a renewed Russia supported by a rapidly surging China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. I feel perhaps the most truthful book ever written on the Bolshevik Revolution was Juri Lina’s “Under The Sign Of The Scorpion”. It details both the heavy Jewish influence and the financial backing by American financiers such as the Schiff’s and Warburg’s
    https://archive.org/stream/Under The Sign Of The Scorpion/sign_scorpion#page/n0

    Another great source for information on the backing of the Bolshevik Revolution by American so called “Capitalist” is Anthony Sutton’s “Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution”

    https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution#page/n0

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Juri Lina film or the revolution.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI
    , @Them Guys
    Yes, I found that book as a free read online and read it. It is amazing how purely evil and so filled with hatred those jewish Bolshevik torturers and mass murderers actually were/are.

    Every description in that book of the many, many ways jews invented for use as a torture reminds one of Apache Indians of the 1800's era. There is simply No method of torture or murderous deaths, them bolshie jews will not do. One thing certain is, whoever reads that book better have a strong stomach, and even the strongest of men will be found wiping a few eye tears away now and then, since the abject brutality and totally Inhuman tortures gleefully done border on being unspeakable.

    And with No other valid reason to be found, other than a true explaination of how, be it Talmudic religion, or other dna traits, or some form insanity present within jewry in general, folks better trained medically than me can debate...But the best reasons when all is added up is simply jews are jews and its Bad for all non jews period. Far too many historical evidences and eras seem to validate that regardless of which nation jews choose to infiltrate in large numbers, so that it then becomes the Next New Host Nation of 1/2 of more of international worldwide jewry. Very evil and immoral and unethical situations develop and develop to the proverbial, Inth-degree every damn time.


    And to date about the only remedy has been for every host nation to give jewry the Big Boot Out.


    At least now, todays usa host nation, none can claim jews still have zero places to call home eh.


    Israel's big enough to fit them all within it. And you can bet all you own, and win the bet, if you bet that within two seconds flat of usa jewry finds out of a plan to get jewry out of America. Most American dwelling jews will screech and squak and holler as if a swine pig stuck with a dagger knife.


    All of their constant talk of how jews so so love israel, how they Own it, and even most every athiest jew when asked "Why so, a right to return eh jewboy"? Those athiests with out skipping a beat, will answer back..."Oh thats due to G-d (god) Gave land of israel to Us jews, see"!...Indeed that same god they reject and refuse to believe even exists, somehow Gave jews lands in palestine like a real estate agent at centruy-21 real estate co. eh. And soon as they get wind of an exit agenda, a thousand excuses to why cannot go live in israel shall surface and do so fast. Benjamin Franklin, founding father, said it best. They are Paristies and like Vampires a jew can't live off another vampire. Nor a flea live off of another flea...They always require a Host Body aka Nation to keep 1/2 of jewry in so to provide for the other 1/2 thru too many corrput ways and means to list.


    Yet no other method of fixing a host nation works. How long has america left before even that option wont work. It sure be real swell if for a change jewry as a whole would finally just act like Mr. Ron Unz, and be willing to admit to facts and truths without any baggage of talmudic fantasy and jewy jewish fables eh...I wont hold my breath for such, and expect that unless jews are who make first moves to fix what they fucked up, it will not end good for anyone involved.


    Cannot help but wonder at times what if?...What If, about 800 or so years ago when some Pope and european Kings agreed to hunt down and find and Burn every talmud scrolls or copies etc to be found...What if they succeded and located every single one, by now 800 yrs later maybe jewry would have assimilated much better and none of this would be reality.


    However for now the real main reality is Yes usa Is latest Host nation, Yes many maybe most jews within usa are grand kids of orig russian bolsheviks, and so far many of them have shown their true colors and leave no secret that america is Next up to play role russian whites and christians suffered so badly under....Read that book, see for yourself what a real fully Depraved and pure evil jewish mind can conjur up when it comes to vicious unspeakable tortures, and mass murderous venomous hatred for the "other" aka all non jews...HINT: Forget MSM claims of how bad a torture Water Boarding is!..Yes it too sounds not too nice to experience, but compared to 1917 and onwards Russia and jewsih invented methods of tortures and mass deaths, no comparison at all.


    Many jews and their Shabboz goy defenders will likely claim such an honest book need be Banned due to it creates more jew haters...Well maybe so eh...But maybe also after you read of those vile evil methods, maybe some jews deserve being hated so badly. That alone should cause naysayer jews and shabboz goys to divert atten To jews and seek a rapid and lasting jew-fix, before too many more folks read the book perhaps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Sean says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    At comment 7 above is an interview with Antony C. Sutton. From his book.

    http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch3.html
    Brockdorff-Rantzau’s ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. [...]

    A subsequent document5 outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed “Russian troops to move into India”; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program. Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 1916, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia.6

    Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter.

    The German-Jewish Economic Elite (1900 – 1933) was central to the German effort to help Lenin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paw
    Lenin was sent by the German general staff as their agent , to destroy the Russia from inside. No secret. He was paid in millions of Gold Marks..
    So the Bolsheviks could hijacks the revolution of the Russian people...
    Then Stalin hijacked the Trockij and Lenin revolution from them. So much of vicious ferocity on Stalin and others, from all the west Media to this day....shows it.
    It does not matter now that the Bolsheviks made the disappearance trick from the world , THE MONSTROUS HATRED OF THE RUSSIA CONTINUES and that prove , what was going on so far.
    Just the roberries of all countries in the Middle and East ....And the insanity when they resist.
    These money too contributed to win that revolution...
    So international bankers could rob , the huge Russian riches
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @JackOH
    Ron, extraordinary, provocative stuff in your American Pravda series. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Unz Review is my impression that this is how big-shouldered people of goodwill and genuinely liberal disposition used to talk a century ago. I don't know squat about The Protocols except as it's referred to by others, almost always prefaced as "anti-Semitic". The Unzian approach: "Let's read the damned thing", seems to me superior and more grown-up.

    BTW-a childhood friend of mine and her husband, both Jewish and one of them observant, retired and now live in the Carolinas. Their occasional stories of elderly neighbors, call them Morris and Sheldon, returning from prison after having served time for white collar crimes such as tax evasion or improprieties on government contracts are sort of unintentionally funny. Looks like they missed the memo on how to be the world's wire-pullers.

    WAYWARD JEWS

    I’ve known a few Jewish ex-cons, big tough druggies or con men.

    In jail, all the historical differences go right out the window. Its a black and white world in there.

    Usually Jewish ex-cons have a bunch of skinhead friends from jail with Swastika tattoos who will basically concur that “Some Jews are cool”.

    The toughest Jews will all be friends with the Nazis because they’ve done time with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia...'

    Indeed. I forget where, but I have read that the German General Staff had calculated that after 1916, Russia would be unbeatable. While I disagree with the rather widespread belief that Germany was particularly responsible for World War One, it may well have been the case that once the ball started rolling, many in the General Staff calculated that it would be better to have it out now than to wait.

    Incidentally, to digress, I feel that while it was above all the situation and the paradigm of the times that brought World War One about, if anyone should be held culpable, it would be France and Serbia, while -- in contrast to your opinion -- I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war.

    Quite, man quite. the British Banksters would send your sweat ass to their London Tower for a neck stretching ceremony should they over hear Blasphemy suggesting “Britain was not strongest and most powerful promoter of WWI”.

    the case begins in earnest in 1896, Switzerland, Hertzl, Zionist Congress.
    The failure of the theme British and French and Russian Banksters(generally known as the Jewish controlled Entente) forced on the Congress (basically to orchestrate successfully the overthrow the whole of the oil and gas rich Ottoman Arab world. The plan was to replace the Ottoman system with a Colonial Rule of Law System, to enable Zionist producers of oil and gas access to Ottoman oil and gas). Revolution after revolution was initiated throughout the Balkans and Macedonia all designed in one way or the other to bring about this change..
    When regime change failed, plan B was initiated.. that plan involved using the highly distributed small groups of Jewish Populations to migrate into the Ottoman Territory. communicating the messages and propaganda to these distributed groups was a Jewish Network task. Immigration was weaponized and used to gain political control over the Ottoman Territory.. hence WWI purpose: get that control of Ottoman oil and block German and Russia competition for the Ottoman oil.
    British and French Palestine.. the result.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @jilles dykstra
    German antisemitism began around 1870.
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972

    Wasn’t Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, "On the Jews and Their Lies."
    He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

    Luther's story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn't want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.
    , @ploni almoni
    Martin Luther was a competing product to Judaism, but the same materialist, Dualist thing in Christian garb. He was just knocking the competition. The princes supported him because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals. Because they were animals.
    , @roo_ster
    Luther started out philo-semetic. He railed against the Roman church for using bad technique in its efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Once the Jews heard Luther and his way of explaining the Gospel, they'd come around.

    Then Luther met and interacted with many learned and influential Jews and modified his views accordingly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Check WALL STREET and THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION by Anthony Sutton, can be had on Amazon leaves no doubt that the Zionists bankers were behind the overthrow of the Russian government and they are behind the overthrow of the Russian and American governments today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger's disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now 'above all that primitive, backward thinking.'

    Jews who think this way keep saying, "Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge." This is a bunch of coded wording for, "If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we're different and special," without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

    At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they're still too blinded by their egos to see it.

    Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger's, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

    Disclaimer, this is exactly the kind of real thinking I like and find to be rare. Please join my TALTRA group on facebook.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. CornCod1 says:

    It turns out that the events of the past few years has proven that the views of “right-wing cranks,” anti-Semites and “conspiracy theorists” had a more correct view of world events than mainstream conservatives. In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money. The events of the last few years have proven this. We have a shadowy “deep state” rebellion against our president, a James Bond villain named George Soros, whose activities Wikileaks proves controls the Democratic Party and other Leftist parties in Europe. Now, anyone with half a brain admits that secret societies control governments across the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money.
     
    Birchers were quite philo-semitic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. I never read the Protocols in its entirely, only bits and pieces. I remember thinking it seemed to be written by a caricature of an evil villain, not even a Bond villain, but a Scooby Doo level villain. It screams fakery from its style. In form, though, it’s brilliant.

    If I were ever to pen something like it, for the Anglo-Saxon world, I would write it just like that. It imparts all necessary information and instructions, yet has plausible deniability built into it. “It’s a fraud, you see. It’s anti-Anglo-Saxon.”

    I admire you for your courage, Mr. Unz; this sort of self-published introspection cannot be as easy as you sometimes make it out to be. Yet, I believe, for the very sake of world peace, we need to at least be able to discuss these issues. If there’s nothing at all to them, let the light shine on the facts, and let each judge for himself. The censorship around certain issues, particularly of the Holocaust, only convinces some of their lack of historical authenticity. Laws aren’t required to back up claims which history easily vindicates, after all.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. utu says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    I feel perhaps the most truthful book ever written on the Bolshevik Revolution was Juri Lina's "Under The Sign Of The Scorpion". It details both the heavy Jewish influence and the financial backing by American financiers such as the Schiff's and Warburg's
    https://archive.org/stream/Under The Sign Of The Scorpion/sign_scorpion#page/n0

    Another great source for information on the backing of the Bolshevik Revolution by American so called "Capitalist" is Anthony Sutton's "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution"
    https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution#page/n0

    Juri Lina film or the revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.

    Required reading here is The Silk Roads, by Frankopan. He demarcates the reason for Russo-German war. Edward Grey, English foreign minister, at the behest of a declining British empire, knew that Russian expansion in Asia would eventually threaten Britain’s Jewel in the Crown, India. Russia had to be turned from a focus on Asia to one on Europe, and alliances with the South Slavs proved just the trick. Russia rightly saw Austria as an easy target for territorial gains, setting off war amongst what had once been the Dreikaiserbund.

    Perfidious Albion has killed more people than any other country as direct and indirect result of policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Keen insight, and a great book. Thanks.

    Revival of Silk Road, OBOR, is setting the successor to the British empire into the same murderous rage.
    Fruit does not fall far from the tree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Most people also do not know, because of whitewashing history, that Germany in 1919 had a Bavarian Soviet Republic centered in Munich, headed by Communist Kurt Eisner. WWI vets, the Freikorps, and others rooted them out. Later Herr H and his men weren’t just street fighting for the hell of it; they were clashing with the Communists, still fighting to root the Communists all out once and for all. Not all Jews were Communists, but many Communists were Jews.

    In 1932, the three people on the ballot in Germany were old von Hindenberg, Hitler and Communist Ernst Thälmann. Eventually, as we know, Herr H won out. The rewriting history and whitewashing this Red scare, in the aftermath of WWII, has obscured all of this. My super educated Jewish husband, who was a history major, had never heard of this. All he knows is of trains going east, and nothing of the root of the fight.

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form. If people knew more about the root of the fight generally, perhaps the issues would be clearer. Like writes above: “And here we are.” The same fighting and choices in issues remain, but most people don’t even realize it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bukowski
    A lot of people also don't know that there was a short lived communist government in Hungary in 1919 led by Bela Kun.

    www.jrbooksonline.com/some_pics_from_cecile_tormay.htm
    , @Anonymous

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form.
     
    What's the fight today? What form has it taken? Thanks for explaining.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Colin Wright
    '...A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia...'

    Indeed. I forget where, but I have read that the German General Staff had calculated that after 1916, Russia would be unbeatable. While I disagree with the rather widespread belief that Germany was particularly responsible for World War One, it may well have been the case that once the ball started rolling, many in the General Staff calculated that it would be better to have it out now than to wait.

    Incidentally, to digress, I feel that while it was above all the situation and the paradigm of the times that brought World War One about, if anyone should be held culpable, it would be France and Serbia, while -- in contrast to your opinion -- I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war.

    I would like to see elaboration and justification of that apparently careful formulation of Ron’s that “a crucial underlying [sic] cause of the First World War was Britain’s belief [sic] that only a preventative war could forestall [sic] Germany”.

    Maybe Jilles Dykstra who makes the extraordinary claim that Britain, France and the Czar conspired to get up the war might pitch in.

    Rational consideration, absent any evidence, would star with the demographics. Unlike Germany and Russia the birth rates of France and Britain had become quite modern and sustainable. Consistently with its traditional balance of powers policy it made sense for Britain to make an alliance with France to deter Germany from attacking the latter and, in particular from occupying the Low Countries – an interest of Britain since at latest 1588. Germany would have to concentrate its resources on its army so its naval building program did not loom up as more than a cause of expense to the British taxpayer as Britain stepped up its shipbuilding program accordingly. In a world of no permanent friends what was it that made Britain turn the alleged belief into some action, not mentioned, to precipitate a war against Germany – especially when it must have known that Russia wasn’t yet ready. Or is there some record somewhere of Britain calculating that 1914 was the perfect time to ensure parity of German and Russian losses?

    Read More
    • Replies: @refl
    Read: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/
    , @jilles dykstra
    Balfour already in 1907 said to the USA ambassador 'that maybe war was the cheapest way to keep the British standard of living'.
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008, Balfour, US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Wizard of Oz
    Wasn't Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?

    He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, “On the Jews and Their Lies.”
    He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

    Luther’s story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn’t want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Philosemitic undercurrent was present in many anti RC heresies. Often the idea was that the reform would bring Jews to Christianity. Before Martin Luther there was Jan Hus and the subsequent splinter groups that believed that their improved Christianity would be more palatable to Jews. The end result was Judaization of Christianity.

    Martin Luther's anti-semitism has all marks of resentment for being betrayed.
    , @JackOH
    Rebel, that's pretty much my understanding, too, that Luther's "On the Jews . . ." was a specific ephemeral work addressing a specific issue of the time with respect to Jews, the Church, and the Reformation. I scanned it years ago, in the Pelikan edition I think, and can't remember much more about it. I'm pretty sure I've seen it and other works of Luther described as adiaphoric, not essential to Luther's teaching.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Interesting. It does seem likely then that Luther contributed to anti Semitism in Germany well before the 19th century.

    Cf. also the novel Jud Suß by Lion Feuchtwanger which suggests there was popular anti Semitism in 18th century Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton's list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.

    You are hereby debunked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton's list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.

    Anarcho-Supremacist? What bunk dedunk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Cyrano
    According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews.

    Thanks to the capitalist system, many of them have managed to become enormously rich – some would say thanks to their genetic predisposition towards greed, which of course is unique only to them.

    Well then it makes a perfect sense to me that they would be the ones to finance a revolution in Russia that would bring a system which pretty much doesn’t allow anyone to get rich.

    Wouldn’t it have made more sense if members of the Jewish community have financed a capitalist – sorry - “democratic” revolution in Russia, which will allow them to prosper financially like they did in the west?

    Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? What is the logic here? They did it because they are evil? How did the Jewish financiers of the October revolution knew that Stalin will come along and pervert the idea of Socialism (to a certain degree), and turn it into one massive orgy of pogroms (according to some) against anybody and everybody.

    The whole idea is pure nonsense. The only way that it will make sense to me is that the Jews financed the October revolution because they expected that their people will get more equal treatment under that system than in Czarist Russia. Not because they wanted to unleash something evil on this world.

    Just a doin’ a what comes nachurally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:

    Ron Unz is kickin’ ass and takin’ names! I just love American Pravda.

    The thing about Jacob Schiff is: what really motivated him? I think the standard version of the story is that he hated Czar because of the pogroms, the Cossacks, etc. But what if there was something more at work than some merely personal peeve, or some gauzy notion of ‘tikkum olaam’? Unz also mentions Olof Aschberg (whom I had never heard of), so what if this was not merely the lone act of vengeance of a single Russian Jew, but rather a real plot with a strategy?

    One other fact that Unz doesn’t mention that draws my attention is that, at exactly the same time that Schiff was financing the Bolsheviks, the US Army was deployed to Russia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    What were they really doing there? Not even in the official version of events were they ‘fighting the Reds’. Some of my Russian contacts have insisted that this was really a sinister Anglo-Zionist plot to fragment or balkanize Russia. (I’m thinking along the lines of Mackinder’s old Eurasian ‘heartland’ theory, which some of the commenters above also mentioned.) If so, could it be that Schiff was really working in tandem with the US Govt. to carry out such a plan? Could it be that the original Bolsheviks were really just an ISIS-like terrorist group that somehow got out of hand and managed to take over all of Russia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Easy, the Entente were blocking Russian ports so that they could not be utilized by the Germans, whom they were at war with.

    This was of course a tragedy for Russia, since the Bolsheviks could point to this as evidence of an Angl0-French "invasion" of Russia and portray themselves as its defenders (even though they themselves were more or less direct hirelings of the Germans), while the Whites got entirely negligible military benefits from it.

    There's no need for conspiracies on this score. None of the Western Powers had a democratic mandate to participate in the Russian Civil War, and having the Bolsheviks win was not entirely negative from their perspective, since there would then be no need to share the postwar spoils with it (the French were a partial exception, since the Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist era debt hit them far harder).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @JackOH
    Ron, extraordinary, provocative stuff in your American Pravda series. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Unz Review is my impression that this is how big-shouldered people of goodwill and genuinely liberal disposition used to talk a century ago. I don't know squat about The Protocols except as it's referred to by others, almost always prefaced as "anti-Semitic". The Unzian approach: "Let's read the damned thing", seems to me superior and more grown-up.

    BTW-a childhood friend of mine and her husband, both Jewish and one of them observant, retired and now live in the Carolinas. Their occasional stories of elderly neighbors, call them Morris and Sheldon, returning from prison after having served time for white collar crimes such as tax evasion or improprieties on government contracts are sort of unintentionally funny. Looks like they missed the memo on how to be the world's wire-pullers.

    “the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” – Henry Ford

    “There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish”.- the Protocols

    Before you read “the damned thing”, you may read an interesting article by Mr Israel Shamir:

    The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

    Indeed Israel Shamir's article on Elders of Zion is very good. He cites Solzhenitsyn:

    “The Protocols … show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight”.

    “The text demonstrates impressive foresight on the two systems of society, the Western and the Soviet one. While a strong thinker could possibly predict the development of the West in 1901, how could he grasp the Soviet future?”
     
    The master-plan begins with reshaping of human mind:


    “People’s minds should be diverted (away from contemplation) towards industry and trade, and then they will have no time to think. The people will be consumed by the pursuit of gain. It will be vain pursuit, for we shall put industry on a speculative basis: what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands of workers and industrialists and pass into the hands of financiers.
    The intensified struggle for survival and superiority, accompanied by crises and shocks will create cold and heartless communities with strong aversion towards religion. Their only guide is gain that is Mammon, which they will erect into a veritable cult”.
     
    Foresight of Anonym is amazing: in the days of the Protocols’ publication, Man was still the measure of things, and full eighty years would pass, until Milton Friedman and Chicago School would proclaim Market and Profit as the only guiding light.
    , @Seraphim
    Before one reads the 'damn thing' I recommend to peruse a site less frequented:

    "Neither Aryan Nor Jew This site is for serious researchers of the "higher tribalism" (Aryanism, Zionism, Nihonism etc), Globalization and World [email protected] http://mailstar.net/index.html.

    It covers all the topics in discussion here. The author is in correspondence with Israel Shamir.
    Subject-indexes:
    "Higher Tribalism" after the demise of the Nation-State
    Aryanism (European Tribalism) & Western Civilization
    Globalization & World Government
    Zionism (Jewish Tribalism) And/Or Communism
    Nihonism (Japanese Tribalism) & Asian Civilization
    Australiana
    especially 'The Protocols of Zion [email protected]://mailstar.net/toolkit.html for an extensive discussion about the authenticity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. utu says:
    @RebelWriter
    He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, "On the Jews and Their Lies."
    He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

    Luther's story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn't want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.

    Philosemitic undercurrent was present in many anti RC heresies. Often the idea was that the reform would bring Jews to Christianity. Before Martin Luther there was Jan Hus and the subsequent splinter groups that believed that their improved Christianity would be more palatable to Jews. The end result was Judaization of Christianity.

    Martin Luther’s anti-semitism has all marks of resentment for being betrayed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Gnosis is the reigning heresy of our times. It was also the first, the one with which  Lucifer tempted Eve: "eat this, and you shall be like Gods". 
    In stark contrast to other heresies, which are simply mistaken understandings of truths or Truth, gnosis starts out with a lie: the lie that there exists a hidden trove of knowledge, reserved for a select few. Those blessed few initiates will and then evolve, not through acts of the will, but by sheer knowing. They will become superior, perfect, deified. Essentially, man shares nature with God, the difference is of degree.  Gnosis is a deliberate lie, that springs up recurrently, in many places, in many religions, with modern pagans and atheists too. Lucifer knew it as well as any present day con-man with an 'enhanced consciousness' seminar to sell.

    It's interesting that the Kabbalah, gnostic as you please, is a perversion of the original oral tradition of the Old Testament, through contamination during the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities. The original contained insights about a transcendent God, including a presaging of the Holy Trinity, that are consistent with the truths taught by Christ. 

    Gnosis is all around us: in New Age movements, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Wicca, 'human potential' sects and institutes. Depak Chopra and the Esalen Institute. There's really no such thing as truth, except the one I can sell you. It even, I think, underpins theories that explains to the masses how the world really works, like Marxism and de constructivism, but those enlightened fellows generously chose to unveil the eyes of a wider public.
    , @anonymous
    Oh yeah, Jews brought "reform" to Christianity all right. Read: https://forward.com/opinion/159955/converts-who-changed-the-church/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. JackOH says:
    @RebelWriter
    He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, "On the Jews and Their Lies."
    He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

    Luther's story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn't want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.

    Rebel, that’s pretty much my understanding, too, that Luther’s “On the Jews . . .” was a specific ephemeral work addressing a specific issue of the time with respect to Jews, the Church, and the Reformation. I scanned it years ago, in the Pelikan edition I think, and can’t remember much more about it. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it and other works of Luther described as adiaphoric, not essential to Luther’s teaching.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I would like to see elaboration and justification of that apparently careful formulation of Ron's that "a crucial underlying [sic] cause of the First World War was Britain's belief [sic] that only a preventative war could forestall [sic] Germany".

    Maybe Jilles Dykstra who makes the extraordinary claim that Britain, France and the Czar conspired to get up the war might pitch in.

    Rational consideration, absent any evidence, would star with the demographics. Unlike Germany and Russia the birth rates of France and Britain had become quite modern and sustainable. Consistently with its traditional balance of powers policy it made sense for Britain to make an alliance with France to deter Germany from attacking the latter and, in particular from occupying the Low Countries - an interest of Britain since at latest 1588. Germany would have to concentrate its resources on its army so its naval building program did not loom up as more than a cause of expense to the British taxpayer as Britain stepped up its shipbuilding program accordingly. In a world of no permanent friends what was it that made Britain turn the alleged belief into some action, not mentioned, to precipitate a war against Germany - especially when it must have known that Russia wasn't yet ready. Or is there some record somewhere of Britain calculating that 1914 was the perfect time to ensure parity of German and Russian losses?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks but different subject/question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @RebelWriter
    He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, "On the Jews and Their Lies."
    He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

    Luther's story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn't want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.

    Thanks. Interesting. It does seem likely then that Luther contributed to anti Semitism in Germany well before the 19th century.

    Cf. also the novel Jud Suß by Lion Feuchtwanger which suggests there was popular anti Semitism in 18th century Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Very interesting article.

    Here's a fascinating quote from "The International Jew."

    In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war.
     
    If you replace "Germany" with "Russia," perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. Interestingly enough, modern Jews seem to really like Germany these days.

    What are your thoughts on the refugee crisis in Europe? Given how much Jewish currency trader George Soros has done to encourage refugee migration into Europe, do you think there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy at work here?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

    Soros thinks he’s a god:

    It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. “I fancied myself as some kind of god …” he once wrote. “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

    When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

    … and not a benevolent one. The “philanthropist” persona is fake:

    Despite his reputation as an international philanthropist, Soros remains candid about his true charitable tendencies. “I am sort of a deus ex machina,” Soros told the New York Times in 1994. “I am something unnatural. I’m very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I’m not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I’ve very much self-centered.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4

    So there it is. The lizard himself gave you some basic truths. Now you’re free to connect the dots of his various “philanthropic” projects and see the common thread (white genocide).

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "Soros thinks he's a god ..."

    By the weights and measures of the Materialist reality, Soros is a god.
    , @Paw
    I believe there were two kinds of the Jews. Victims and Rulers . Who decides of the fate those to be sacrificed. Remember there is the religion involved too...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @jilles dykstra
    German antisemitism began around 1870.
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972

    Dear Innocent in Paradise: German “Anti-Semitism” was the invention of a Jewish journalist, Wilhelm Marr (yes, he was Jewish, and Karl Marx was a Lutheran) hired by the Zionists to prepare the way for the coming of the Millennium. Anti-Semitism was at that time already invented in Russia by a respectable doctor, Leon Pinsker, who said Anti-Semitism is thousands of years old, hereditary and incurable. Dr. Pinsker MD was an early front man, a public spokesman for Zionism, who already adopted Hatikvah as the anthem, before Herzl was hired. And yes, Theodore Herzl was also a hired journalist, a front man, an employee, who did as he was told, until he was disposed of. And yes, the Dreyfus Affair was a gimmick, a phony Psy-Op like 9/11. And yes, Emile Zola was another hired journalist. And yes, the pogroms, including the Kishinev pogrom, were just riots. The people killed were rioters. That the pogroms were Anti-Jewish is pure spin, like what you watch on television. Goyim are hopeless and helpless, muscle bound but dumb, a little like cattle or beasts of burden. Give them a peanut, and they are grateful. You can dance circles around them. You can tell them everything, and they just grunt. And then you can lead them by the ring in their noses because they were not endowed with free-will and can’t think for themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    See also:
    Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.
    Jakob Wassermann, 'MEIN WEG ALS DEUTSCHER UND ALS JUDE', Berlin 1921
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
    ‘Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry’, Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press
    , @Paw
    Historians estimate there were about 15o thousands Jewish soldiers , 30 lower and 15 thousands higher officers , about 30 generals and even the Marshals in Hitler Wehrmacht.. Air marshal Milch, for instance ... . Goring declared publicly : "I decide who is the jew and who is not !!!
    While he massacred thousands of real Germans in the Night of the Long Knives.1934. And before and afterwards...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. utu says:
    @Anonymous
    "the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” - Henry Ford


    “There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish”.- the Protocols

    Before you read "the damned thing”, you may read an interesting article by Mr Israel Shamir:

    The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

    Indeed Israel Shamir’s article on Elders of Zion is very good. He cites Solzhenitsyn:

    “The Protocols … show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight”.

    “The text demonstrates impressive foresight on the two systems of society, the Western and the Soviet one. While a strong thinker could possibly predict the development of the West in 1901, how could he grasp the Soviet future?”

    The master-plan begins with reshaping of human mind:

    “People’s minds should be diverted (away from contemplation) towards industry and trade, and then they will have no time to think. The people will be consumed by the pursuit of gain. It will be vain pursuit, for we shall put industry on a speculative basis: what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands of workers and industrialists and pass into the hands of financiers.
    The intensified struggle for survival and superiority, accompanied by crises and shocks will create cold and heartless communities with strong aversion towards religion. Their only guide is gain that is Mammon, which they will erect into a veritable cult”.

    Foresight of Anonym is amazing: in the days of the Protocols’ publication, Man was still the measure of things, and full eighty years would pass, until Milton Friedman and Chicago School would proclaim Market and Profit as the only guiding light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    The ideas of the Protocols are Masonic and were developed from the ideals of Enlightenment towards a totalitarian capitalistic system in Napoleon III's time by Mizraim lodges, who, as Maurice Joly says in the Dialogues, were evil men who had taken the ways of the Jews. They read Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's Prince. These men were mostly Catholic, but some were Jewish converts (Frankists). It is a destabilization plan by destroying the pillars of the society and infiltrating essential sectors, like education etc. Behind the Masons were financiers, mainly speculators, including Jewish, who wanted to replace the Old World Order by the New World Order. Communists studied the methods of Freemasons, as did all terrorist groups. Such steps like killing the old elite were copied from the French revolution. Though presented in a poor antisemitic way, the plan in the Protocols is a well-though working one.

    There are only some ways to take over a country. At the time this plan was concocted with its insights to destabilization Jews were still mostly in ghettos and shtetls and kings people. They were the smaller brothers who were to be moved to Palestine as there was no place for middleman class in the new world, so it is not they who made the master plan. Masons stopped at the end of the 19th century, though they still created the WWI and gave power to Bolsheviks, but this plan was used by Communists and is still used after Communism. It may now be run by some ethnic group, or maybe just by some banksters.

    It is just a plan to gain control over a modern society: take over media, finance, education, advisors, history writing, make personal cults, divert people to irrelevant issues, fund some terrorists, make false flag attacks,... Just combine all age old tricks from history and textbooks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Wizard of Oz
    Wasn't Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?

    Martin Luther was a competing product to Judaism, but the same materialist, Dualist thing in Christian garb. He was just knocking the competition. The princes supported him because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals. Because they were animals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    The princes supported [Luther] because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals.
     
    Well, the fact that he gave them cover to steal all the Church's stuff helped, too.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    "competing product" seems excessively loose language. How many conversions to Judaism were there in German speaking polities between 1400 and 1600? Indeed were there any attempts being made to proselytize for Judaism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. “When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there.”

    Very Lovecraftian statement. In the previous American Pravda, Ron Unz revealed the polytheistic secret of Judaism. Perhaps the above “mysterious objects” found in the void beyond the veil are the gods of the Kabbalah.

    ” … two of his [Fleming's] most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre …”

    Agree with the idea that Goldfinger is Fleming’s concept of an international criminal of Jewish origin, probably an agent of the Schiff or Rothschild cartels. But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War — the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War — the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.
     
    It is likely that Odessa/Spinne was penetrated by Mossad. Founding member Otto Skorzeny was probably an asset: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/the-strange-case-of-a-nazi-who-became-a-mossad-hitman-1.5423137
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anatoly Karlin
    A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    Robert Aschberg is not the son, but the granson of Robert Aschberg. He was central in Swedish maoism in the seventies, then turned to journalism. He has been a driving force in the “anti-extremism”-movement in Sweeden. Not just the Swedish Institute, but also the Expo – a Swedish branch of the ADL/SPLC “antiracist” network.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct, I made a mistake, Robert is ofc Olof's grandson, it can't be otherwise even just age-wise.

    As a Swede (I assume), do you know what his position on Russia is? I imagine it's the standard Putlerreich narrative, perhaps turned up to 11. I am curious to see if this guess is correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. You failed to mention the Schiff-Gore merger: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/kgore.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Dutch Boy says:

    Transferring a good part of American manufacturing to China and beggaring the American working class thereby had quite a bit to do with the Chinese economic miracle and that was done by our own ruling class, not the Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Wally says:
    @Seraphim
    Should we expect the same tsunami of comments like for the previous post of American Pravda? I bet.

    Said by a hasbarist / Zionist who hates free speech.

    And yes, that tsunami is coming whether you like it or not.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Anonymous
    Ron Unz is kickin' ass and takin' names! I just love American Pravda.

    The thing about Jacob Schiff is: what really motivated him? I think the standard version of the story is that he hated Czar because of the pogroms, the Cossacks, etc. But what if there was something more at work than some merely personal peeve, or some gauzy notion of 'tikkum olaam'? Unz also mentions Olof Aschberg (whom I had never heard of), so what if this was not merely the lone act of vengeance of a single Russian Jew, but rather a real plot with a strategy?

    One other fact that Unz doesn't mention that draws my attention is that, at exactly the same time that Schiff was financing the Bolsheviks, the US Army was deployed to Russia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

    What were they really doing there? Not even in the official version of events were they 'fighting the Reds'. Some of my Russian contacts have insisted that this was really a sinister Anglo-Zionist plot to fragment or balkanize Russia. (I'm thinking along the lines of Mackinder's old Eurasian 'heartland' theory, which some of the commenters above also mentioned.) If so, could it be that Schiff was really working in tandem with the US Govt. to carry out such a plan? Could it be that the original Bolsheviks were really just an ISIS-like terrorist group that somehow got out of hand and managed to take over all of Russia?

    Easy, the Entente were blocking Russian ports so that they could not be utilized by the Germans, whom they were at war with.

    This was of course a tragedy for Russia, since the Bolsheviks could point to this as evidence of an Angl0-French “invasion” of Russia and portray themselves as its defenders (even though they themselves were more or less direct hirelings of the Germans), while the Whites got entirely negligible military benefits from it.

    There’s no need for conspiracies on this score. None of the Western Powers had a democratic mandate to participate in the Russian Civil War, and having the Bolsheviks win was not entirely negative from their perspective, since there would then be no need to share the postwar spoils with it (the French were a partial exception, since the Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist era debt hit them far harder).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    For lack of strength? The British Empire was at the time at the peak of its strenghth, the word's superpower. In 1919, they sent 100,000 men, of all places of the world, into Afghanistan. Was there any "democratic mandate"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

    Just like in Syria and other places, the "intervention" was calculated to prolong the war as much as possible, for maximal death and destruction. It worked then, and it still works.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Wally says:
    @Charlie Wyoming
    Unfortunately the Jew has throughout history been Pogromed. The inevitable leftist turn and they are mostly responsible for it, in this country will bite them in their ass. Democratic Socialism is on its way. And the victomology that is such a big part of its core loves the Palestinian. Its gonna be a long next 100 years.

    What ‘pogroms’ do you refer to.
    Please present proof.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Wally says:
    @Sean
    .

    And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia,
     
    Whoa, that puts the stories about 1918 in a very different light.


    Other contemporaries seem to have taken the Protocols very seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure,
     
    I once looked up the text of that article by perusing the relative edition of the Times on microfilm and it was rather different in tone to what later authors such as Norman Cohn asserted .

    If so, then what exactly did that “microfilm text” say?
    And citation, please.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It was the Times on microfilm so a reproduction of that days edition. Don't get me wrong the Times article can be read as fully endorsing them, but that is the bit where the piece is rhetorically imagining the effect of the Protocols on lesser minds, so such a quote would be really obtuse if it was sincere . The Times article that is often cited as accepting the Protocols authenticity actually took it for granted that the Protocols were fake, it just bemoaned the lack of information proving they were not what they purported to be. The Times piece was an appeal for someone to find out exactly who wrote the protocols.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Charlie Wyoming
    Unfortunately the Jew has throughout history been Pogromed. The inevitable leftist turn and they are mostly responsible for it, in this country will bite them in their ass. Democratic Socialism is on its way. And the victomology that is such a big part of its core loves the Palestinian. Its gonna be a long next 100 years.

    “Democratic Socialism is on its way.”

    It’s already here in the form of a mixed economy. What we need to fear is the new breed of elites, Trotskyite racialists who have prospered in the capitalist game and now want world revolution, at the behest of the Babylonian supremacist cult.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Wally says:
    @Cyrano
    According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews.

    Thanks to the capitalist system, many of them have managed to become enormously rich – some would say thanks to their genetic predisposition towards greed, which of course is unique only to them.

    Well then it makes a perfect sense to me that they would be the ones to finance a revolution in Russia that would bring a system which pretty much doesn’t allow anyone to get rich.

    Wouldn’t it have made more sense if members of the Jewish community have financed a capitalist – sorry - “democratic” revolution in Russia, which will allow them to prosper financially like they did in the west?

    Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? What is the logic here? They did it because they are evil? How did the Jewish financiers of the October revolution knew that Stalin will come along and pervert the idea of Socialism (to a certain degree), and turn it into one massive orgy of pogroms (according to some) against anybody and everybody.

    The whole idea is pure nonsense. The only way that it will make sense to me is that the Jews financed the October revolution because they expected that their people will get more equal treatment under that system than in Czarist Russia. Not because they wanted to unleash something evil on this world.

    said:
    “Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? ”

    Please present proof for these alleged “pogroms”.

    said:
    “According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews.”

    You surely mean “capitalism” where Jews play by a different set of self serving rules.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Ronnie says:

    Another very significant book of the time is “The Rulers of Russia” 1938 by Father Denis Fahey (Amazon), an Irish Catholic Priest who had traveled to Russia and analyzed the make up and financing of the Revolution. He made most of the same points as Ron and his book was widely sold at the time even in the USA. Although Fahey was a noted theologist he was also a brilliant observer and acute analyst. I think that Ron Unz would be very interested to read this book from a sophisticated and honest contemporary of the Revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Another very significant book of the time is “The Rulers of Russia” 1938 by Father Denis Fahey

    It's in the public domain. Here is a link (PDF):

    https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_345_The-Rulers-of-Russia.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Wally says:
    @BenKenobi
    And here we are.

    https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/assets/images/500x/poster-victory-bolshevism.jpg

    And here we are.


    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wade
    Lol! Wally we can always count on you for a quick response. This is one of your best retorts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anonymous
    Soros thinks he's a god:

    It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. "I fancied myself as some kind of god ..." he once wrote. "If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

    When asked by Britain's Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."
     
    ... and not a benevolent one. The "philanthropist" persona is fake:

    Despite his reputation as an international philanthropist, Soros remains candid about his true charitable tendencies. "I am sort of a deus ex machina," Soros told the New York Times in 1994. "I am something unnatural. I'm very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I'm not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I've very much self-centered."
     
    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4

    So there it is. The lizard himself gave you some basic truths. Now you're free to connect the dots of his various "philanthropic" projects and see the common thread (white genocide).

    “Soros thinks he’s a god …”

    By the weights and measures of the Materialist reality, Soros is a god.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Hans Olav Brendberg
    Robert Aschberg is not the son, but the granson of Robert Aschberg. He was central in Swedish maoism in the seventies, then turned to journalism. He has been a driving force in the "anti-extremism"-movement in Sweeden. Not just the Swedish Institute, but also the Expo - a Swedish branch of the ADL/SPLC "antiracist" network.

    Correct, I made a mistake, Robert is ofc Olof’s grandson, it can’t be otherwise even just age-wise.

    As a Swede (I assume), do you know what his position on Russia is? I imagine it’s the standard Putlerreich narrative, perhaps turned up to 11. I am curious to see if this guess is correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This dipshit led the program Trolljägarna (Troll Hunters), which EXPOSED internet commenters with right-wing views. Such as the dangerously extremist view that Sweden is for Swedes.

    He has the standard Establishment views on Russia and Putin. See this op-ed in Aftonbladet (evening daily, formerly had a working class orientation): https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/a/qnpWom/sociala-medier--demokratins-undergang

    Rysslands Vladimir Putin har trollfabriker som jobbar dygnet runt och har satt upp tweet-robotar som den senaste tiden gjort allt för att stödja separatisterna i Katalonien.
     

    Russia's Vladimir Putin has troll factories who work around the clock and have set up Twitter robots that the most recent time did everything to support the separatists in Catalonia.

    Karl XII should be reviled less for his disastrous invasion of Russia and more for bringing the Jews into Sweden for the first time ever.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Wally says:
    @silviosilver
    I read The International Jew about five years ago. Well, I tried to read it, but gave up before getting half way through. As Ron said, it became quite monotonous and too much of the discussion was focused on obscure events of the day. I might have persevered, but eventually the numerous speculative conspiracy-theory-style reaches in explaining contemporary and historical events got to me.

    As for the Protocols, neo-nazis often claim that the important thing about it isn't whether it was a 'hoax' or not, but whether it explains the present. I suppose that's true in the sense that it gives an insight into the mindset of the people who were concerned about the growth of Jewish influence before that influence became a fact. I haven't read the whole thing, so I can't comment on Ron's claim that it deserves to be a considered a classic of political theory.

    Another neo-nazi point which I also think is partly correct is that "Jews are the skeleton key to history." Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, but the basic point has to be granted: that an understanding of certain historical events will always be incomplete without sufficient consideration of the Jewish role.

    It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.”
     
    This makes it sound like the Russians coined "Fordism." Did they? I don't know. But modern historians and social scientists with a leftist bent routinely refer to Fordism, both as a management theory and as a social structure.

    said:
    “Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, …”

    Please tell us what alleged ‘neo-Nazi’ “weird and wonderful conspiracy theories” that it “leads” to.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD_cJXOjYl8

    Yes id like to see Unz take a run at anthony suttons work which strikes me probably true but all these things so hard to get to bottom when memory holed by powers that be

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. roo_ster says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Wasn't Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?

    Luther started out philo-semetic. He railed against the Roman church for using bad technique in its efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Once the Jews heard Luther and his way of explaining the Gospel, they’d come around.

    Then Luther met and interacted with many learned and influential Jews and modified his views accordingly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    "When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there."

    Very Lovecraftian statement. In the previous American Pravda, Ron Unz revealed the polytheistic secret of Judaism. Perhaps the above "mysterious objects" found in the void beyond the veil are the gods of the Kabbalah.

    " ... two of his [Fleming's] most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre ..."

    Agree with the idea that Goldfinger is Fleming's concept of an international criminal of Jewish origin, probably an agent of the Schiff or Rothschild cartels. But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War -- the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.

    But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War — the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.

    It is likely that Odessa/Spinne was penetrated by Mossad. Founding member Otto Skorzeny was probably an asset: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/the-strange-case-of-a-nazi-who-became-a-mossad-hitman-1.5423137

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paw
    While the Russains were busy to defeat the Fascism , the USA Army was busy removing the huge treasures /Dulles/ in the South Germany and transporting them to the USA. The Us had the very huge gold treasure in the Fort Knox. No secret.
    When it was gone the President Nixon cancelled in 1971 the Gold Standard of the Dollar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Seraphim
    As I feel that the subject of German responsibility for the outbreak of WW1, relevant for the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, will be attacked with gusto, I suggest to keep in mind firmly the fact that Germany was the first to declare war on Russia. The reason was indeed the fear that Russia by 1916 would be unbeatable and all the objectives of the 'Weltpolitik' of Germany, which would have been at a certain point in time opposed and countered by Russia. To refresh your memory, the date of the calculations was 1912. Just a few words for orientation (from Wikipedia):

    "The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire. Meeting at the Stadtschloss in Berlin, they discussed and debated the tense military and diplomatic situation in Europe at the time. As a result of the Russian Great Military Program announced in November, Austria-Hungary's concerns about Serbian successes in the First Balkan War, and certain British communications, the possibility of war was a prime topic of the meeting...
    [Kaiser Wilhelms'] opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if “Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does… then war would be unavoidable for us, too,” and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". Moltke "wanted to launch an immediate attack"...
    Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a “postponement of the great fight for one and a half years” because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy’s prerequisites for war. The British historian John Röhl has pointed out the coincidence that the date for completion of the widening of the Kiel Canal was the summer of 1914, but a reading of the report of the conference shows no agreement as to a war in 1914. However, Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly."...

    The 'controversial' book of Fritz Fischer "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War), will certainly come into the discussions. He devotes a large chapter to the subversive operations of the Germans in Russia in order to provoke the revolution and the exit from the war with the help of the Jews and Social-Democrats (both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).

    ‘…“The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire…” ‘

    Yes, but…

    I think all the great powers were making preparations and calculations in the same way.

    Against this must be set the fact that Germany was essentially a ‘satisfied power’ at the time. As even your quote implies, she sought no change in the status quo, but on the contrary, feared such a change.

    It was other powers that threatened to bring about that change: France, with her incessant scheming and machinations to create a coalition that could avenge 1870, Serbia, with her pathological belligerence towards everyone, Russia, with her Slavophile pretensions that, in the upshot, led her to support a Serbia that was manifestly in the wrong. Here, too, France played an apparently key if obscured role in egging both Serbia and Russia on, and then in the case of Russia, making sure she didn’t back down.

    I am not arguing that Germany was innocent. I am merely insisting that (a) it was above all the underlying paradigm that made an eventual explosion probable, and that (b) other powers were more at fault.

    There’s a lot to be said about it. For example, it’s been argued that if Austria hadn’t delayed and sought the support of Germany, but rather, had promptly attacked Serbia, then the other powers wouldn’t have found themselves taking up the positions that made general war inevitable. Of course, this makes the rather dubious assumption that Austria could in fact have quickly beaten Serbia, but it is an example of how the blame for the greater conflagration shifts depending on how one looks at it.

    Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. However, if there was any one nation that could have prevented the war from breaking out, it would have been France. Absent her activities, a great war becomes discernably less probable. Serbia would never have dared to have engaged in the provocations she did, and isolated and without encouragement from France, Russia would have been more likely to seek security in an accord with Germany and Austria rather than hostility towards them. After all, for Russia above all, a great war objectively offered nothing. Finally, theories about British bankers notwithstanding, I see Britain as less guilty than any other player. She didn’t even have an immense conscript army. She was the only player who had refrained from building one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "She didn’t even have an immense conscript army."

    We Americans proved in 1863, 1917, 1940, and 1948 (this last continuing until 1971) that those can be put together quickly, as long as you have a strong cadre to start with. The British have a strong tradition of reserve units, also.
    , @Seraphim
    That all states make preparations for war and calculations about the chances of winning it is a truism. The real problem is the real intentions underlying these preparations. There is not an exact equivalence between preparations for offense and preparations for defense.

    Germany was not a 'satisfied power' at that time. On the contrary. Her building of a High Seas Fleet was not a 'gratuitous provocation' but an assertion of her pretensions to be given 'a place in the Sun', rather at the table of the big spoliators of the world, of England in the first place. Unimpeded control of Russia's resources (particularly of its oil resources, but also of the newly discovered oil fields of Iran and Mesopotamia) was practically an imperative in view of the lack of internal ones (the more in the conditions of the conversion of the British Navy to oil, which multiplied its advantage over the German upstart fleet). The High Seas Fleet was a mistake, here Germany was punching above her weight.
    German professors started talking in terms of Germany "fulfilling a world mission" by virtue of that ‘fitting share of the world power which human nature and higher Providence assign to the civilised peoples’ which her army and navy would ensure for her. Against the ‘cultural monopoly of the Anglo- Saxons’ (Britain and America) and the ‘Russo-Muscovite world’ they called for a policy which should make Germany’s special cultural and political heritage safe and thereby guarantee at once the multiplicity and individuality of all peoples and the balance of power in a new world system of states". This 'world mission' could not have been successfully fulfilled without a solid European economic basis under German leadership. Clamors for 'Lebensraum' for the young and energetic German nation became louder, sustained by the intoxicating fumes of 'European cultural superiority'.

    As a matter of fact Russia was the 'satisfied power', essentially preoccupied with her internal development. Russia had more than enough 'Lebensraum' of her own and she was not after any external conquests. Russia was the first power in the world to ask for a limitation of the crazy arms race that gripped the 'civilized' world, Germany in the first place. It was the steady refusal of Germany to reduce armaments that compelled Russia to initiate her program of modernizing her army and not any fanciful 'Slavophile pretensions'. Russia's protection for the Orthodox peoples in the Ottoman Empire (not only Slavs, actually primarily Romanians and Greeks) was a policy inscribed in the peace treaties concluded with the Ottoman Empire since the 18th century. It was not only a moral obligation. Russia's 'ambitions to control the Straits' was in fact a policy meant to keep them open for her trade and to prevent a repetition of the Crimean war. The Black Sea was not given by God to the English merchants and Light Brigades.
    The famous 'Damascus speech' of Kaiser Wilhelm, his casting himself as the 'protector' of the '300 million Mohamedans' in the world 'at all times', and the building of the Berlin-Baghdad railway couldn't have but raise Russian and British alarms.

    And it must be remembered that it was Germany seconded by Austria who renounced all the security agreements with Russia, foolishly and irresponsibly not heading the warnings of Bismarck.
    Serbia's 'belligerence against everyone'? What about the annexation of Bosnia-Hertzegovina by Austria?

    , @cassandra
    "Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. "

    The construction of the fleet wasn't gratuitous; events never happen without reason, although it's amazing how often we're expected to believe exactly that. For this case, here are quotes from Gerd-Schultze Rhonhof's "1939 - The War That Had Many Fathers":

    p. 26: "...Tirpitz and...High Command are of the opinion that a German Navy about 60% as strong as the British Royal Navy is sufficient to attain the four goals: protection of the North Sea fisheries, protection of their trade on the seas, security against a naval blockade, and the possibility of an alliance with England. With such a fleet...von Tirpitz is convinced that England's safety and naval supremacy are not really put in danger."

    Well that sounds reasonable. However:

    p. 27: "In England, they are convinced that their own navy must always be superior to the sum of the next two strongest fleets by about 10% in number...so that, if necessary England all alone could come out victorious against these two opposing sea powers."

    For this situation to be stable, the 3rd largest fleet (eventually, the American) would have to be no more than 110% - 60% = 50% of England's. So,

    p. 28 "The British government in 1898 and 1901 tries several times through negotiation to discourage the German government from building warships. Germany asks in return a British-German alliance, which England is not ready to enter. That promotes on the German side the conviction that they must have more ships in order for such an alliance to be timely and interesting."

    As Jackie Gleason used to say back in the day, "...and AWAY we go."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Mike P says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    From pages 390-1 of Henry Wickham Steed’s Through Thirty Years:

    ‘The gulf that severed Western Europe from Russia during the latter half of the 19th century was dug and kept open chiefly by Jewish resentment of Russian persecution of the Jews. Yet that resentment sprang also from Jewish detestation of the Russian Holy Synod and of the Russian Orthodox Church. … Against Russian Christian fanaticism was ranged an intense Jewish fanaticism hardly to be paralleled save among the more militant sects of Islam. This Jewish fanaticism allied itself with the anti-Russian forces before and during the earlier years of the war. It abated only when the Russian Revolution of March 1917 and the subsequent advent of Bolshevism, largely Jewish in doctrine and in personnel, overthrew the Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church. The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions—a joy, moreover, in which the Vatican shared, as its attitude towards the Bolshevist delegates to the Genoa Conference of April, 1922, significantly indicated.’

    The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the ‘joy of Jewry’ looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West’s largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.

    The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions …

    The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the ‘joy of Jewry’ looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West’s largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.

    Good observations. However, the degenerate Western “elites,” whose degradation was caused to a large extent by decades of Zionist blackmail and corruption, are unable to mount another serious challenge to a renewed Russia supported by a rapidly surging China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    Mike P—Yes, the chances of engineering another Russian Revolution or replacing Russians with assorted ethnics are slim indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. LSJohn says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Very interesting article.

    Here's a fascinating quote from "The International Jew."

    In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war.
     
    If you replace "Germany" with "Russia," perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. Interestingly enough, modern Jews seem to really like Germany these days.

    What are your thoughts on the refugee crisis in Europe? Given how much Jewish currency trader George Soros has done to encourage refugee migration into Europe, do you think there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy at work here?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

    “If you replace “Germany” with “Russia,” perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. ”

    Simpler than that: Russia supports Iran and Syria, which each support Hezbollah, Public Enemies #s 1, 2, and 3 of you-know-who(m),

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anon[781] • Disclaimer says:

    …therefore regarded American history as just too bland and boring to study.
    By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world’s most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization, with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval…

    In macro terms, Chinese history was more exciting because of massive upheavals and titans like Mao.
    But in micro terms, Chinese history of the 20th century was mostly simple: Until 1950, chaos, humiliation, and incompetence. After 1950 to mid 70s, one-man show of Maoism, a period that produced nothing of interest in thought, art, literature, science, technology, cinema, music, etc. In contrast, US history produced so many important individuals and movements in the arts, sciences, enterprise, music, and just about everything. For Mao to be god, everyone had to be ant-like minions. The US, having a more stable system and short-term leaders, was less exciting on a grand scale. But it achieved so much in so many areas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. utu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    That said, it’s worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year.

    But we do not know how much money Schiff put into the project of revolution. We know that he put a lot of money into Japan:

    http://nda-repository.nda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/11605/91/1/1-2_人文科学抜刷_村岡先生.pdf
    By the end of 1905, Kuhn, Loeb&Co., to the surprise of many, floated a bond issue in the sum of $200 million – equivalent to some $4.5 billion in today’s money. Schiff’s loans were an important factor—and his extensive financial involvement, a deciding factor—in bringing victory to Japan.

    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

    From The World at the Cross Roads by Boris Brasol (1921), pp. 70-71:

    The full history of the interlocking participation of the Imperial German Government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written. Much time and research will be required in order to disentangle the complex relations between the two powers, which sought to beat down the Russian Colossus which for centuries stood as a watchful sentinel on the border of Europe, protecting Western civilization from savage invasions originated in the depths of Asia.

    It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member. Nor is it a mere coincidence that in the later stages of the Russian Revolution we still find international finance hard at work engaged in further endeavors to break the last resistance of Russia against the onslaught of the "Triple Alliance" — that is of the Central Powers, Revolutionary internationalism and International Finance itself.
     
    This is a link to the book (pdf).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Small issue:

    I had been aware that he had long been as one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America

    Missing word or redundant word in there …

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    I think Mr Unz should add a feature whereby one can highlight a phrase, right click, and select "report usage" or "syntax" or something like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rurik says:

    Great read, Mr. Unz.

    He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia,

    Echoes of the (((“Russian”))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.

    They go from being brutalized by commie Jews, to being looted by (crony, klepto)-capitalist Jews. Such a deal!

    Many people point out that the “Russian” oligarchs weren’t all Jews, and neither was Yeltsin- who summarily betrayed Russia and her people to destitution on behalf of their most intractable enemy, and they’d be right.

    But I feel an article like this should include the worst and most loathsome man who ever lived, and he wasn’t a Jew.

    Schiff and Trotsky would have been stopped long before their treachery could have sent Russia and millions of others reeling into the abyss, were it not for the most execrable man who ever befouled the ether; a one president Woodrow Wilson.

    It was Wilson who accommodated Schiff by betraying the American people and handing over the keys to our Treasury to this sinister cabal of Jewish supremacist banksters.

    It was Wilson whose betrayals and intrigues allowed for Trotsky to escape Canadian internment and be sent with ‘suitcases’ full of lucre into Russia, with Wilson even arranging a passport and transport documents.

    Also, we shouldn’t forget that it was also Wilson who promised the American people that he would keep us out of the war, (and was consequently elected president) and then did all he could to betray that promise, and involve us in that disastrous conflict.

    Let’s not forget that it was Wilson who foisted the ruse of his “Fourteen Points”, guaranteeing ‘self-determination’ to Germany if she laid down her arms, only to betray Germany with a starvation campaign into signing Germans into perpetual slavery. Leading directly to WWII, and all the attendant horrors.

    The weight of Woodrow Wilson’s singular treachery, treason, betrayals and enormities is beyond my comprehension, but when calculating the worst villains of the 20th century, he certainly takes all the cakes I can think of.

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.

    Not just possession of the Protocols, but any perceived ‘anti-Semitism’ was declared a capital offense when Lenin came to power. (I remember reading somewhere, that this law, death for “anti-Semites”, was the first one enacted, but I don’t remember where I read that).

    http://truthmegasite.com/the-bolshevik-revolution-in-russia-was-the-work-of-jewish-planning-and-jewish-dissatisfaction-our-plan-is-to-have-a-new-world-order/

    with the Schiff story seen as conclusion proof of his delusional anti-Semitism.

    conclusive ?

    Plato and Machiavelli as a classic of Western political thought.

    the problem I would have with calling it “Western”, is that I consider the Protocols (and Bolshevism), as distinctively anti-Western.

    For me, the meaning of ‘Western’ goes back to the Greeks and Romans, marching though Bysantium and finding its perfect expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and is an expression of something intrinsic to the spirit and genes of Western man. Fundamental to what I’d describe as the ultimate virtue of the West, is honor. IOW honesty, decency, blood, home and hearth. Father and motherland, and fair play.

    Whereas the Protocols seems to mock these notions as the weaknesses of ‘beast-like’ simpletons. The Achilles heal of the West- to be exploited as a means to bashing the West on the rocks of genocidal malevolence, and enslaving the survivors, just as the Old Testament commands.

    So it’s difficult for me to consider the Protocols anywhere near the writings of Plato/Socrates, who seemed above all to love the Truth. Whereas such quaint weaknesses like ‘honor’ are exploited in the Protocols with sinister glee.

    Sort of like comparing Ron Paul to Richard Pearl. To me they are mutually exclusive.

    Anyway, you’re a magnificent and brave intellect Mr. Unz, for taking on these most salient and even urgent issues of our day.

    Kudos to you Sir!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Remember that Wilson was blackmailed into WW1 by Sam Untermeyer Zionist and big shareholder in Standard Oil

    He was also the kind of do gooder Puritan who causes so many problems in the world
    , @Paw
    [You should make much more of an effort to follow good standards of spacing, punctuation, grammar, and diction, and also try to void all-caps.]

    President Wilson was too servant of the Reserve Bank and the Bankers.
    Introduced the tax. Broke his promises. He guaranteed the security for the France , and did not deliver it and is known those 20 years was only THE PAUSE BETWEEN THE WARS !!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. sarz says:

    Brother Nathanael Kapner at realjewnews.com has published several pieces on the status of the Protocols,showing why they are not to be dismissed with the usual tired responses such as “forgeries”. Put Protocols in the search box at his site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Put Protocols in the search box at his site.
     
    from the article

    In any event, this short work is now available as one of my HTML Books, making it quite convenient for reading and text-searching.
     
    The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

    http://www.unz.com/book/anonymous__the-protocols-of-the-learned-elders-of-zion/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Sean says:
    @Wally
    If so, then what exactly did that "microfilm text" say?
    And citation, please.

    www.codoh.com

    It was the Times on microfilm so a reproduction of that days edition. Don’t get me wrong the Times article can be read as fully endorsing them, but that is the bit where the piece is rhetorically imagining the effect of the Protocols on lesser minds, so such a quote would be really obtuse if it was sincere . The Times article that is often cited as accepting the Protocols authenticity actually took it for granted that the Protocols were fake, it just bemoaned the lack of information proving they were not what they purported to be. The Times piece was an appeal for someone to find out exactly who wrote the protocols.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You dodged my questions to you, which were:

    "If so, then what exactly did that “microfilm text” say?

    And citation, please."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. ” ‘…“The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire…” ‘ ”

    The Morgenthau phantasy ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Mr. Unz,

    With last week's essay and this week's discussion of Schiff, Ford, The Dearborn Independent and The Elders, it looks like it's Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead.

    What Forbidden Topic will be discussed and what Sacred Cow will be dissected next week?

    I got $50 on the holocaust

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    Wow. That would be something. I was thinking maybe the shenanigans that established Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Not longer afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks

    Another small one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. @Wizard of Oz
    I would like to see elaboration and justification of that apparently careful formulation of Ron's that "a crucial underlying [sic] cause of the First World War was Britain's belief [sic] that only a preventative war could forestall [sic] Germany".

    Maybe Jilles Dykstra who makes the extraordinary claim that Britain, France and the Czar conspired to get up the war might pitch in.

    Rational consideration, absent any evidence, would star with the demographics. Unlike Germany and Russia the birth rates of France and Britain had become quite modern and sustainable. Consistently with its traditional balance of powers policy it made sense for Britain to make an alliance with France to deter Germany from attacking the latter and, in particular from occupying the Low Countries - an interest of Britain since at latest 1588. Germany would have to concentrate its resources on its army so its naval building program did not loom up as more than a cause of expense to the British taxpayer as Britain stepped up its shipbuilding program accordingly. In a world of no permanent friends what was it that made Britain turn the alleged belief into some action, not mentioned, to precipitate a war against Germany - especially when it must have known that Russia wasn't yet ready. Or is there some record somewhere of Britain calculating that 1914 was the perfect time to ensure parity of German and Russian losses?

    Balfour already in 1907 said to the USA ambassador ‘that maybe war was the cheapest way to keep the British standard of living’.
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008, Balfour, US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If actually said it counts for some fraction of one per cent of the needed evidence. That is true, in particular, because it suggests no knowledge of Balfour the man. I recall a vignette (here's another tiny fractional piece of evidence) from an essay by Leonard Woolf (Virginia Woolf's v clever husband) in an essay where he describes Balfour in committee in 1915 receiving a note, pausing for just a moment, then continuing "as I was saying, in the matter of an additional farthing....". The note told him of the sinking of the Lusitania. At least my informants of what was said on the occasion of news being received of, first, the invasion of the Soviet Union and, second, Pearl Harbour, reported "we've won the war" as the enthusiastic expression on both occasions.

    I commend resurrection of Leonard Woolf's writings as a pleasure awaiting Ron and like minded fossickers for small nuggets (with hopes of greater ones).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @ploni almoni
    Dear Innocent in Paradise: German "Anti-Semitism" was the invention of a Jewish journalist, Wilhelm Marr (yes, he was Jewish, and Karl Marx was a Lutheran) hired by the Zionists to prepare the way for the coming of the Millennium. Anti-Semitism was at that time already invented in Russia by a respectable doctor, Leon Pinsker, who said Anti-Semitism is thousands of years old, hereditary and incurable. Dr. Pinsker MD was an early front man, a public spokesman for Zionism, who already adopted Hatikvah as the anthem, before Herzl was hired. And yes, Theodore Herzl was also a hired journalist, a front man, an employee, who did as he was told, until he was disposed of. And yes, the Dreyfus Affair was a gimmick, a phony Psy-Op like 9/11. And yes, Emile Zola was another hired journalist. And yes, the pogroms, including the Kishinev pogrom, were just riots. The people killed were rioters. That the pogroms were Anti-Jewish is pure spin, like what you watch on television. Goyim are hopeless and helpless, muscle bound but dumb, a little like cattle or beasts of burden. Give them a peanut, and they are grateful. You can dance circles around them. You can tell them everything, and they just grunt. And then you can lead them by the ring in their noses because they were not endowed with free-will and can't think for themselves.

    See also:
    Fritz Stern, ‘Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire’, New York, 1977.
    Jakob Wassermann, ‘MEIN WEG ALS DEUTSCHER UND ALS JUDE’, Berlin 1921
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
    ‘Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry’, Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Jon Halpenny
    In 1915 the British made a treaty promising Constantinople to the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement

    Never heard of this treaty.
    If you just read the introduction you understand that it never was.
    If you understood anything of geopolitics you would know that never would Britain allow Russia free access to the Med.
    The movement of grain ships from Russia to the Med interrupted for two days, already Russia could not pay the interest on her foreign debt.
    So the Straits were perfect for controlling Russia.
    It of course may have been that perfidious Albion held out a herring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    It was a real agreement. Why do you think the British attacked Gallipoli? It was to fulfil the promise to Russia. The Russians gave a Quid Pro Quo in the form of allowing Britain a larger occupation zone in Persia.
    , @Seraphim
    The agreement was the first of the agreements between the Allies on how to reorganize the territories of Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Empire after their defeat. It was signed on 18 March 1915.
    It was followed by the Treaty of London of 26 April 1915 between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the French Third Republic, the Russian Empire, and the Kingdom of Italy, promising to satisfy the demands of 'Italia irredenta'. The Treaty envisaged also the territorial claims of Serbia and Montenegro although they were not present.
    Another one was the The Sykes–Picot Agreement (of which there is still much foaming at the mouth) officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement of 16 May 1916 between the United Kingdom and France,to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. It should be stressed that the agreement stipulated: "That in the brown area [Palestine and Jerusalem] there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of and Mecca".

    The retreat of Russia from the scene practically killed the clause of the internationalization of Jerusalem although it was maintained by the two remaining signatories France and England. But England was determined also to kill the idea of international administration. The General Allenby had already the instructions of the Chief of Staff "not entertain any ideas of joint administration." Jerusalem remained under exclusive British Martial Law to implement the promises of the Balfour
    Declaration issued on the 2nd of November. 7th of November the Bolshevik coup, 8th of November the Decree on Peace which announced the withdrawal of Russia from the war, 25th of November the denunciation of the 'secret treaties', 9th of December occupation of Jerusalem.

    It also enabled the British to occupy Constantinople on 13 November 1918.

    When we talk about the role played by Jews in the 'Russian' revolution we should look not only at the number of Jewish commissars in CEKA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Hibernian says:
    @Jake
    "From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control."

    That sounds exactly like traditional WASP rule of non-WASP peoples, exactly the way, for example, that Brit Empire businesses set about arranging for revolution of New Spain against Spain, and then of Mexican mestizos and Indios against Mexican criollos (meaning full of nearly full European blood).

    Of course, Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy.

    Juarez served the purpose of evicting the French. Criollo rule continues to this day, exemplified by my Hibernian brother Vicente Fox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Old fogey says:
    @Sean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD_cJXOjYl8

    Many thanks for the link to Antony Sutton. I will need to read his books. He had scathing things to say about the Hoover Institution, by the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Hibernian says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...“The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire..." '

    Yes, but...

    I think all the great powers were making preparations and calculations in the same way.

    Against this must be set the fact that Germany was essentially a 'satisfied power' at the time. As even your quote implies, she sought no change in the status quo, but on the contrary, feared such a change.

    It was other powers that threatened to bring about that change: France, with her incessant scheming and machinations to create a coalition that could avenge 1870, Serbia, with her pathological belligerence towards everyone, Russia, with her Slavophile pretensions that, in the upshot, led her to support a Serbia that was manifestly in the wrong. Here, too, France played an apparently key if obscured role in egging both Serbia and Russia on, and then in the case of Russia, making sure she didn't back down.

    I am not arguing that Germany was innocent. I am merely insisting that (a) it was above all the underlying paradigm that made an eventual explosion probable, and that (b) other powers were more at fault.

    There's a lot to be said about it. For example, it's been argued that if Austria hadn't delayed and sought the support of Germany, but rather, had promptly attacked Serbia, then the other powers wouldn't have found themselves taking up the positions that made general war inevitable. Of course, this makes the rather dubious assumption that Austria could in fact have quickly beaten Serbia, but it is an example of how the blame for the greater conflagration shifts depending on how one looks at it.

    Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. However, if there was any one nation that could have prevented the war from breaking out, it would have been France. Absent her activities, a great war becomes discernably less probable. Serbia would never have dared to have engaged in the provocations she did, and isolated and without encouragement from France, Russia would have been more likely to seek security in an accord with Germany and Austria rather than hostility towards them. After all, for Russia above all, a great war objectively offered nothing. Finally, theories about British bankers notwithstanding, I see Britain as less guilty than any other player. She didn't even have an immense conscript army. She was the only player who had refrained from building one.

    “She didn’t even have an immense conscript army.”

    We Americans proved in 1863, 1917, 1940, and 1948 (this last continuing until 1971) that those can be put together quickly, as long as you have a strong cadre to start with. The British have a strong tradition of reserve units, also.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Anonym says:
    @Heros
    This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.

    Having grown up watching every Bond movie as they came out, I never considered jew villains as an element of the plot, and I have still never had until I read this article. I guess the parallels the mob, where the front men were all italians but the real mob was Spiegel, Lansky and the Rothschilds.

    The Bond film series illustrates how deep jewery has penetrated our lives, and how it is almost always hidden, or crypto. As I have become woke over the last decade, I find that every rock in our history that I overturn, greedy jews pop out. Where ever Jews are involved in groups greater than one, throughout history, they always appear to lurking around following secret agendas that uniformly work counter to the interest of their Christian hosts and especially their children.

    We know from the murders of Sikorsky and others to cover up Katyn, from the creation of Bnai Brith, ADL and SPLC to cover up Blood Sacrifice, from the genocidal theft of Palestine and the murder of its people continuing today, that jews go to incredible lengths to cover up their tracks from goyim.

    So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a "tsk".

    The truth is that when we discuss history, no text written by a jew or crypto jew can be trusted unless it is indirectly exposing jewish guilt or malfeasance. They ALL have to be thrown out the window if we are seeking truth, because all of them are filled with deliberate misdirections and lies. We should treat jewish documents the same way jews treat Mein Kampf, only as evidence of jewish guilt.

    The fact the Bolsheviks made possession of the protocols an instant death penalty, and for the 10 closest family member, is alone proof of its veracity in their eyes, and also the true forces motivating them. We see this same jewish double goy jeopardy with the holocaust denial laws, where denying jewish lies can get you thrown in jail faster than an SS soldier was murdered by the Ritchie boys after surrender.

    So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a “tsk”.

    I think within the last few weeks Ron has shown immense courage. Ron is an agent of reform and I am thankful he exists.

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Art says:

    The Unz Review is a modern day – The Dearborn Independent.

    Thanks!

    Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    For God’s sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk’s rule: “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.
     
    , @Bill
    Yeah, Ron is great, but his writing is undisciplined.
    , @Mike P
    How about you do that for him? Should not be to hard to build a web proxy that gives a Strunkian cleansing to everything you read online. You could get rich!
    , @Ron Unz

    For God’s sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk’s rule: “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.
     
    Sure, that's an extremely valid criticism. But an even stronger one would be the fact that the entire first section dealing with China has absolutely no connection to the topic of the article. Furthermore, the beginning of the second section, mostly dealing with Russian-German relations, is also largely irrelevant.

    However, there's a reason, whether right or wrong, for all three of those things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Bukowski says:
    @Winnetou1889
    Most people also do not know, because of whitewashing history, that Germany in 1919 had a Bavarian Soviet Republic centered in Munich, headed by Communist Kurt Eisner. WWI vets, the Freikorps, and others rooted them out. Later Herr H and his men weren’t just street fighting for the hell of it; they were clashing with the Communists, still fighting to root the Communists all out once and for all. Not all Jews were Communists, but many Communists were Jews.

    In 1932, the three people on the ballot in Germany were old von Hindenberg, Hitler and Communist Ernst Thälmann. Eventually, as we know, Herr H won out. The rewriting history and whitewashing this Red scare, in the aftermath of WWII, has obscured all of this. My super educated Jewish husband, who was a history major, had never heard of this. All he knows is of trains going east, and nothing of the root of the fight.

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form. If people knew more about the root of the fight generally, perhaps the issues would be clearer. Like @BenKenobi writes above: “And here we are.” The same fighting and choices in issues remain, but most people don’t even realize it.

    A lot of people also don’t know that there was a short lived communist government in Hungary in 1919 led by Bela Kun.

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/some_pics_from_cecile_tormay.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Frankie P
    Do you know what "continuous" means?

    None of the civilisations mentioned has been continuous in the sense of unconquered. All have been subject to foreign conquest, partition and warring states at various times. The last continuous civilisation was the Japanese, until their defeat in 1945.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Aah, the myth of etternal Japan.

    In the fifth century, the nobility was 60% Korean, 20% Chinese, and 20% native.

    After that brief period, thie Shogunates were in power.

    The Mongol invasion was, indeed, unsuccessful, but enough landed and wrought havoc in Kyushu, the Kamakura Shogunate fell as a result.

    That it never happened (they were all blown away by divine winds), is simply a confection for the (unfortunately, still) occupying Americans.

    In southern Kyushu, ynu can still see populations of Mongolian ponies, and markers of the sites of landings and battles.

    One reason the right hates the current emperor is that he once acknowledged his Korean ancestry.
    , @Frankie P
    The fundamental difference that you are ignoring is that although China was conquered, its strength as a true civilizational state subsumed the conquerers, who acquiesed and became Chinese culturally.
    Ron is absolutely correct: China is the world's oldest continuous civilization. Perhaps the greatest weakness in the attitudes and policies of the west towards China is viewing China as a nation state instead of as a civilizational state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. peterike says:
    @Johnny Rico
    Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

    Although it is widely believed Ho Chi Minh was Jewish, he was not. However, General Vo Nyugen Giap was, making the Vietnamese communist takeover tricky.

    This Asian is obviously Jewish. We can only hope she starts a revolution.

    https://youtu.be/V6O92PE551I

    Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

    You mock, but in fact there WERE Jews along with Mao. Which is another topic for Ron some day, perhaps.

    https://forward.com/schmooze/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/

    https://jewishjournal.com/news/world/179731/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. sarz says:
    @Dan Hayes
    The cited "eminent computer scientist" (obviously John McCarthy) was used as a token as was Carl Jung.

    No, my money for “the eminent computer scientist” is definitely on Claude Shannon, whom I ran into a couple of times in the 60s at the house of a Jewish friend and mentor of mine with whom he used to play chess. I knew about his communism, but not about his Jewish mother. The main thing about him, of course, was that he had pioneered information theory.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Anon
    Shannon would probably have described himself as an "electrical engineer", besides being not really lucid during the extremely brief portion of the 2000s through which he lived.

    But any experiences you had with him are very interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Rurik says:
    @sarz
    Brother Nathanael Kapner at realjewnews.com has published several pieces on the status of the Protocols,showing why they are not to be dismissed with the usual tired responses such as "forgeries". Put Protocols in the search box at his site.

    Put Protocols in the search box at his site.

    from the article

    In any event, this short work is now available as one of my HTML Books, making it quite convenient for reading and text-searching.

    The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

    http://www.unz.com/book/anonymous__the-protocols-of-the-learned-elders-of-zion/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy
    For God's sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk's rule: "eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Allan
    Let he who is without hypocrisy cast the first damn.

    It's by the way that I agree with your summary of the bust out phase of the life of the crime organization established through the supposedly "Russian Revolution":


    Echoes of the (((“Russian”))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.
     
    So, are not reparations owed to Russians? If so, they must not be financed by further extractions from the Germans, who appear to be the victims of a set up for a holocaust (Dresden, etc.) after a suitable pretext had been identified by the same cabal, more or less, who financed and plotted the 1905 & 1917 insurrections in Russia. Adequate compensation must include unconditional surrender of any and all ownership and control over the many "Holocaust" museums that have been foisted upon us in order to cripple us with guilt and to distract us from another painful pravda about Jewish history.

    The painful truth about the Holocaust is basically just this: Any holocaust of Jews in Europe during the 1940's can be explained correctly as an own goal brought about by compassionate activists such as Hugo Preuß. He and others labored for generations to plunge Europe into chaos again and again and now again with the movement to abolish border controls and to relocate to Europe tens of millions of Muhammadists, subsaharans Africans, and other aliens.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews

    But the Czarist regime had already fallen in March 1917 and the liberals that replaced it enacted Jewish emancipation.
    And the allies, including the US, had no interest in overthrowing the provisional government, they wanted it to continue the war against Germany, so Schiff would have acted against American interests, surely not without some risk.
    And of course in November 1917 there was the Balfour declaration, which should have aligned any ethnocentric Jewish nationalist with the Allied cause.
    So apart from irrational hatred of Russia, what plausible motive could Schiff have had for financing the Bolsheviks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You're always trying to bring facts into the discussion. Why is that?
    , @ploni almoni
    Money. They paid him back plus.
    , @Paw
    Remember , there was a sect in the Jewish history from which the other the Christians hijacked through the J.Christ the power over the world and then the Bolsheviks come ....with the same aim..
    To rule over the world...
    This sect wanted to gain the Power from the Romans. But they were defeated twice. Then they spread to the whole world...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Arnieus says:

    By the time Jewish capitalists financed the Bolsheviks they had honed their weaponized economics to a high degree. The similar MO of most if not all “revolutions” in Europe gives credence to the reality of this articles premise.

    It is not hard to find Jewish financing for Cromwell, and later William of Orange. One of the first things William did after deposing James was borrow money to fight France from a central bank the newly created Bank of England. The French and the Bolshevik revolutions were instigated and financed and the reining monarchs were murdered just like Cromwell executed Charles the first. In France the aristocracy was wiped out. Napoleon thwarted the banker plan in France and was put down with Rothschild financing. The revolution in Germany that deposed Kaiser Wilhelm and ended WWI was all too similar though the Kaiser escaped the fate of his cousin in Russia. Like Napoleon, Hitler thwarted the agenda planned for Germany, that is a Bolshevik slaughter of Germans. WWII was the result. As Russia is all too aware the US spent billions to hire revolutionaries to depose the elected, Russia friendly government in the Ukraine.

    The revolutions are not ideological. All that “workers paradise” and “freedom and liberty” drivel is to motivate the peasants. Russia was pillaged and the likes of Jacob Schiff received a 20-fold return on investment. Only Bankers win the wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. @Ronnie
    Another very significant book of the time is "The Rulers of Russia" 1938 by Father Denis Fahey (Amazon), an Irish Catholic Priest who had traveled to Russia and analyzed the make up and financing of the Revolution. He made most of the same points as Ron and his book was widely sold at the time even in the USA. Although Fahey was a noted theologist he was also a brilliant observer and acute analyst. I think that Ron Unz would be very interested to read this book from a sophisticated and honest contemporary of the Revolution.

    Another very significant book of the time is “The Rulers of Russia” 1938 by Father Denis Fahey

    It’s in the public domain. Here is a link (PDF):

    https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_345_The-Rulers-of-Russia.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct, I made a mistake, Robert is ofc Olof's grandson, it can't be otherwise even just age-wise.

    As a Swede (I assume), do you know what his position on Russia is? I imagine it's the standard Putlerreich narrative, perhaps turned up to 11. I am curious to see if this guess is correct.

    This dipshit led the program Trolljägarna (Troll Hunters), which EXPOSED internet commenters with right-wing views. Such as the dangerously extremist view that Sweden is for Swedes.

    He has the standard Establishment views on Russia and Putin. See this op-ed in Aftonbladet (evening daily, formerly had a working class orientation): https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/a/qnpWom/sociala-medier–demokratins-undergang

    Rysslands Vladimir Putin har trollfabriker som jobbar dygnet runt och har satt upp tweet-robotar som den senaste tiden gjort allt för att stödja separatisterna i Katalonien.

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin has troll factories who work around the clock and have set up Twitter robots that the most recent time did everything to support the separatists in Catalonia.

    Karl XII should be reviled less for his disastrous invasion of Russia and more for bringing the Jews into Sweden for the first time ever.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Colin Wright
    I'd note that associations between Jews and revolutionary socialism in America weren't just the product of observing events in Europe.

    I read an interesting book called More Powerful than Dynamite that describes the social unrest and pre-revolutionary agitation that gripped New York City in 1915-1916. The author appears genuinely unaware of the fact, but a very large proportion -- half? two-thirds? -- of the figures he names are Eastern European Jews. For whatever reason, a completely disproportionate percentage of these people came boiling out of their shtetls absolutely possessed by revolutionary fervor. Was it hatred of Tsarism? A reaction to being freed from the rule of their traditional communities and rabbis? I don't know -- but it'd be interesting to read about.

    More mundanely, I read Frederik Pohl's memoir of the early science-fiction scene, The Way the Future Was. In it, he discusses his membership in the Young Communists League or some such thing in New York City in late thirties -- and notes that although he didn't find the fact significant, the membership was indeed disproportionately Jewish.

    It's a bit like blacks and basketball. Not all basketball players are black, but they disproportionately are. Ditto for Jews and Communists -- both in Europe and here. As a rough rule, they seem to have been overrepresented by a factor of between ten and a hundred. I think that seeing Communism as a Jewish plot is a paranoid over-simplification -- but it is equally unreasonable to see no connection at all.

    Add to that the tight connection between jews and the secret police and spys and – you know: intelligence services of all kinds in Eastern Europe. It’s said, that they were heavily dominated by Jews – one of the rather solid reasons for anti-semitism there after the implosion of the Eastern Block.

    Later famous German literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki for example was one of those secret service men in London after he had survived the Third Reich in a hideawy in Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. jsm says:
    @Anon
    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger's disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now 'above all that primitive, backward thinking.'

    Jews who think this way keep saying, "Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge." This is a bunch of coded wording for, "If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we're different and special," without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

    At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they're still too blinded by their egos to see it.

    Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger's, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

    his is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence,

    Why do you assert that Jews insist criminal blacks be let out because they honest to go think scolding will work…

    …as opposed to…

    that the Jews insist blacks be let out because they are parasites who want to weaken their White host?

    What makes YOU an expert in what goes on in Jews’ minds?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And what makes YOU expert enough to proffer that counter speculation seriously? (Have you any idea at all of the balance of written evidence one way or the other?).
    , @jsm
    I simply asked a question. I didn't MAKE any assertions to knowing what goes on in jews' minds. YOU did.
    So, what make YOU an expert?

    Stop trying to deflect. That's a jewy thing to do. If you have reason to know, then present it. If you don't and you're pulling stuff outta yer ass, then own up to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. SCL says:

    I think it is odd that no one has mentioned Solzhenitsyn’s TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER. It seems the obscuring of this work has been successful.

    Read More
    • Disagree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. There are some other examples of Jewish influence in America which few people are aware of.

    In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte. The first Jew was appointed in 1889, and up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire WASPs would only hold the post for a total of seven years.

    The reason why hardly needs to be explained.

    Jews also helped poison Russo-American relations in this period (which previously had been quite friendly) by successfully lobbying the American government to intervene diplomatically every time there was a pogrom in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte.

    The most famous being Henry Morgenthau Sr. (1913-1916), perhaps now better known for being the father of Henry Morgenthau Jr., father of the "Morgenthau Plan".

    Morgenthau Sr. was the maternal grandfather of the historian Barbara Tuchman (Guns of August).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Jews have never found a more secure perch than within the Anglo-Saxon nations of England and the United States.

    Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude whatsoever for being able to launch their global plots from such safe perches.

    Jacob Schiff was a Jew globalizer banker who funded the Jew-controlled Bolsheviks in Russia. The Jews were so fond of Bolshevism because they saw it as an excellent way to attack and destroy their European Christian enemies.

    Paul Singer, George Soros, Seth Klarman, Mark Zuckerberg, Shelly Adelson, Mike Bloomberg and many other wealthy Jews are no different than Jacob Schiff.

    Mass immigration will prove to be the ultimate undoing of the Jews in European Christian nations.

    The response to the Jew push for open borders mass immigration will be the mass expulsion of Jews from European Christian nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not a fact that "Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude....". In the Anglophone countries many of the great charitable gifts, to art galleries/ museums, to medical research and hospitals, to musical events and institutions and other objects of charity are from Jews.

    Done anonymously? Probably not? "Displayed"? Yes.

    , @Anon
    And this wealthy Jewish American businessman who converted to Catholicism excoriates the Jews in his 1961 speech, now famous.

    Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUL-f-f7Kec
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger's disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

    This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now 'above all that primitive, backward thinking.'

    Jews who think this way keep saying, "Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge." This is a bunch of coded wording for, "If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we're different and special," without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

    At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they're still too blinded by their egos to see it.

    Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger's, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

    Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the ‘socialist utopia’ was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of “Let’s get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals,” in Schiff’s thinking.

    Lol no!

    The “socialist utopia” angle was clearly designed to appeal to the poor Russian goyim. Did I miss the part where Schiff abandoned his treasures and moved to Russia to bask in that utopia?

    The “revenge” angle was the goal. Obviously. He poured money into “utopia propaganda” and into “revenge”. Only one of them worked as advertised. Imagine my shock.

    Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic …

    Haha, save that shit for Yahoo Answers or Wikipedia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @utu

    That said, it’s worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year.
     
    But we do not know how much money Schiff put into the project of revolution. We know that he put a lot of money into Japan:

    http://nda-repository.nda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/11605/91/1/1-2_人文科学抜刷_村岡先生.pdf
    By the end of 1905, Kuhn, Loeb&Co., to the surprise of many, floated a bond issue in the sum of $200 million – equivalent to some $4.5 billion in today’s money. Schiff’s loans were an important factor—and his extensive financial involvement, a deciding factor—in bringing victory to Japan.
     
    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

    From The World at the Cross Roads by Boris Brasol (1921), pp. 70-71:

    The full history of the interlocking participation of the Imperial German Government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written. Much time and research will be required in order to disentangle the complex relations between the two powers, which sought to beat down the Russian Colossus which for centuries stood as a watchful sentinel on the border of Europe, protecting Western civilization from savage invasions originated in the depths of Asia.

    It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member. Nor is it a mere coincidence that in the later stages of the Russian Revolution we still find international finance hard at work engaged in further endeavors to break the last resistance of Russia against the onslaught of the “Triple Alliance” — that is of the Central Powers, Revolutionary internationalism and International Finance itself.

    This is a link to the book (pdf).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Rich
    Most likely you've already read this book, but I'll add a link to it for those who haven't:

    "George Bush : the unauthorized biography" - Link to Archive.org

    Indeed, what a tangled web they've woven and how we're ff-ing stuck in it...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Mike P

    The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions ...

    The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the ‘joy of Jewry’ looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West’s largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.
     
    Good observations. However, the degenerate Western "elites," whose degradation was caused to a large extent by decades of Zionist blackmail and corruption, are unable to mount another serious challenge to a renewed Russia supported by a rapidly surging China.

    Mike P—Yes, the chances of engineering another Russian Revolution or replacing Russians with assorted ethnics are slim indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Thorfinnsson
    There are some other examples of Jewish influence in America which few people are aware of.

    In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte. The first Jew was appointed in 1889, and up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire WASPs would only hold the post for a total of seven years.

    The reason why hardly needs to be explained.

    Jews also helped poison Russo-American relations in this period (which previously had been quite friendly) by successfully lobbying the American government to intervene diplomatically every time there was a pogrom in Russia.

    http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/72/167272-004-80FDAF61.jpg

    In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte.

    The most famous being Henry Morgenthau Sr. (1913-1916), perhaps now better known for being the father of Henry Morgenthau Jr., father of the “Morgenthau Plan”.

    Morgenthau Sr. was the maternal grandfather of the historian Barbara Tuchman (Guns of August).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Moi says:
    @Anon
    I got $50 on the holocaust

    Wow. That would be something. I was thinking maybe the shenanigans that established Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    Same thing.

    Jewish zionism, the flip side of Jewish Bolshevism, financed by the same claque, manipulated, provoked the era of wars in Europe, exploiting Anglo, American, and Christian blood, treasure and sentimental religiosity, to achieve Jewish zionist purposes -- Jewish takeover of Palestine as a kind of Vatican from which Jews would control the world.

    Supposed Jewish holocaust is a smokescreen cum projection, blaming Germans -- falsely-- for what Jews with and through Allies did in fact TO Germans.

    Jeff Gates: Guiilt by Association: "Criminal zionism's most potent weapon is the ability to displace facts and evidence with Beliefs."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @refl
    Read: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/

    Thanks but different subject/question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Anon[859] • Disclaimer says:
    @jsm
    his is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence,

    Why do you assert that Jews insist criminal blacks be let out because they honest to go think scolding will work...

    ...as opposed to...

    that the Jews insist blacks be let out because they are parasites who want to weaken their White host?

    What makes YOU an expert in what goes on in Jews' minds?

    And what makes YOU expert enough to proffer that counter speculation seriously? (Have you any idea at all of the balance of written evidence one way or the other?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    It isn't difficult at all to fathom. (JP) Morgan's Law: Two reasons for everything, a good reason and the real reason. More crime results in greater acceptance of repressive policing, a "security state".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @jilles dykstra
    Never heard of this treaty.
    If you just read the introduction you understand that it never was.
    If you understood anything of geopolitics you would know that never would Britain allow Russia free access to the Med.
    The movement of grain ships from Russia to the Med interrupted for two days, already Russia could not pay the interest on her foreign debt.
    So the Straits were perfect for controlling Russia.
    It of course may have been that perfidious Albion held out a herring.

    It was a real agreement. Why do you think the British attacked Gallipoli? It was to fulfil the promise to Russia. The Russians gave a Quid Pro Quo in the form of allowing Britain a larger occupation zone in Persia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Isn't Gallipoli - and the original attempt to send warships through the Bosporus - explicable as
    1. An attempt to knock a German ally out of the war
    2. Open an ice free supply route to Russia (and maybe an export route for Russian grain?)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. MBlanc46 says:
    @Charlie Wyoming
    Unfortunately the Jew has throughout history been Pogromed. The inevitable leftist turn and they are mostly responsible for it, in this country will bite them in their ass. Democratic Socialism is on its way. And the victomology that is such a big part of its core loves the Palestinian. Its gonna be a long next 100 years.

    Jews are seen as white and Palestinians are seen as people of color. That probably doesn’t bode well for the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world’s most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization, with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval, then suddenly reopened to the West during the Nixon Administration and under Deng’s economic reforms starting to reverse decades of Maoist economic failure.

    Very unambiguously, Mao >> Deng. Of course, the US media will always twist it the other way round. For an explanation, see this: https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2415952. And https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-trips-but-hes-right-on-russia-our-ruling-class-is-crazy-remember-the-romanovs/#comment-2429247.

    I used to believe the mainstream American narrative on this too, until I realized that the faster economic growth starting from the reforms had more to do with China’s finally being able to trade with the US (at its core more a product of what happened later on in Mao’s era than what Deng and his supporters did) than with the accompanying change in economic policy. I came to the conclusion that China in 1970 had more or less secured herself to the extent that establishing relations with the US became a possibility. With the industrial and modern foundation already developed and integration into the wider international community, rapid economic growth became more or less inevitable. One can think of China in Mao’s years as having developed a proven to work operating system and programming language in bootstrap mode, on top of which the application software that delivered more immediate and tangible returns were built as part of “economic reform.” Many knowledgeable people in China feel the same; that those reformists who returned to power afterwards were actually less competent leaders taking undue credit by building on the work of others.

    With the Chinese people clearly having such tremendous inherent talent and their potential already demonstrated on a much smaller scale in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, I believed there was an excellent chance that Deng’s reforms would unleash enormous economic growth, and sure enough, that was exactly what happened. In the late 1970s, China was poorer than Haiti, but I always told my friends that it might come to dominate the world economically within a couple of generations, and although most of them were initially quite skeptical of such an outrageous claim, every few years they became a little less so. The Economist had long been my favorite magazine, and in 1986 they published an especially long letter of mine emphasizing the tremendous rising potential of China and urging them to expand their coverage with a new Asia Section; the following year, they did exactly that.

    I think the comparison between China and Haiti in the late 70s is patently ridiculous, for obvious reasons. Many in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore look down on mainland Chinese for being much poorer and for being 共匪. The reality is that it’s like comparing ordinary engineers in the dominant company to those who started and built an inferior but for the most part working alternative. And now, that alternative China created is starting to become serious competition to the long established market standard.

    These days I feel tremendous humiliation for having spent most of my life being so totally wrong about so many things for so long, and I cling to China as a very welcome exception. I can’t think of a single development during the last forty years that I wouldn’t have generally expected back in the late 1970s, with the only surprise having been the total lack of surprises. About the only “revision” I’ve had to make in my historical framework is that I’d always casually accepted the ubiquitous claim that Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1959-61 had caused 35 million or more deaths, but I’ve recently encountered some serious doubts, suggesting that such a total could be considerably exaggerated, and today I might admit the possibility that only 15 million or fewer had died.

    Wow, what exactly did you expect back in the late 1970s for the next forty years? More or less what’s happening now? And that was considered extremely farfetched at the time? The more I look at it, the more I realize that China in the late 1970s was in essence not anywhere near as bad as it might have appeared on the surface. There was already, for instance, the expertise to develop not great but passable nuclear submarines, which Andrei Martyanov characterized in his book as “the most complex machinery in human history.” I also realized that that estimate of 35 million was made by comparing to the death and birth rate of 1958 (so number of excess deaths plus number of fewer births relative to 1958 baseline). It’s laughable to label a “dictator” one does not like as a “mass murderer” by comparing himself to himself in population statistics. The overall trend was that during his 25 years, the population of China went from 475 million to 900+ million, hardly what one would expect from a genocidal state.

    Now that China is so much more powerful and credible internationally, more people will discredit what those silly and politically motivated American scholars have put in their history books for the masses.

    I’m a pretty exceptional and extreme guy (as are you Ron), so I naturally prefer those who dare to use more extreme and unorthodox approaches. I like revolutionaries who transform weird into normal, be they in science, be they in politics. Because the most consequential to our civilization happens at the extremes. Because there’s so much more of a story to tell. Mediocrity and conformism is the default, and more people ought to try radical (but appropriated hedged) methods if societal advancement is to be optimized for. Like, what Stalin did, in pioneering the planned economy, was truly revolutionary and met with fierce opposition from the outside world, but it proved to be a miraculous success. Mao replicated it successfully in the Chinese context to modernize China. I think Mao was a genius poet and political thinker and leader and a true revolutionary at heart. His brothers and sons were all killed for “revolutionary” activities. Nearing the last decade of his life, he wasn’t about leaving behind wealth and power to heirs of blood like the typical dictator/magnate, as he had few real ones. Most likely, he cared much more about his legacy and what would happen to China afterwards. He distrusted those people under him running things, Deng included, who were scrambling to ensure the best position for themselves and their children after he died. So he launched the Cultural Revolution, using popular uprising to instigate a political reshuffle at the top. Of course, the people who made it to the top who ran things during his last decade were very questionable. He may well have been quite displeased with the result. Nonetheless, he probably felt this political balancing would be the healthiest choice for his legacy, for the political situation afterwards. The people he brought down came back to power after he died, and I’m sure many of them secretly resented him but were too scared to say anything. So he succeeded, unlike Stalin, in not getting posthumously denounced. And China is still thriving forty years after his death, though maybe not as much as he would have hoped.

    As I write this, I am reminded of Mao’s poetic quote: 人间正道是沧桑, which means literally “the correct course for the human world is for seas to turn into mulberry fields.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parfois
    Thank you for your comment/clarification. I found Ron's articles having an immoderate amount of worn out clichés when it comes to characterizing the two men who had the greatest impact in the XX Century, Stalin and Mao. He admits himself that he has learned a lot since his formative years and I say 'good and well for the effort but there is a lot more to learn, starting with discarding the memes and clichés that shaped your worldview'. Repeating the same narrative "... Stalin killed (insert your favourite number) million people... " and "... Mao killed (insert the number of your choice) million people..." has the only effect of diminishing the credibility of the narrator. All one has to do to debunk these propaganda lies is to check the demographic records and see the implausibility of the figures bundied about by the propaganda agents, starting with the acclaimed Oxford historian - and "expert on Stalin" - Robert Conquest who picked up the 60 million score for Stalin in 'The Great Terror' but years later had a pang of conscience and generously decided to reduce the tally to 20 million.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. bjdubbs says:

    Re Nixon and the problems of hiding the ethnic dimension of red-baiting, it was always puzzling why conservatives focused so much on “Whitaker Chambers and Alger Hiss” because the story itself seemed pretty inconsequential and not really worth the monumental status it seemed to possess for conservatives. Now it makes sense if Hiss served the role of being the respectable, WASP target of redbaiting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @Colin Wright
    I'd note that associations between Jews and revolutionary socialism in America weren't just the product of observing events in Europe.

    I read an interesting book called More Powerful than Dynamite that describes the social unrest and pre-revolutionary agitation that gripped New York City in 1915-1916. The author appears genuinely unaware of the fact, but a very large proportion -- half? two-thirds? -- of the figures he names are Eastern European Jews. For whatever reason, a completely disproportionate percentage of these people came boiling out of their shtetls absolutely possessed by revolutionary fervor. Was it hatred of Tsarism? A reaction to being freed from the rule of their traditional communities and rabbis? I don't know -- but it'd be interesting to read about.

    More mundanely, I read Frederik Pohl's memoir of the early science-fiction scene, The Way the Future Was. In it, he discusses his membership in the Young Communists League or some such thing in New York City in late thirties -- and notes that although he didn't find the fact significant, the membership was indeed disproportionately Jewish.

    It's a bit like blacks and basketball. Not all basketball players are black, but they disproportionately are. Ditto for Jews and Communists -- both in Europe and here. As a rough rule, they seem to have been overrepresented by a factor of between ten and a hundred. I think that seeing Communism as a Jewish plot is a paranoid over-simplification -- but it is equally unreasonable to see no connection at all.

    Westerns on TV would have Native Americans burn down everything within sight [and mostly without any logical reason].

    But when you start looking at who’re behind such scenarios [writers, directors, producers], you’ll discover a projection of pogroms [quite often by Jews with an Eastern European background].

    And, yes, I fell for it too.

    The Hollywood Indian – Link to Wikipedia [this being a Wikipedia entry, don't expect to find the full and naked truth]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. MarkinPNW says:
    @silviosilver
    I read The International Jew about five years ago. Well, I tried to read it, but gave up before getting half way through. As Ron said, it became quite monotonous and too much of the discussion was focused on obscure events of the day. I might have persevered, but eventually the numerous speculative conspiracy-theory-style reaches in explaining contemporary and historical events got to me.

    As for the Protocols, neo-nazis often claim that the important thing about it isn't whether it was a 'hoax' or not, but whether it explains the present. I suppose that's true in the sense that it gives an insight into the mindset of the people who were concerned about the growth of Jewish influence before that influence became a fact. I haven't read the whole thing, so I can't comment on Ron's claim that it deserves to be a considered a classic of political theory.

    Another neo-nazi point which I also think is partly correct is that "Jews are the skeleton key to history." Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, but the basic point has to be granted: that an understanding of certain historical events will always be incomplete without sufficient consideration of the Jewish role.

    It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.”
     
    This makes it sound like the Russians coined "Fordism." Did they? I don't know. But modern historians and social scientists with a leftist bent routinely refer to Fordism, both as a management theory and as a social structure.

    Wasn’t “Fordism” the official state religion in Huxley’s “Brave New World”, with the symbol of the capitol T in honor of the Ford Model T automobile replacing the Christian Cross (resembling the lower case t) as the primary religious symbol?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Charles Pewitt
    Jews have never found a more secure perch than within the Anglo-Saxon nations of England and the United States.

    Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude whatsoever for being able to launch their global plots from such safe perches.

    Jacob Schiff was a Jew globalizer banker who funded the Jew-controlled Bolsheviks in Russia. The Jews were so fond of Bolshevism because they saw it as an excellent way to attack and destroy their European Christian enemies.

    Paul Singer, George Soros, Seth Klarman, Mark Zuckerberg, Shelly Adelson, Mike Bloomberg and many other wealthy Jews are no different than Jacob Schiff.

    Mass immigration will prove to be the ultimate undoing of the Jews in European Christian nations.

    The response to the Jew push for open borders mass immigration will be the mass expulsion of Jews from European Christian nations.

    Not a fact that “Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude….”. In the Anglophone countries many of the great charitable gifts, to art galleries/ museums, to medical research and hospitals, to musical events and institutions and other objects of charity are from Jews.

    Done anonymously? Probably not? “Displayed”? Yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    Why do you think that naming a wing after oneself in a museum or university or hospital, is an expression of 'gratitude'? It's an expression of economic power, and is self-serving.

    "Charity vampires" are a thing: they're the people who draw a $500k/yr salary, and first-class travel and accom, from the proceeds of earnest-but-naïve 'chuggers' who collect loose change from earnest-but-naïve citizens.

    The notion that $2500-a-plate (and upwards) 'charity dinners/galas/events' exist to raise money for 'charity', is marketing aimed at rubes. Such events exist in order for people to rub shoulders with each other, in tax-deductible ways that specifically exclude hoi polloi (because the price of entry is far too high).

    The only thing more likely to fund the lives of an economic vampire than a self-styled 'charity', is a self-styled 'foundation'.

    (Note - this is all completely independent of the ethnocultural background of the vampire in question: Gentile, Joo, and Musselman too... there are parasitic sociopaths in all human societies, and they find the easiest grifts - 'charity' and politics chief among them).
    , @Weaver1
    Just as a general statement, controlling the culture and history of a people is powerful. How Jews have acted as a group here, I couldn't say, but charity of this sort isn't necessarily helpful.

    Medical research and hospitals sound incorruptible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @for-the-record
    Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

    From The World at the Cross Roads by Boris Brasol (1921), pp. 70-71:

    The full history of the interlocking participation of the Imperial German Government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written. Much time and research will be required in order to disentangle the complex relations between the two powers, which sought to beat down the Russian Colossus which for centuries stood as a watchful sentinel on the border of Europe, protecting Western civilization from savage invasions originated in the depths of Asia.

    It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member. Nor is it a mere coincidence that in the later stages of the Russian Revolution we still find international finance hard at work engaged in further endeavors to break the last resistance of Russia against the onslaught of the "Triple Alliance" — that is of the Central Powers, Revolutionary internationalism and International Finance itself.
     
    This is a link to the book (pdf).

    Most likely you’ve already read this book, but I’ll add a link to it for those who haven’t:

    “George Bush : the unauthorized biography” – Link to Archive.org

    Indeed, what a tangled web they’ve woven and how we’re ff-ing stuck in it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Thanks, I haven't read it. The problem is that just with this thread I've come up with a reading list that will keep me fully occupied for the next year or so . . .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mr. Unz,

    The intellectually curious know the problem of Jewish, power, influence , propaganda, and subversion. Enlightenment has tremendous value, but the paramount question is how do we stop international Jewish power. The combination of ethnic unity, wealth, media manipulation, high IQ and institutional infiltration creates a formidable deadly opponent. This has been going since the ancient world.

    JQ has dire consequences for the very survival of western civilization particularly with mass demographically swamping immigration policies.

    What will happen to Jews when the Occident becomes minority majority? Jews will be perceived as just any other white person by minority groups, many of which harbor hatred against Jews. There will be a Chinese world hegemony when the west falls, which will not be good for Jews. The elite Jews need to wake up. Destroying the goyim is not good for them!

    Read More
    • Agree: gmachine1729
    • Replies: @gmachine1729
    I don't think the West will fall, but it will certainly weaken relative to China and East Asia at large. I feel like the Chinese are the most able to see through Jewish shenanigans and also most politically able to openly talk about it. There is a benefit from being half isolated from Western culture. It's perfectly okay in China to be like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Rui#Controversy. This is coming from the host of the most prominent English news show of CCTV, China's virtual TV monopoly. Chinese businessmen can openly say that Jews are the types to do whatever they can to get ahead, scruples be damned. I used to much admire, to a great extent blindly, Jewish achievement, especially in science. I still do to a great extent. But now I think they are overrated, especially in terms of raw ability. It's the combination of higher raw ability and being a privileged minority group within elite Western culture. Nowadays, in the US it's the East Asian kids winning the 100% meritocratic contests at the high school level, where there is basically zero, human promotion subjective factor. Moreover, from the 40s on, the Japanese more or less held their own vis-a-vis the Jews in theoretical physics. Yukawa, Tomonaga, Nambu, Maskawa, Kobayashi all won Nobel, and their work arguably exceeded that of the typical physics theory Nobel, as there was still some bias in the committee, against Soviets, against Japanese. The more mathematical and theoretical and loaded on individual brilliance the field, the better East Asians have done. My non-Jewish white friend who placed at the top in elite math contests shocked me by suggesting that in terms of biological intelligence, East Asians may actually be higher than Jews are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik
    Great read, Mr. Unz.

    He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia,
     

    Echoes of the ((("Russian"))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.

    They go from being brutalized by commie Jews, to being looted by (crony, klepto)-capitalist Jews. Such a deal!

    Many people point out that the "Russian" oligarchs weren't all Jews, and neither was Yeltsin- who summarily betrayed Russia and her people to destitution on behalf of their most intractable enemy, and they'd be right.

    But I feel an article like this should include the worst and most loathsome man who ever lived, and he wasn't a Jew.

    Schiff and Trotsky would have been stopped long before their treachery could have sent Russia and millions of others reeling into the abyss, were it not for the most execrable man who ever befouled the ether; a one president Woodrow Wilson.

    It was Wilson who accommodated Schiff by betraying the American people and handing over the keys to our Treasury to this sinister cabal of Jewish supremacist banksters.

    It was Wilson whose betrayals and intrigues allowed for Trotsky to escape Canadian internment and be sent with 'suitcases' full of lucre into Russia, with Wilson even arranging a passport and transport documents.

    Also, we shouldn't forget that it was also Wilson who promised the American people that he would keep us out of the war, (and was consequently elected president) and then did all he could to betray that promise, and involve us in that disastrous conflict.

    Let's not forget that it was Wilson who foisted the ruse of his "Fourteen Points", guaranteeing 'self-determination' to Germany if she laid down her arms, only to betray Germany with a starvation campaign into signing Germans into perpetual slavery. Leading directly to WWII, and all the attendant horrors.

    The weight of Woodrow Wilson's singular treachery, treason, betrayals and enormities is beyond my comprehension, but when calculating the worst villains of the 20th century, he certainly takes all the cakes I can think of.

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html


    The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.
     
    Not just possession of the Protocols, but any perceived 'anti-Semitism' was declared a capital offense when Lenin came to power. (I remember reading somewhere, that this law, death for "anti-Semites", was the first one enacted, but I don't remember where I read that).

    http://truthmegasite.com/the-bolshevik-revolution-in-russia-was-the-work-of-jewish-planning-and-jewish-dissatisfaction-our-plan-is-to-have-a-new-world-order/


    with the Schiff story seen as conclusion proof of his delusional anti-Semitism.
     
    conclusive ?

    Plato and Machiavelli as a classic of Western political thought.
     
    the problem I would have with calling it "Western", is that I consider the Protocols (and Bolshevism), as distinctively anti-Western.

    For me, the meaning of 'Western' goes back to the Greeks and Romans, marching though Bysantium and finding its perfect expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and is an expression of something intrinsic to the spirit and genes of Western man. Fundamental to what I'd describe as the ultimate virtue of the West, is honor. IOW honesty, decency, blood, home and hearth. Father and motherland, and fair play.

    Whereas the Protocols seems to mock these notions as the weaknesses of 'beast-like' simpletons. The Achilles heal of the West- to be exploited as a means to bashing the West on the rocks of genocidal malevolence, and enslaving the survivors, just as the Old Testament commands.

    So it's difficult for me to consider the Protocols anywhere near the writings of Plato/Socrates, who seemed above all to love the Truth. Whereas such quaint weaknesses like 'honor' are exploited in the Protocols with sinister glee.

    Sort of like comparing Ron Paul to Richard Pearl. To me they are mutually exclusive.

    Anyway, you're a magnificent and brave intellect Mr. Unz, for taking on these most salient and even urgent issues of our day.

    Kudos to you Sir!

    Remember that Wilson was blackmailed into WW1 by Sam Untermeyer Zionist and big shareholder in Standard Oil

    He was also the kind of do gooder Puritan who causes so many problems in the world

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Jon Halpenny
    It was a real agreement. Why do you think the British attacked Gallipoli? It was to fulfil the promise to Russia. The Russians gave a Quid Pro Quo in the form of allowing Britain a larger occupation zone in Persia.

    Isn’t Gallipoli – and the original attempt to send warships through the Bosporus – explicable as
    1. An attempt to knock a German ally out of the war
    2. Open an ice free supply route to Russia (and maybe an export route for Russian grain?)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    Both of the reasons you give are valid in their own right. But it is a fact that the British had given an assurance to hand Constantinople over to the Russians shortly before they began the Gallipoli Campaign. If the campaign had succeeded Russia would have got Constantinople and the Straits.
    , @refl
    According to the site I mentioned above (firstworldwarhiddenhistory), the British attacked Gallipoli to keep Russia in the war until the coming collapse of Germany and Russia - hard to swallow but the authors make quite a compelling case. I do not want to unnerve anyone but the site by these two Scots is certainly worth a mention on tis forum.
    , @anon
    Those may have been the stated reasons.
    The Turk was waiting at Gallipoli, though, so he must have had foreknowledge. The Turk also had foreknowledge of the Armenian uprising scheduled for the same day [25 April 1915].

    Since the outcome was the Genocide of the Armenians and other Christian Minorities in Turkey, who's to say that wasn't the real intention all along?
    , @Paw
    No, the Russians were promised the Turkish Strait, for the help to fight against the Germans in the First World War.
    They got nothing, after.
    It is interesting ,that the Germans got much more all the time after they started their criminal wars, untill today and never paid any reparations. Most huge help from the USA , the Davies and the Young plans !!! Winners like the Russians never got anything.
    For instance as winning nations they /Russians/ were entitled to get one part of the defeated fascists ITALY including the Roma.
    Remeber the defeated nations like the French and the British got part of the Germany !!! As though they were not able to fight the Germans and winning anything !!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    .

    And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia,
     
    Whoa, that puts the stories about 1918 in a very different light.


    Other contemporaries seem to have taken the Protocols very seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure,
     
    I once looked up the text of that article by perusing the relative edition of the Times on microfilm and it was rather different in tone to what later authors such as Norman Cohn asserted .

    Whoa, that puts the stories about 1918 in a very different light.

    How so? I can’t tell if that is sarcasm.

    What was the tone of the Times article?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Not sarcasm, I think the 1905 Revolution was a key turning point for ending Britains isolationist policy . Before 1905 Russia was a powerful deterrent to Germany but that year Russia was in chaos, though it was obviously caused by a defeat of Russia by Japan, which was in turn contributed to by the fact that , as John Mearshiemer put it "Neither Japan nor Russia was able to gain the upper hand in Korea, mainly because Korean policymakers skillfully played the two great powers off against each other", so there was a war, It was a bit like Britain being defeated in the battle of France in WW2, suddenly US isolationism was too risky

    The Times''s tone was that responsible people should not ignore such fake news and let it go unchallenged, because it was having a real effect on public opinion
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    The cited "eminent computer scientist" (obviously John McCarthy) was used as a token as was Carl Jung.

    How do you know they were deliberately used as tokens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous[199]:

    I believe that Freud explicitly conveyed to Jung that he was to be used to negate the pervading Jewish public image of psychoanalysis. Jung certainly thought that he was being used as a token.

    The "eminent computer scientist" certainly thought (and resented) that he was used as a token.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Bill says:
    @ploni almoni
    Martin Luther was a competing product to Judaism, but the same materialist, Dualist thing in Christian garb. He was just knocking the competition. The princes supported him because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals. Because they were animals.

    The princes supported [Luther] because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals.

    Well, the fact that he gave them cover to steal all the Church’s stuff helped, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Bill says:
    @CornCod1
    It turns out that the events of the past few years has proven that the views of "right-wing cranks," anti-Semites and "conspiracy theorists" had a more correct view of world events than mainstream conservatives. In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money. The events of the last few years have proven this. We have a shadowy "deep state" rebellion against our president, a James Bond villain named George Soros, whose activities Wikileaks proves controls the Democratic Party and other Leftist parties in Europe. Now, anyone with half a brain admits that secret societies control governments across the world.

    In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money.

    Birchers were quite philo-semitic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon

    Birchers were quite philo-semitic.
     
    Quite right.

    In 1966, Prof Revilo Oliver (now deceased), who was co-founder (with eleven others) of the Birch Society and Associate Editor of its major organ, American Opinion, discovered that Robert Welch, the JBS's principal founder, was controlled by Jews, the purpose of said control being to harmlessly absorb and deflect the energy and money of patriotic Americans who wished to fight the 'international communist conspiracy', while leaving unmolested the Jewish-led conspiracy against America and Western civilization.

    Introductory note:
    The John Birch Society -- Exposed!
    By John "Birdman" Bryant
     
    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-Oliver.html

    I found Birdman's article from a link provided by David Martin "DC Dave" in his article
    Is the Birch Society a Zionist Front?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Cyrano says:

    If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

    The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn’t have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts.

    If the Jews were so diabolical to unleash the Bolshevik revolution because of sinister motives only, how come that they didn’t predict that it’s going to hurt their profit margins in the US – via increased wages and benefits that they were forced to pay in order to keep the working class calm – out of fear that the Bolshevik revolution might have given them some ideas about conducting feasibility study of staging a copycat revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

    The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn’t have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts...'

    I don't think so. When opportunity afforded, capitalists would be just has hard-hearted and exploitative as ever: see Union Carbide knowingly virtually sentencing workers desperate for employment to death by having them drill a tunnel through dry silica at the height of the Great Depression.

    On the other hand, long-term, the restriction on immigration drove wages up; Archie Bunker was able to afford his own house and a stay-at-home wife on a forklift driver's salary, and that wasn't a TV fantasy. By 1970, it was a reality -- and American workers were hardly vulnerable to Communist propaganda.

    But opening up the floodgates to immigration did away with that. Now we're back to masses of desperate, suitably docile workers.

    It's immigration, not fear of communism. Reduce the supply of labor; conditions for the working man improve. Increase the supply of labor; they decline. This has been true since at least the Enclosure movement.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Mr. Unz,

    With last week's essay and this week's discussion of Schiff, Ford, The Dearborn Independent and The Elders, it looks like it's Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead.

    What Forbidden Topic will be discussed and what Sacred Cow will be dissected next week?

    I’d be interested in a review of the history of pogroms in Eastern Europe, perhaps combined with Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together.

    Read More
    • Agree: Colin Wright
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Bill says:
    @CanSpeccy
    For God's sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk's rule: "eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    Yeah, Ron is great, but his writing is undisciplined.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Bill:

    What you mistakenly term "undisciplined" is Ron serving up myriad topics for discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @jilles dykstra
    Balfour already in 1907 said to the USA ambassador 'that maybe war was the cheapest way to keep the British standard of living'.
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008, Balfour, US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49

    If actually said it counts for some fraction of one per cent of the needed evidence. That is true, in particular, because it suggests no knowledge of Balfour the man. I recall a vignette (here’s another tiny fractional piece of evidence) from an essay by Leonard Woolf (Virginia Woolf’s v clever husband) in an essay where he describes Balfour in committee in 1915 receiving a note, pausing for just a moment, then continuing “as I was saying, in the matter of an additional farthing….”. The note told him of the sinking of the Lusitania. At least my informants of what was said on the occasion of news being received of, first, the invasion of the Soviet Union and, second, Pearl Harbour, reported “we’ve won the war” as the enthusiastic expression on both occasions.

    I commend resurrection of Leonard Woolf’s writings as a pleasure awaiting Ron and like minded fossickers for small nuggets (with hopes of greater ones).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The plans to destabilise the ME originate in Israel.
    If part of these plans was to destabilise Europe too, possible, but I never heard of it.
    Soros' indoctrination scheme for open society has been running for many decades.

    Destabilize might not be quite the word for it. Pulverize and dilute the various indigenous national identities? Yes.

    One other related maneuver that is underway is that the Jews are giving Muslims territory in Europe and the United States in exchange for the Jews’ having taken Palestine. It’s a form of pacification, of letting the pressure out. It distracts the Muslims with the fruits of capitalism and other material wealth and political power (in Europe and US). It also clears potentially resistant young men out of Israel’s neighborhood. I suppose one could also view it as payment of compensatory damages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    One other related maneuver that is underway is that the Jews are giving Muslims territory in Europe and the United States in exchange for the Jews’ having taken Palestine. It’s a form of pacification, of letting the pressure out.
     
    I'd take this idea seriously if the Muslims were being shipped out from the West Bank and Gaza, because this would clearly be in Israel's interests. In fact the migrants are coming from far and wide.

    If you are looking for a villain lurking in the background, try Saudi Arabia. One of the State Department memos in Wikileaks suggested that Saudi government policy was to encourage the migration of Sunni Muslims to the developed world, and radicalize Sunnis worldwide (except in Saudi Arabia itself).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @JackOH
    Ron, extraordinary, provocative stuff in your American Pravda series. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Unz Review is my impression that this is how big-shouldered people of goodwill and genuinely liberal disposition used to talk a century ago. I don't know squat about The Protocols except as it's referred to by others, almost always prefaced as "anti-Semitic". The Unzian approach: "Let's read the damned thing", seems to me superior and more grown-up.

    BTW-a childhood friend of mine and her husband, both Jewish and one of them observant, retired and now live in the Carolinas. Their occasional stories of elderly neighbors, call them Morris and Sheldon, returning from prison after having served time for white collar crimes such as tax evasion or improprieties on government contracts are sort of unintentionally funny. Looks like they missed the memo on how to be the world's wire-pullers.

    Well put, deserved praise of Ron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    199, thanks. Credit where it's due, and Ron is doing a great job. I've "sold" Unz Review to a few junior faculty at my local state university, and they're still talking to me. I'm convinced a good, successful political faction could be founded based on some common themes here, but most folks aren't ready for that yet.

    BTW-the late Hugh Hefner used to occasionally write something under the heading, "What Kind of Man Reads Playboy?" (Hope my memory isn't confecting stuff.) I'm not sure if the essays had a strong statistical content, but they were complimentary of the readers, and helped induce a bit of solidarity between readers and the editors and writers. Maybe Ron could consider something similar, although I haven't a clue how to do it with a Web pub.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Allan says:
    @Rurik

    “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.
     

    Let he who is without hypocrisy cast the first damn.

    It’s by the way that I agree with your summary of the bust out phase of the life of the crime organization established through the supposedly “Russian Revolution”:

    Echoes of the (((“Russian”))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.

    So, are not reparations owed to Russians? If so, they must not be financed by further extractions from the Germans, who appear to be the victims of a set up for a holocaust (Dresden, etc.) after a suitable pretext had been identified by the same cabal, more or less, who financed and plotted the 1905 & 1917 insurrections in Russia. Adequate compensation must include unconditional surrender of any and all ownership and control over the many “Holocaust” museums that have been foisted upon us in order to cripple us with guilt and to distract us from another painful pravda about Jewish history.

    The painful truth about the Holocaust is basically just this: Any holocaust of Jews in Europe during the 1940′s can be explained correctly as an own goal brought about by compassionate activists such as Hugo Preuß. He and others labored for generations to plunge Europe into chaos again and again and now again with the movement to abolish border controls and to relocate to Europe tens of millions of Muhammadists, subsaharans Africans, and other aliens.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Winnetou1889
    Most people also do not know, because of whitewashing history, that Germany in 1919 had a Bavarian Soviet Republic centered in Munich, headed by Communist Kurt Eisner. WWI vets, the Freikorps, and others rooted them out. Later Herr H and his men weren’t just street fighting for the hell of it; they were clashing with the Communists, still fighting to root the Communists all out once and for all. Not all Jews were Communists, but many Communists were Jews.

    In 1932, the three people on the ballot in Germany were old von Hindenberg, Hitler and Communist Ernst Thälmann. Eventually, as we know, Herr H won out. The rewriting history and whitewashing this Red scare, in the aftermath of WWII, has obscured all of this. My super educated Jewish husband, who was a history major, had never heard of this. All he knows is of trains going east, and nothing of the root of the fight.

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form. If people knew more about the root of the fight generally, perhaps the issues would be clearer. Like @BenKenobi writes above: “And here we are.” The same fighting and choices in issues remain, but most people don’t even realize it.

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form.

    What’s the fight today? What form has it taken? Thanks for explaining.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Winnetou1889
    In its most simplistic description, it's nationalism vs. globalism. Nationalists want borders and respect of property rights; globalists want no borders, sharing of everything and to pack more people in to sell more widgets to. Nationalists want to build homes; globalists want to build housing. It's just a different and competing set of values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton's list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.

    Was it debunked by Snopes, perchance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Sparkon says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Books I do not see mentioned:
    Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’, 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
    Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), ‘The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)’, New York 1955
    Horace Meyer Kallen, ‘Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology’, New York, 1921
    Elisabeth Dilling, ´The Roosevelt Red record and its background’, 1936, Chicago

    And I have a consolation, the murder of Rabin by an orthodox jew after the Oslo Accords made me wonder if zionist jews did want peace, being retired I had the time to investigate, and found about about fairy tales such as 'land without people for people without land'.

    Sept 11 was the next investigation trigger, once I could no longer prevent the conclusion that it had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.
    How could our liberator of WWII have become an evil state ?
    I found out about Baruch and FDR, etc.
    Had there been no Baruch, I wonder if there would have been a WWII.
    As Hitler in 1939 threatened jewry 'if they again caused a world war ...'.

    I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.

    However, the blackmail of the Balfour Declaration, jews do seem responsible for the German defeat in 1918.
    Without USA military interference Germany would have won in November 1917.

    I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.

    The evidence is there already by 1903 in Zionist co-founder Max Nordau’s stirring speech that year to Zionists in Paris:

    Litman Rosenthal:

    “About a month later [~Sept. 1903] I went on a business trip to France. On my way to Lyons I stopped in Paris, and there I visited, as usual, our Zionist friends. One of them told me that this very same evening Dr. Nordau was scheduled to speak about the Sixth Congress”
    [...]
    “When we reached the hall in the evening we found it filled to overflowing and all were waiting impatiently for the great master, Nordau, who, on entering, received a tremendous ovation. But Nordau, without paying heed to the applause showered upon him, began his speech immediately, and said:”

    ‘You all came here with a question burning in your hearts and trembling on your lips, and the question is, indeed, a great one, and of vital importance. I am willing to answer it. What you want to ask is: How could I—I who was one of those who formulated the Basle program—how could I dare to speak in favor of the English proposition concerning Uganda, how could Herzl as well as I betray our ideal of Palestine…’

    “The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau’s beautiful, truly poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the hearers with an almost sensual pleasure. For a few seconds the speaker paused, and the public, absolutely intoxicated by his splendid oratory, applauded frantically. But soon Nordau asked for silence and continued”:

    ‘Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people, offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion and never will be Zion.’
    [...]
    ‘…let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.’

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_14

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Them Guys says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    I feel perhaps the most truthful book ever written on the Bolshevik Revolution was Juri Lina's "Under The Sign Of The Scorpion". It details both the heavy Jewish influence and the financial backing by American financiers such as the Schiff's and Warburg's
    https://archive.org/stream/Under The Sign Of The Scorpion/sign_scorpion#page/n0

    Another great source for information on the backing of the Bolshevik Revolution by American so called "Capitalist" is Anthony Sutton's "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution"
    https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution#page/n0

    Yes, I found that book as a free read online and read it. It is amazing how purely evil and so filled with hatred those jewish Bolshevik torturers and mass murderers actually were/are.

    Every description in that book of the many, many ways jews invented for use as a torture reminds one of Apache Indians of the 1800′s era. There is simply No method of torture or murderous deaths, them bolshie jews will not do. One thing certain is, whoever reads that book better have a strong stomach, and even the strongest of men will be found wiping a few eye tears away now and then, since the abject brutality and totally Inhuman tortures gleefully done border on being unspeakable.

    And with No other valid reason to be found, other than a true explaination of how, be it Talmudic religion, or other dna traits, or some form insanity present within jewry in general, folks better trained medically than me can debate…But the best reasons when all is added up is simply jews are jews and its Bad for all non jews period. Far too many historical evidences and eras seem to validate that regardless of which nation jews choose to infiltrate in large numbers, so that it then becomes the Next New Host Nation of 1/2 of more of international worldwide jewry. Very evil and immoral and unethical situations develop and develop to the proverbial, Inth-degree every damn time.

    And to date about the only remedy has been for every host nation to give jewry the Big Boot Out.

    At least now, todays usa host nation, none can claim jews still have zero places to call home eh.

    Israel’s big enough to fit them all within it. And you can bet all you own, and win the bet, if you bet that within two seconds flat of usa jewry finds out of a plan to get jewry out of America. Most American dwelling jews will screech and squak and holler as if a swine pig stuck with a dagger knife.

    All of their constant talk of how jews so so love israel, how they Own it, and even most every athiest jew when asked “Why so, a right to return eh jewboy”? Those athiests with out skipping a beat, will answer back…”Oh thats due to G-d (god) Gave land of israel to Us jews, see”!…Indeed that same god they reject and refuse to believe even exists, somehow Gave jews lands in palestine like a real estate agent at centruy-21 real estate co. eh. And soon as they get wind of an exit agenda, a thousand excuses to why cannot go live in israel shall surface and do so fast. Benjamin Franklin, founding father, said it best. They are Paristies and like Vampires a jew can’t live off another vampire. Nor a flea live off of another flea…They always require a Host Body aka Nation to keep 1/2 of jewry in so to provide for the other 1/2 thru too many corrput ways and means to list.

    Yet no other method of fixing a host nation works. How long has america left before even that option wont work. It sure be real swell if for a change jewry as a whole would finally just act like Mr. Ron Unz, and be willing to admit to facts and truths without any baggage of talmudic fantasy and jewy jewish fables eh…I wont hold my breath for such, and expect that unless jews are who make first moves to fix what they fucked up, it will not end good for anyone involved.

    Cannot help but wonder at times what if?…What If, about 800 or so years ago when some Pope and european Kings agreed to hunt down and find and Burn every talmud scrolls or copies etc to be found…What if they succeded and located every single one, by now 800 yrs later maybe jewry would have assimilated much better and none of this would be reality.

    However for now the real main reality is Yes usa Is latest Host nation, Yes many maybe most jews within usa are grand kids of orig russian bolsheviks, and so far many of them have shown their true colors and leave no secret that america is Next up to play role russian whites and christians suffered so badly under….Read that book, see for yourself what a real fully Depraved and pure evil jewish mind can conjur up when it comes to vicious unspeakable tortures, and mass murderous venomous hatred for the “other” aka all non jews…HINT: Forget MSM claims of how bad a torture Water Boarding is!..Yes it too sounds not too nice to experience, but compared to 1917 and onwards Russia and jewsih invented methods of tortures and mass deaths, no comparison at all.

    Many jews and their Shabboz goy defenders will likely claim such an honest book need be Banned due to it creates more jew haters…Well maybe so eh…But maybe also after you read of those vile evil methods, maybe some jews deserve being hated so badly. That alone should cause naysayer jews and shabboz goys to divert atten To jews and seek a rapid and lasting jew-fix, before too many more folks read the book perhaps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @ploni almoni
    Martin Luther was a competing product to Judaism, but the same materialist, Dualist thing in Christian garb. He was just knocking the competition. The princes supported him because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals. Because they were animals.

    “competing product” seems excessively loose language. How many conversions to Judaism were there in German speaking polities between 1400 and 1600? Indeed were there any attempts being made to proselytize for Judaism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Lutheranism and Judaism are both the same philosophic0-theological system. They are both materialist Dualisms. The devils are all nasty to each other because it is in their nature, aren't they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. David says:
    @Peripatetic commenter
    Small issue:

    I had been aware that he had long been as one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America
     
    Missing word or redundant word in there ...

    I think Mr Unz should add a feature whereby one can highlight a phrase, right click, and select “report usage” or “syntax” or something like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Wizard of Oz
    Isn't Gallipoli - and the original attempt to send warships through the Bosporus - explicable as
    1. An attempt to knock a German ally out of the war
    2. Open an ice free supply route to Russia (and maybe an export route for Russian grain?)?

    Both of the reasons you give are valid in their own right. But it is a fact that the British had given an assurance to hand Constantinople over to the Russians shortly before they began the Gallipoli Campaign. If the campaign had succeeded Russia would have got Constantinople and the Straits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Talk about no permanent enemies! What would veterans of the Crimean War have said? Given the situation Britain got itself into with the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate one wonders whether Albion Perfide, under pressure, would have found ways if avoiding any such "promise".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Daniel Rich
    Most likely you've already read this book, but I'll add a link to it for those who haven't:

    "George Bush : the unauthorized biography" - Link to Archive.org

    Indeed, what a tangled web they've woven and how we're ff-ing stuck in it...

    Thanks, I haven’t read it. The problem is that just with this thread I’ve come up with a reading list that will keep me fully occupied for the next year or so . . .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. refl says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Isn't Gallipoli - and the original attempt to send warships through the Bosporus - explicable as
    1. An attempt to knock a German ally out of the war
    2. Open an ice free supply route to Russia (and maybe an export route for Russian grain?)?

    According to the site I mentioned above (firstworldwarhiddenhistory), the British attacked Gallipoli to keep Russia in the war until the coming collapse of Germany and Russia – hard to swallow but the authors make quite a compelling case. I do not want to unnerve anyone but the site by these two Scots is certainly worth a mention on tis forum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well my point 2. goes most of the way but, at this point, I find it difficult to imagine any expectation - as opposed to wishful thinking - of an imminent collapse by both Germany and Russia. By April 1915 Germany had hold of a big slice of France and had inflicted huge defeats on the Russians at ? Tannenberg and ? the Masurian Lakes. Sorry, my memory of events iver 100 years ago is getting patchy.
    , @Bukowski
    The authors of the blog that you linked to -
    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com
    have written a book called Prolonging the Agony : How The Anglo American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 By Three and a Half Years. They write about the Gallipoli campaign in some of the chapters - "Yet another scandal was the complete failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Because the Russians had suffered such vast losses on the Eastern Front, the Czar demanded evidence that war was worthwhile. The promise of Constantinople was the prize that animated him most and the Gallipoli campaign was concocted by the Secret Elite to make it appear that a serious effort was underway to attack Turkey and win Constantinople for Russia. It was set up to fail. You may think this impossible but Prolonging The Agony provides detailed evidence that the campaign was an orchestrated farce from start to finish. But it convinced the Russians and kept them in the war."

    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/prolonging-the-agony-2-the-full-hidden-history-exposed/


    I have ordered a copy of this book to read myself after being intrigued after looking at the blog. You can get it from Amazon, The Book Depository and other dealers. As an Australian I am particularly interested to find out if the ANZACs were considered expendable and used as colonial cannon fodder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Che Guava says:
    @Verymuchalive
    None of the civilisations mentioned has been continuous in the sense of unconquered. All have been subject to foreign conquest, partition and warring states at various times. The last continuous civilisation was the Japanese, until their defeat in 1945.

    Aah, the myth of etternal Japan.

    In the fifth century, the nobility was 60% Korean, 20% Chinese, and 20% native.

    After that brief period, thie Shogunates were in power.

    The Mongol invasion was, indeed, unsuccessful, but enough landed and wrought havoc in Kyushu, the Kamakura Shogunate fell as a result.

    That it never happened (they were all blown away by divine winds), is simply a confection for the (unfortunately, still) occupying Americans.

    In southern Kyushu, ynu can still see populations of Mongolian ponies, and markers of the sites of landings and battles.

    One reason the right hates the current emperor is that he once acknowledged his Korean ancestry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Dan Hayes
    Mr. Unz,

    With last week's essay and this week's discussion of Schiff, Ford, The Dearborn Independent and The Elders, it looks like it's Damn the Torpedoes Full Speed Ahead.

    What Forbidden Topic will be discussed and what Sacred Cow will be dissected next week?

    Nah. It will be: How the Russians are really to blame for the Bolshevik Revolution.

    The Russians seem to be the explanation for everything these days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anonymous
    How do you know they were deliberately used as tokens?

    Anonymous[199]:

    I believe that Freud explicitly conveyed to Jung that he was to be used to negate the pervading Jewish public image of psychoanalysis. Jung certainly thought that he was being used as a token.

    The “eminent computer scientist” certainly thought (and resented) that he was used as a token.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Dan Hayes says:
    @Bill
    Yeah, Ron is great, but his writing is undisciplined.

    Bill:

    What you mistakenly term “undisciplined” is Ron serving up myriad topics for discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    It's both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Mike P says:
    @CanSpeccy
    For God's sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk's rule: "eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    How about you do that for him? Should not be to hard to build a web proxy that gives a Strunkian cleansing to everything you read online. You could get rich!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    "you do that for him... You could get rich!"

    Get rich? Tell me more.

    I edited many people over several decades, and made a living, but no fortune, that's for sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews
     
    But the Czarist regime had already fallen in March 1917 and the liberals that replaced it enacted Jewish emancipation.
    And the allies, including the US, had no interest in overthrowing the provisional government, they wanted it to continue the war against Germany, so Schiff would have acted against American interests, surely not without some risk.
    And of course in November 1917 there was the Balfour declaration, which should have aligned any ethnocentric Jewish nationalist with the Allied cause.
    So apart from irrational hatred of Russia, what plausible motive could Schiff have had for financing the Bolsheviks?

    You’re always trying to bring facts into the discussion. Why is that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me...all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.
    The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).
    I can't think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia...or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about "Jewish exploitation", there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Anarcho-Supremacist
    You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton's list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.

    People who say things like “[X] has been debunked” without giving any evidence of the debunking of [X], debunk themselves.

    It takes about ten seconds to buttress a claim of ‘debunking’ by typing in a reference to the work that supposedly does the debunking.

    I know this isn’t a graduate seminar or a think-tank tea-room, but given Unz’s preparedness to disclose his previous naïveté (and the process by which the scales fell from his eyes), it would be good form to make counter-arguments rather than what amounts to a content-free tweet.

    Give Unz some credit: he has the training to discriminate between sources, and seems genuinely committed to figuring out what things are true and what are not. To assert that his process is retarded (which is what you’re doing by dismissing a source so flippantly), without any obligation to buttress your assertion, makes you immediately suspect.

    Read More
    • Agree: James N. Kennett
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. mcohen says:

    The south african communist party had several jewish leaders such as ruth first, joe slovo,bram fischer,and many others.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Communist_Party

    Prominent members of the Central Committee of the SACP

    Jeremy Cronin
    Ruth First
    Bram Fischer
    Chris Hani
    Ronnie Kasrils
    Mac Maharaj
    Nelson Mandela
    Govan Mbeki
    Thabo Mbeki
    Raymond Mhlaba
    Joe Slovo
    Yusuf Dadoo

    Jews were involved in the fight against apartheid from the begining and several went on trial with nelson mandela.denis goldberg,lionel bernstein,james kantor.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial

    Interestingly todays south african leadership is anti israel and opposes the jewish struggle for liberation and the fight for a country of its own.
    They even go as far as to accuse israel of apartheid.

    A great song from an old south african band

    It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
    You taught me all I know and I’ll never look back
    It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

    You took a colored ribbon from out of the sky
    And taught me how to use it as the years went by
    To tie up all your problems and make them look neat
    And then to sell them to the people in the street

    It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
    You taught me all I know and I’ll never look back
    It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

    I saw right through the way you started teachin’ me now
    So some day soon you could get to use me somehow
    I thank you very much and though you’ve been very kind
    But I’d better move along before you change my mind

    It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
    You know how I feel as if I’ll never come back
    It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

    You taught me all the things the way you’d like them to be
    But I’d like to see if other people agree
    It’s all very interesting the way you disguise
    But I’d like to see the world through my own eyes

    It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
    No hard feelin’s if I never come back
    You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack

    You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack
    You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack

    Songwriters: David Marks

    Master Jack lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And as soon as apartheid ended the Jews ran to Israel, Australia, America, New Zealand. Etc. Hypocrites. Also drained money out of South Africa illegally in the billions of rands. Nice try
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Heros
    This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.

    Having grown up watching every Bond movie as they came out, I never considered jew villains as an element of the plot, and I have still never had until I read this article. I guess the parallels the mob, where the front men were all italians but the real mob was Spiegel, Lansky and the Rothschilds.

    The Bond film series illustrates how deep jewery has penetrated our lives, and how it is almost always hidden, or crypto. As I have become woke over the last decade, I find that every rock in our history that I overturn, greedy jews pop out. Where ever Jews are involved in groups greater than one, throughout history, they always appear to lurking around following secret agendas that uniformly work counter to the interest of their Christian hosts and especially their children.

    We know from the murders of Sikorsky and others to cover up Katyn, from the creation of Bnai Brith, ADL and SPLC to cover up Blood Sacrifice, from the genocidal theft of Palestine and the murder of its people continuing today, that jews go to incredible lengths to cover up their tracks from goyim.

    So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a "tsk".

    The truth is that when we discuss history, no text written by a jew or crypto jew can be trusted unless it is indirectly exposing jewish guilt or malfeasance. They ALL have to be thrown out the window if we are seeking truth, because all of them are filled with deliberate misdirections and lies. We should treat jewish documents the same way jews treat Mein Kampf, only as evidence of jewish guilt.

    The fact the Bolsheviks made possession of the protocols an instant death penalty, and for the 10 closest family member, is alone proof of its veracity in their eyes, and also the true forces motivating them. We see this same jewish double goy jeopardy with the holocaust denial laws, where denying jewish lies can get you thrown in jail faster than an SS soldier was murdered by the Ritchie boys after surrender.

    This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.

    When presenting controversial material, IMHO it is best to minimize offense to everyone, so that the material can speak for itself. Do not give one’s opponents an excuse to label the article as anti-semitic or anti anything else. Do not give them an excuse to avoid thinking about the subject matter. Present the facts.

    I think the American Pravda series strikes the right tone, and each article surprises me with vital historical information that has been memory-holed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros

    "When presenting controversial material, IMHO it is best to minimize offense to everyone, so that the material can speak for itself."
     
    That really begs the question "For what purpose is Ron Unz publishing the Pravda series"?

    If Unz is trying to convince Jewish supremacists that they know even less than the goyim about history, then I don't think these articles will change a single jews mind. I have been watching the comments closely looking for clues, and the standard Jewish reaction is denial, misdirection, or the usual:

    "Sure, goyim, it could have happened. Now turn the other cheek and let bygones be bygones."

    In other words, no jew is going to change his supremacist and prejudiced view of goyim, and no jew is going to admit that anti-semitism is just a reaction to jewish supremacism. Instead, we see many jews trying to use these articles as opportunities to goy bait, race bait, and spit their usual goy hatred. You know, call goyim inbred kkk hood wearing redneck hicks.

    From the viewpoint of a Christian however, we have a web site that very rarely censors or blocks comments covering massive jewish conspiracies and crimes that led to the death of millions of Christians. This is one of the rare opportunities we have to discuss jewish hatred, and when talking about people who want to see you and your family obliterated, a little sharp language is in order.

    The real issue here is the deliberate, coordinated, and systematic jewish overthrow of a Christian country and the subsequent genocide of tens of millions of Christians, plus another document written clearly by jews laying out their plans for the genocide of all Christians on the planet.

    In case you haven't noticed, genocide is considered a major, if not the major, crime against "humanity". Every week we have more proof of jewish perfidity and sadism, we have jews making snotty arrogant replies, and we have people like you saying that Unz should "minimize offense" to jews.

    What you are demanding is that Unz, and everyone else too, show self-censor whenever jews might kvetch or spit at us, while the only thing I want to hear from Jews posting at Unz is an apology for centuries of our exploitation by their tribe of secret societies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Scipio Africanus
    Mr. Unz,

    The intellectually curious know the problem of Jewish, power, influence , propaganda, and subversion. Enlightenment has tremendous value, but the paramount question is how do we stop international Jewish power. The combination of ethnic unity, wealth, media manipulation, high IQ and institutional infiltration creates a formidable deadly opponent. This has been going since the ancient world.

    JQ has dire consequences for the very survival of western civilization particularly with mass demographically swamping immigration policies.

    What will happen to Jews when the Occident becomes minority majority? Jews will be perceived as just any other white person by minority groups, many of which harbor hatred against Jews. There will be a Chinese world hegemony when the west falls, which will not be good for Jews. The elite Jews need to wake up. Destroying the goyim is not good for them!

    I don’t think the West will fall, but it will certainly weaken relative to China and East Asia at large. I feel like the Chinese are the most able to see through Jewish shenanigans and also most politically able to openly talk about it. There is a benefit from being half isolated from Western culture. It’s perfectly okay in China to be like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Rui#Controversy. This is coming from the host of the most prominent English news show of CCTV, China’s virtual TV monopoly. Chinese businessmen can openly say that Jews are the types to do whatever they can to get ahead, scruples be damned. I used to much admire, to a great extent blindly, Jewish achievement, especially in science. I still do to a great extent. But now I think they are overrated, especially in terms of raw ability. It’s the combination of higher raw ability and being a privileged minority group within elite Western culture. Nowadays, in the US it’s the East Asian kids winning the 100% meritocratic contests at the high school level, where there is basically zero, human promotion subjective factor. Moreover, from the 40s on, the Japanese more or less held their own vis-a-vis the Jews in theoretical physics. Yukawa, Tomonaga, Nambu, Maskawa, Kobayashi all won Nobel, and their work arguably exceeded that of the typical physics theory Nobel, as there was still some bias in the committee, against Soviets, against Japanese. The more mathematical and theoretical and loaded on individual brilliance the field, the better East Asians have done. My non-Jewish white friend who placed at the top in elite math contests shocked me by suggesting that in terms of biological intelligence, East Asians may actually be higher than Jews are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Cyrano
    If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

    The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn’t have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts.

    If the Jews were so diabolical to unleash the Bolshevik revolution because of sinister motives only, how come that they didn’t predict that it’s going to hurt their profit margins in the US – via increased wages and benefits that they were forced to pay in order to keep the working class calm – out of fear that the Bolshevik revolution might have given them some ideas about conducting feasibility study of staging a copycat revolution.

    ‘…If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

    The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn’t have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts…’

    I don’t think so. When opportunity afforded, capitalists would be just has hard-hearted and exploitative as ever: see Union Carbide knowingly virtually sentencing workers desperate for employment to death by having them drill a tunnel through dry silica at the height of the Great Depression.

    On the other hand, long-term, the restriction on immigration drove wages up; Archie Bunker was able to afford his own house and a stay-at-home wife on a forklift driver’s salary, and that wasn’t a TV fantasy. By 1970, it was a reality — and American workers were hardly vulnerable to Communist propaganda.

    But opening up the floodgates to immigration did away with that. Now we’re back to masses of desperate, suitably docile workers.

    It’s immigration, not fear of communism. Reduce the supply of labor; conditions for the working man improve. Increase the supply of labor; they decline. This has been true since at least the Enclosure movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Ever heard about the New Deal? Do you have any idea why it happened? Because the capitalists took pity on the working class in the middle of the great depression? When the same capitalists were bled dry by the recession too and could least afford to implement any generosities towards the working class?

    If it wasn’t for the communist threat, you still would be working 12 hours, six days a week, with no pensions or any kind or unemployment insurance.

    Why do you think the capitalists hated Russia so much? Because they violated the human rights of their citizens and because of the Gulag?

    Capitalist hated Russia because it forced them to be little bit more generous to the domestic servants – the working class. It’s not the communist propaganda that the capitalists were afraid of. They were afraid that the communist revolution might give some ideas to the dummies.

    Propaganda wasn’t invented by the communists anyway. It was invented by the capitalist in order to counter the appeal that communism actually did have in those days. The main function of immigration is not to control the wages, it’s to feed the continuous expansion and growth of capitalism, because the only alternative to growth in capitalism is recession, not maintenance of the same level of standard of living.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Wizard of Oz
    Not a fact that "Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude....". In the Anglophone countries many of the great charitable gifts, to art galleries/ museums, to medical research and hospitals, to musical events and institutions and other objects of charity are from Jews.

    Done anonymously? Probably not? "Displayed"? Yes.

    Why do you think that naming a wing after oneself in a museum or university or hospital, is an expression of ‘gratitude‘? It’s an expression of economic power, and is self-serving.

    “Charity vampires” are a thing: they’re the people who draw a $500k/yr salary, and first-class travel and accom, from the proceeds of earnest-but-naïve ‘chuggers’ who collect loose change from earnest-but-naïve citizens.

    The notion that $2500-a-plate (and upwards) ‘charity dinners/galas/events’ exist to raise money for ‘charity’, is marketing aimed at rubes. Such events exist in order for people to rub shoulders with each other, in tax-deductible ways that specifically exclude hoi polloi (because the price of entry is far too high).

    The only thing more likely to fund the lives of an economic vampire than a self-styled ‘charity’, is a self-styled ‘foundation’.

    (Note – this is all completely independent of the ethnocultural background of the vampire in question: Gentile, Joo, and Musselman too… there are parasitic sociopaths in all human societies, and they find the easiest grifts – ‘charity’ and politics chief among them).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good point. That said, Jewish interest in politics (managing the livestock of host populations) is pronounced.

    https://i.imgtc.com/xRN1Dp9.png
    , @Wizard of Oz
    As my last paragraph indicates I don't say you are substantially wrong but I think you perhaps overstate your case though I expect you know the US, especially NYC and LA situation much better than I.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @iffen
    You're always trying to bring facts into the discussion. Why is that?

    Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me…all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.
    The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).
    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What if his motive was to weaken the Russian people?
    , @Ron Unz

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Well, I did provide the sources that made those specific claims, and included their own explanations. The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks so that they could exploit Russia, and US Military Intelligence said the same thing, while Schiff's grandson described the financial commitment decades later.

    What do I know?--- I wasn't there! But if all those seemingly credible contemporary sources said it, then maybe it's actually true. How do any of us know anything about the world? Just read the sources I provided and decide for yourself.
    , @Anonymous

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution
     
    Such as what?
    , @James N. Kennett

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks ...

    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.
     
    The first thing is to understand whether Schiff did indeed support the Bolsheviks, and the answer appears to be "yes".

    Then we can try to understand his motives, which is a much more difficult problem and may be impossible to resolve. If it is hard to search for an answer here, it will be even more difficult in other contemporary discussion boards, where unwanted questions are either suppressed or shouted down.
    , @renfro

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    You don't get it......Jewish Communism is and always has been a 'facade' for plundering the nations. Even in communism you have a Ruler or Rulers, a favored class (those who support the rulers) and then all the rest are peasants. To see how this communist class system worked under the Bolsheviks read thru these reports .....

    https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028404519/cu31924028404519_djvu.txt
    , @Anon
    The Tsar wouldn't let "high finance" penetrate Mother Russia, so the Romanovs had to go. At the time, Russia was the most rapidly developing country in Europe, and Wall Street and American/European Jews wanted in on the action. Tsarist Russia has a long, long history with problematic jews inherited from the Polish partitions, esp. the third. It was a pricey struggle to get them out of the liquor/tavern/money-lending biz into "productive work." Despite throwing tons of dough and privileges the locals didn't have (land ownership) at them, Russia never did succeed in turning Jews into farmers. As world trade developed and expanded, so too did the Jews' expectations of appropriating Russian wealth for their own use. Enter Mr. Schiff & Co. But it wasn't simple anti-Semitism. Jews and Armenians (Orthodox Christians) represented the commercial classes, and the people were highly suspicious of both. Old Russian saying: What the Jew doesn't think of, the Armenian does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. jsm says:
    @jsm
    his is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence,

    Why do you assert that Jews insist criminal blacks be let out because they honest to go think scolding will work...

    ...as opposed to...

    that the Jews insist blacks be let out because they are parasites who want to weaken their White host?

    What makes YOU an expert in what goes on in Jews' minds?

    I simply asked a question. I didn’t MAKE any assertions to knowing what goes on in jews’ minds. YOU did.
    So, what make YOU an expert?

    Stop trying to deflect. That’s a jewy thing to do. If you have reason to know, then present it. If you don’t and you’re pulling stuff outta yer ass, then own up to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @German_reader

    Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews
     
    But the Czarist regime had already fallen in March 1917 and the liberals that replaced it enacted Jewish emancipation.
    And the allies, including the US, had no interest in overthrowing the provisional government, they wanted it to continue the war against Germany, so Schiff would have acted against American interests, surely not without some risk.
    And of course in November 1917 there was the Balfour declaration, which should have aligned any ethnocentric Jewish nationalist with the Allied cause.
    So apart from irrational hatred of Russia, what plausible motive could Schiff have had for financing the Bolsheviks?

    Money. They paid him back plus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Frankie P says:
    @Verymuchalive
    None of the civilisations mentioned has been continuous in the sense of unconquered. All have been subject to foreign conquest, partition and warring states at various times. The last continuous civilisation was the Japanese, until their defeat in 1945.

    The fundamental difference that you are ignoring is that although China was conquered, its strength as a true civilizational state subsumed the conquerers, who acquiesed and became Chinese culturally.
    Ron is absolutely correct: China is the world’s oldest continuous civilization. Perhaps the greatest weakness in the attitudes and policies of the west towards China is viewing China as a nation state instead of as a civilizational state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Seraphim says:
    @Anonymous
    "the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” - Henry Ford


    “There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish”.- the Protocols

    Before you read "the damned thing”, you may read an interesting article by Mr Israel Shamir:

    The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

    Before one reads the ‘damn thing’ I recommend to peruse a site less frequented:

    “Neither Aryan Nor Jew This site is for serious researchers of the “higher tribalism” (Aryanism, Zionism, Nihonism etc), Globalization and World [email protected] http://mailstar.net/index.html.

    It covers all the topics in discussion here. The author is in correspondence with Israel Shamir.
    Subject-indexes:
    “Higher Tribalism” after the demise of the Nation-State
    Aryanism (European Tribalism) & Western Civilization
    Globalization & World Government
    Zionism (Jewish Tribalism) And/Or Communism
    Nihonism (Japanese Tribalism) & Asian Civilization
    Australiana
    especially ‘The Protocols of Zion [email protected]://mailstar.net/toolkit.html for an extensive discussion about the authenticity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader
    Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me...all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.
    The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).
    I can't think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia...or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about "Jewish exploitation", there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.

    What if his motive was to weaken the Russian people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. John King says:

    Some people on this list will be familiar with the name of Benjamin Freedman and his 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel on youtube, where he talks about the origins of the Balfour Declaration.

    One of the things that he mentions is that he was one of the Jewish delegates to the Paris Peace Talks, where Palestine was handed over to the British and the Jews staked their claim, armed with the letter from Balfour to Rothschild. In part, this is how he reassures his audience that he knows what he is talking about.

    If you pop over to Wikipedia, you can read about Freedman here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Freedman

    However, you will note that the first 35 years of his life are missing, with discussion of his activities only beginning in 1925, with his partnership in a dermatological institute and the Woodbury Soap Company.

    Since so much turns on this point, I am curious whether anyone can definitively answer the question: Was Benjamin Freedman a member of the Jewish delegation to the Paris Peace Talks?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. @Wizard of Oz
    "competing product" seems excessively loose language. How many conversions to Judaism were there in German speaking polities between 1400 and 1600? Indeed were there any attempts being made to proselytize for Judaism?

    Lutheranism and Judaism are both the same philosophic0-theological system. They are both materialist Dualisms. The devils are all nasty to each other because it is in their nature, aren’t they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If by "dualist" you refer to belief in mind (or soul) and body as separate subjects of causation in distinct spheres then I wonder why you don't include all Christians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Charlie Wyoming
    Unfortunately the Jew has throughout history been Pogromed. The inevitable leftist turn and they are mostly responsible for it, in this country will bite them in their ass. Democratic Socialism is on its way. And the victomology that is such a big part of its core loves the Palestinian. Its gonna be a long next 100 years.

    Landowners throughout history have been pogromed as well, oftentimes alongside the Jews who were their tax farmers, estate managers etc.

    Isn’t it the evidence of Anti-Landownerism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Landowners throughout history have been pogromed as well, oftentimes alongside the Jews who were their tax farmers, estate managers etc.
     
    Do you have a citation or at least some examples to mention?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. jsm says:

    Ron, my heartfelt thank you for being one Jew who IS doing what us Gentiles have begged for for so long:

    Explaining to your own ethnicity why the Jews need to clean up their act.

    We’ve tried. They won’t listen to us. Us, they mock, they call us insane, “anti-Semites” who’ve gone nutso, claiming we’re just making up bizarre stories. Thank you, thank you, for doing it. They might LISTEN to you!

    Ron, continue to tell them, knock it off with the anti-White propaganda, the pushing for mass immigration of hostile non-Whites, and the economy manipulating.

    Keep telling American Jews to stop themselves, before we White Americans of Christian Heritage are forced to take care of the Jewish Question ourselves — for the umpity-umphth- time. We don’t wanna “go there” — and neither do the American Jews want us to, I should think.

    Tell them, stop it all now, clean up the mess you’ve made, and if you do, it’s likely we can probably come to a modus vivendi without bloodshed or expulsion.

    Ron, tell them, if they DON’T do it now, if they leave it to us, it’s gonna end badly –just like every time prior.

    Keep telling them, Ron. Head off what’s coming!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm sorry but this situation won't be solved amicably. It can't.

    Learn your history and try to not disappoint your ancestors (clue: it's a river of blood and that's the only reason you were born).

    Spreading the truth is absolutely crucial now but that, alone, won't fix the problem.
    , @mcohen
    Hey man i feel your pain but instead of blaming the jews why not do something to stop the migration.go down to to the border and physically ask those non white people to go home.dont forget to take your leatherman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy
    For God's sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk's rule: "eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    For God’s sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk’s rule: “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

    Sure, that’s an extremely valid criticism. But an even stronger one would be the fact that the entire first section dealing with China has absolutely no connection to the topic of the article. Furthermore, the beginning of the second section, mostly dealing with Russian-German relations, is also largely irrelevant.

    However, there’s a reason, whether right or wrong, for all three of those things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well I wish you to keep using as many adverbs, inte sifiers, and whatever you want to hse in your writing.
    , @CanSpeccy
    My comment yesterday was rude. Sorry. But your article was long and it could have been at least slightly shorter and sharper.

    As for the first and second sections of the article, which you acknowledge to be inessential, they are of interest in themselves, but they make for a piece almost as long as one finds in publications such as the Atlantic Monthly or the New Yorker, publications I have long avoided because they require commitment of too much of my one and only life to the assimilation of what could usually be presented, in essence, in no more than a few hundred words.

    Thus, yesterday, both exhausted and exasperated by the time I reached your reference to the "Red scare," I abandoned the piece, which however, I have managed to complete reading today. Your conclusion that those who hold that Jews — the adherents of a racially supremacist ideology, engage in group collaboration to exploit the host society — are essentially correct is not earth shaking. Indeed, it is probably the view of any reasonably well-informed gentile. We know that Jews play a major role in pornography, gambling, and the creation of a society enslaved by debt. So the key question is not how the big Jews behave, we know how they behave, but how to restrain their behavi0r.

    Promoting anti-Semitism, which is loudly expressed on this site, seems entirely counterproductive. It creates the antagonism that justifies the exploitation, whereas what is required is to allow what in an atheistic age is the natural process of assimilation to take place.
    , @Mike P
    Sorry to abuse the comment facility for filing a bug report. It concerns this very comment system.

    Occasionally, when replying to a comment, the comment referred to does not get linked in the reply. I have observed this with comment replies of my own and also with those of others. It seems particularly common when the comment replied to is the last one currently displayed. I have not paid close enough attention to be certain if this is the only case.

    While I'm on it, may I suggest another feature. Occasionally, I see comments highlighted with a sort-of-golden frame. I assume that these are comments which you (Ron Unz) have deemed valuable and illuminating. If that is so, it might make sense to insert a link to any such comment below the story, at the top of the comment thread.

    Otherwise, I would like to thank you for the outstanding work you do with this website, both with your own writing and with hosting and highlighting the work of others. May you live long and prosper.
    , @Anon

    Sure, that’s an extremely valid criticism.
     
    It is yet a more valid criticism of Strunk and White themselves, though: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003417.html , and I am inclined to agree with my anonymous colleague #846.

    More on the same topic:
    https://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/happy-birthday-strunk-and-white/
    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/002487.html

    (By the way, is there any reason I'm now #202, when I was formerly #298? Does the hashing algorithm change every month or so?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Svigor says:

    One week after the Evil Judaism article we get an article about the Jewish Bolsheviks!

    Fucking Based! Ron Unz for Fuhrer!

    Okay, sorry, I’ll stop now.

    (I just started listening to the Merchant Minute guy. Love that dude.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So then, how do you explain the fact that Jews have been pushing their '6,000,000' lie since at least 1823?
    And yes, you should stop now, you're making a fool of yourself. www.codoh.com

    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF
    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php
    http://balder.org/judea/billeder-judea/Scan-New-York-Times-Six-Million-Since-1869-Composite.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Ron Unz says:
    @German_reader
    Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me...all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.
    The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).
    I can't think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia...or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about "Jewish exploitation", there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.

    Well, I did provide the sources that made those specific claims, and included their own explanations. The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks so that they could exploit Russia, and US Military Intelligence said the same thing, while Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.

    What do I know?— I wasn’t there! But if all those seemingly credible contemporary sources said it, then maybe it’s actually true. How do any of us know anything about the world? Just read the sources I provided and decide for yourself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks
     
    I looked Wickham-Steed's memoirs up on the archive.org page you linked to. There are only three mentions of Jacob Schiff, and Wickham-Steed doesn't give any sources, so those claims are hard to evaluate. As far as I can tell, it also isn't about financial support for the Bolsheviks, but about diplomatic relations/recognition of the Bolsheviks.

    Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.
     
    I tried to look up this New York Journal-American, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere and only available on microfilm, so again, hard to evaluate.
    I'm not saying it's impossible Jacob Schiff played some role regarding the Russian revolution(s), but the material presented here is pretty meagre. More research would be needed.
    , @utu

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Good people can't imagine real evil. At best they may try to explain to themselves that 2003 war in Iraq was because of greed of oil companies or because of Hussain trying to sell oils for Euros instead of dollars. They can't comprehend that the real objective was to destroy the country and its infrastructure and to bring chaos and fraternal and sectarian fighting that can be fueled forever by supporting the weaker faction against the stronger faction that may reunify the country. Yes, the profit is necessary but it is not the objective of the 1st tier.

    http://www.unz.com/article/tracing-the-rush-to-war/#comment-2291549
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. I wonder if the computer scientist mentioned in the article is John McCarthy, the AI pioneer, and a Stanford Professor.

    I’ve never known that he was Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. Ron Unz says:

    Incidentally, I just came across a very interesting point relating both to the topic of this article and also my previous one. An eminent American historian noted that Britain’s very famous Jewish-born Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli always greatly emphasized racial issues, and given his enormous prominence, may have been the single most influential 19th century advocate of that ideological perspective.

    Furthermore, in one of his most famous novels, he’d apparently promoted the existence of a vast and secret international organization of powerful Jews bent on dominating the world.

    Given that Disraeli was at the height of his political influence right around the time the Protocols was written, I can’t think of a more plausible inspiration for that document.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    “An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure. When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognize everywhere the Jewish element.”
     
    -Benjamin Disraeli, 1852
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Given that Dizzie was one of my boyhood heroes after reading André Maurois' biography of him I thought I remembered his dates as a bit early for the Protocols - first published in 2003. Indeed he died in 1881 but now I commend the Wikipedia article on the Protocols despite its uncompromising branding of them as an anti-Semitic fabrication.

    What is interesting is the characterisation of them as plagiarism upon plagiarism. The train of plagiarisms is given, with links. Whether or not Thorfinnsson's quote is genuine it seems reasonable to put Disraeli, especially as novelist, into a well known mystery thriller tradition of the times. The Sherlock Holmes stories and John Buchan's "39 Steps", Erskine Childers' "The Riddle of the Sands" etc aren't too far away in some aspects. Just add a twist of anti-Semitism to flavour the sinister foreigners theme.

    , @refl
    Douglas Reeds "Controversy of Zion" has a chapter on "The warning of Disraeli". I do not know if the book is already on your site but it is certainly a valid source, given that this is also a once eminent author who was ostracised.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Ron Unz

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Well, I did provide the sources that made those specific claims, and included their own explanations. The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks so that they could exploit Russia, and US Military Intelligence said the same thing, while Schiff's grandson described the financial commitment decades later.

    What do I know?--- I wasn't there! But if all those seemingly credible contemporary sources said it, then maybe it's actually true. How do any of us know anything about the world? Just read the sources I provided and decide for yourself.

    The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks

    I looked Wickham-Steed’s memoirs up on the archive.org page you linked to. There are only three mentions of Jacob Schiff, and Wickham-Steed doesn’t give any sources, so those claims are hard to evaluate. As far as I can tell, it also isn’t about financial support for the Bolsheviks, but about diplomatic relations/recognition of the Bolsheviks.

    Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.

    I tried to look up this New York Journal-American, but it doesn’t seem to be digitized anywhere and only available on microfilm, so again, hard to evaluate.
    I’m not saying it’s impossible Jacob Schiff played some role regarding the Russian revolution(s), but the material presented here is pretty meagre. More research would be needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Come on GR, just get with the narrative. These questions and facts just muck it up.
    , @German_reader
    And anyway, I don't know why one should attribute much credibility to this Wickham-Steed character. He was just a journalist, and journalists mostly aren't reliable (something this American Pravda series acknowledges regarding contemporary journalism).
    He also seems to have been intensely Germanophobic, so something must have been deeply wrong with his judgement anyway.
    , @mcohen
    German reader

    More research lol
    , @Ron Unz
    (1) At the time Wickham Steed wrote the 1922 memoirs I cited, the reports of Schiff's heavy financing of the Bolsheviks hadn't yet gotten out, which happened in 1925 I think. However, he was able to identify Schiff as a strong political backer of the Bolsheviks at the Peace Conference, which tends to strongly support those latter stories.

    (2) Regarding the New York Journal-American column, even sharp critics of the Schiff theory have never disputed its authenticity. Surely if it didn't exist, surely someone over the years would have checked the microfilm records and exploded the hoax. Fanatic Jewish-activists types always do that sort of thing.

    (3) There seems absolutely no doubt of Schiff's financial backing for the 1905 Revolution, as personally described by his local agent, George Kennan. Here are a couple of links (including to an NYT article), which also provide some discussion on the 1917 involvement:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/10/wall-street-and-the-march-1917-russian-revolution/

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Jacob-Schiff-Jewish-banker-financed-35-million-dollar-to-Lenin-and-Trotsky-for-the-purpose-of-changing-Russia-into-a-communist-state

    (4) As for Wickham Steed "just being a journalist," well, sure. But he was Editor of The Times of London, and presumably he had lots of good sources in the diplomatic and political world. Maybe he was just lying---who knows? Maybe Schiff's grandson was also lying. Maybe Kennan was lying. But if there's absolutely nothing on the other side, the default assumption is generally to accept these sorts of sources.
    , @Ron Unz
    Actually, a very detailed contemporaneous discussion of Schiff's activities which seems pretty plausible is Ford's The International Jew, which I repeatedly linked above. Since the text is fully searchable, you can use:

    http://www.unz.com/book/henry_ford__the-international-jew/?highlight=schiff

    Once you're in the document, you might want to search "schiff and russia" to get the parts discussing his anti-Russia activities, which seem entirely consistent with the (much less detailed) New York Times article published around the same time.
    , @for-the-record
    I haven't read it, and certainly can't vouch for the its credibiity, but a book referred to earlier (Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution) seems to make a strong case for its title. I suggest you have a look at the section "The Evidence Presented: A Synopsis" (Chapter XI) to give you a better idea of what he claims (and maintains that he has shown in the book):

    https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution#page/n63/search/synopsis


    This section also provides his "Explanation for the Unholy Alliance".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Sparkon says:
    @Bill

    In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money.
     
    Birchers were quite philo-semitic.

    Birchers were quite philo-semitic.

    Quite right.

    In 1966, Prof Revilo Oliver (now deceased), who was co-founder (with eleven others) of the Birch Society and Associate Editor of its major organ, American Opinion, discovered that Robert Welch, the JBS’s principal founder, was controlled by Jews, the purpose of said control being to harmlessly absorb and deflect the energy and money of patriotic Americans who wished to fight the ‘international communist conspiracy’, while leaving unmolested the Jewish-led conspiracy against America and Western civilization.

    Introductory note:
    The John Birch Society — Exposed!
    By John “Birdman” Bryant

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-Oliver.html

    I found Birdman’s article from a link provided by David Martin “DC Dave” in his article
    Is the Birch Society a Zionist Front?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anon[846] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    For God’s sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk’s rule: “eliminate unnecessary words”: all those damn intensifiers — very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.
     
    Sure, that's an extremely valid criticism. But an even stronger one would be the fact that the entire first section dealing with China has absolutely no connection to the topic of the article. Furthermore, the beginning of the second section, mostly dealing with Russian-German relations, is also largely irrelevant.

    However, there's a reason, whether right or wrong, for all three of those things.

    Well I wish you to keep using as many adverbs, inte sifiers, and whatever you want to hse in your writing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Wally says:
    @Svigor
    One week after the Evil Judaism article we get an article about the Jewish Bolsheviks!

    Fucking Based! Ron Unz for Fuhrer!

    Okay, sorry, I'll stop now.

    (I just started listening to the Merchant Minute guy. Love that dude.)

    So then, how do you explain the fact that Jews have been pushing their ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1823?
    And yes, you should stop now, you’re making a fool of yourself. http://www.codoh.com

    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF

    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    WTF are you talking about you lunatic? Do you even know?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. iffen says:
    @German_reader

    The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks
     
    I looked Wickham-Steed's memoirs up on the archive.org page you linked to. There are only three mentions of Jacob Schiff, and Wickham-Steed doesn't give any sources, so those claims are hard to evaluate. As far as I can tell, it also isn't about financial support for the Bolsheviks, but about diplomatic relations/recognition of the Bolsheviks.

    Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.
     
    I tried to look up this New York Journal-American, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere and only available on microfilm, so again, hard to evaluate.
    I'm not saying it's impossible Jacob Schiff played some role regarding the Russian revolution(s), but the material presented here is pretty meagre. More research would be needed.

    Come on GR, just get with the narrative. These questions and facts just muck it up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes
    Why do you think that naming a wing after oneself in a museum or university or hospital, is an expression of 'gratitude'? It's an expression of economic power, and is self-serving.

    "Charity vampires" are a thing: they're the people who draw a $500k/yr salary, and first-class travel and accom, from the proceeds of earnest-but-naïve 'chuggers' who collect loose change from earnest-but-naïve citizens.

    The notion that $2500-a-plate (and upwards) 'charity dinners/galas/events' exist to raise money for 'charity', is marketing aimed at rubes. Such events exist in order for people to rub shoulders with each other, in tax-deductible ways that specifically exclude hoi polloi (because the price of entry is far too high).

    The only thing more likely to fund the lives of an economic vampire than a self-styled 'charity', is a self-styled 'foundation'.

    (Note - this is all completely independent of the ethnocultural background of the vampire in question: Gentile, Joo, and Musselman too... there are parasitic sociopaths in all human societies, and they find the easiest grifts - 'charity' and politics chief among them).

    Good point. That said, Jewish interest in politics (managing the livestock of host populations) is pronounced.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Tim too says:

    “The extent to which established historical facts can appear or disappear from the world should certainly force all of us to become very cautious in believing anything we read in our standard textbooks, let alone what we absorb from our more transient electronic media.”

    Dr. Unz!, this is a caption for your site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Because it's so catchy? I'd suggest he go with something like, "A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media". Oh wait, he already does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @siberiancat
    Landowners throughout history have been pogromed as well, oftentimes alongside the Jews who were their tax farmers, estate managers etc.

    Isn't it the evidence of Anti-Landownerism?

    Landowners throughout history have been pogromed as well, oftentimes alongside the Jews who were their tax farmers, estate managers etc.

    Do you have a citation or at least some examples to mention?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @German_reader

    The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks
     
    I looked Wickham-Steed's memoirs up on the archive.org page you linked to. There are only three mentions of Jacob Schiff, and Wickham-Steed doesn't give any sources, so those claims are hard to evaluate. As far as I can tell, it also isn't about financial support for the Bolsheviks, but about diplomatic relations/recognition of the Bolsheviks.

    Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.
     
    I tried to look up this New York Journal-American, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere and only available on microfilm, so again, hard to evaluate.
    I'm not saying it's impossible Jacob Schiff played some role regarding the Russian revolution(s), but the material presented here is pretty meagre. More research would be needed.

    And anyway, I don’t know why one should attribute much credibility to this Wickham-Steed character. He was just a journalist, and journalists mostly aren’t reliable (something this American Pravda series acknowledges regarding contemporary journalism).
    He also seems to have been intensely Germanophobic, so something must have been deeply wrong with his judgement anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    He was just a journalist, and journalists mostly aren’t reliable (something this American Pravda series acknowledges regarding contemporary journalism).

    But if you have the decoder ring, you can read the Jew York Times every day for years and "know" which writers to trust.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    And anyway, I don't know why one should attribute much credibility to this Wickham-Steed character. He was just a journalist, and journalists mostly aren't reliable (something this American Pravda series acknowledges regarding contemporary journalism).
    He also seems to have been intensely Germanophobic, so something must have been deeply wrong with his judgement anyway.

    He was just a journalist, and journalists mostly aren’t reliable (something this American Pravda series acknowledges regarding contemporary journalism).

    But if you have the decoder ring, you can read the Jew York Times every day for years and “know” which writers to trust.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @jsm
    Ron, my heartfelt thank you for being one Jew who IS doing what us Gentiles have begged for for so long:

    Explaining to your own ethnicity why the Jews need to clean up their act.

    We've tried. They won't listen to us. Us, they mock, they call us insane, "anti-Semites" who've gone nutso, claiming we're just making up bizarre stories. Thank you, thank you, for doing it. They might LISTEN to you!

    Ron, continue to tell them, knock it off with the anti-White propaganda, the pushing for mass immigration of hostile non-Whites, and the economy manipulating.

    Keep telling American Jews to stop themselves, before we White Americans of Christian Heritage are forced to take care of the Jewish Question ourselves -- for the umpity-umphth- time. We don't wanna "go there" -- and neither do the American Jews want us to, I should think.

    Tell them, stop it all now, clean up the mess you've made, and if you do, it's likely we can probably come to a modus vivendi without bloodshed or expulsion.

    Ron, tell them, if they DON'T do it now, if they leave it to us, it's gonna end badly --just like every time prior.

    Keep telling them, Ron. Head off what's coming!!

    I’m sorry but this situation won’t be solved amicably. It can’t.

    Learn your history and try to not disappoint your ancestors (clue: it’s a river of blood and that’s the only reason you were born).

    Spreading the truth is absolutely crucial now but that, alone, won’t fix the problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Zimriel says:

    ‘The Protocols’ is a lie. A czarist plagiary of Maurice Joly’s (excellent) broadside against Napoleon III. Frankly I am amazed that you did not know this, Mr Unz; it casts some doubt that you did not know the Dearborn Independent, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    ‘The Protocols’ is a lie. A czarist plagiary of Maurice Joly’s (excellent) broadside against Napoleon III.
     
    Actually, the whole "plagiarism" argument seems totally ridiculous to me...

    After all, I think it extremely unlikely that the Protocols represents an actual transcript of loquacious super-villain exhaustively describing his diabolical master-place to conquer the world.

    On the other hand, if they went to outline what the author believed that people like Schiff were doing, then it's perfectly possible various elements might have been borrowed from previous works, such as the Joly one you mention. I'd really have to compare the two texts in detail to decide how close the match might be.
    , @Svigor
    Yeah but if true you have to wonder "who taught Napoleon his tricks?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. mcohen says:
    @German_reader

    The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks
     
    I looked Wickham-Steed's memoirs up on the archive.org page you linked to. There are only three mentions of Jacob Schiff, and Wickham-Steed doesn't give any sources, so those claims are hard to evaluate. As far as I can tell, it also isn't about financial support for the Bolsheviks, but about diplomatic relations/recognition of the Bolsheviks.

    Schiff’s grandson described the financial commitment decades later.
     
    I tried to look up this New York Journal-American, but it doesn't seem to be digitized anywhere and only available on microfilm, so again, hard to evaluate.
    I'm not saying it's impossible Jacob Schiff played some role regarding the Russian revolution(s), but the material presented here is pretty meagre. More research would be needed.

    German reader

    More research lol

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, I just came across a very interesting point relating both to the topic of this article and also my previous one. An eminent American historian noted that Britain's very famous Jewish-born Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli always greatly emphasized racial issues, and given his enormous prominence, may have been the single most influential 19th century advocate of that ideological perspective.

    Furthermore, in one of his most famous novels, he'd apparently promoted the existence of a vast and secret international organization of powerful Jews bent on dominating the world.

    Given that Disraeli was at the height of his political influence right around the time the Protocols was written, I can't think of a more plausible inspiration for that document.

    “An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure. When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognize everywhere the Jewish element.”

    -Benjamin Disraeli, 1852

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not implausible but can you firm up the source to somewhere 100 per cent trustworthy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. renfro says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

    That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

    Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world’s finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

    I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

    The Aschberg Diamond—from the Crown Jewels of Russia

    Olof Aschberg clamed he bought the diamond in 1934, when a Russian trade delegation visited Stockholm during that year.
    I seriously doubt he ‘bought’ it….a lot of valuables ‘fell off the truck’ and into the hands of those like Aschberg as the Bolsheviks looted Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The artwork and jewelry to be stolen was already on the lists with names of buyers before the looting gangs went after museums in Bagdad in 2003 the moment Americans entered Bagdad. I would not be surprised that similar targeted looting to the order was happening in Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. JackOH says:
    @Anonymous
    Well put, deserved praise of Ron.

    199, thanks. Credit where it’s due, and Ron is doing a great job. I’ve “sold” Unz Review to a few junior faculty at my local state university, and they’re still talking to me. I’m convinced a good, successful political faction could be founded based on some common themes here, but most folks aren’t ready for that yet.

    BTW-the late Hugh Hefner used to occasionally write something under the heading, “What Kind of Man Reads Playboy?” (Hope my memory isn’t confecting stuff.) I’m not sure if the essays had a strong statistical content, but they were complimentary of the readers, and helped induce a bit of solidarity between readers and the editors and writers. Maybe Ron could consider something similar, although I haven’t a clue how to do it with a Web pub.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Anonymous

    The same fight is actually going on today in a different form.
     
    What's the fight today? What form has it taken? Thanks for explaining.

    In its most simplistic description, it’s nationalism vs. globalism. Nationalists want borders and respect of property rights; globalists want no borders, sharing of everything and to pack more people in to sell more widgets to. Nationalists want to build homes; globalists want to build housing. It’s just a different and competing set of values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Interesting. And you think that's what was going on then, too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Jon Halpenny
    Both of the reasons you give are valid in their own right. But it is a fact that the British had given an assurance to hand Constantinople over to the Russians shortly before they began the Gallipoli Campaign. If the campaign had succeeded Russia would have got Constantinople and the Straits.

    Talk about no permanent enemies! What would veterans of the Crimean War have said? Given the situation Britain got itself into with the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate one wonders whether Albion Perfide, under pressure, would have found ways if avoiding any such “promise”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    It has been speculated Britain deliberately botched the Gallipoli campaign. They sacrificed tens of thousands of soldiers to avoid their commitment to give Constantinople to Russia. If true it would give an indication of the evil nature of the British Empire. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-24/30630
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @refl
    According to the site I mentioned above (firstworldwarhiddenhistory), the British attacked Gallipoli to keep Russia in the war until the coming collapse of Germany and Russia - hard to swallow but the authors make quite a compelling case. I do not want to unnerve anyone but the site by these two Scots is certainly worth a mention on tis forum.

    Well my point 2. goes most of the way but, at this point, I find it difficult to imagine any expectation – as opposed to wishful thinking – of an imminent collapse by both Germany and Russia. By April 1915 Germany had hold of a big slice of France and had inflicted huge defeats on the Russians at ? Tannenberg and ? the Masurian Lakes. Sorry, my memory of events iver 100 years ago is getting patchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @refl
    On the site I mentioned the basical course of events is about this: a certain British elite, known as Milner's kindergarden planed for the destruction of Germany since about 1904 (note: destruction, not merely defeat). The crises preceding WWI in this sense amount to a Setup. Destruction meant a prolonged war. Therefore it was provided that the naval blockade was a sham up to about mid 1916. Britain took care that Germany could fight on. Basic war material got past the blockade and Germany recieved food via Belgian Relief (note its director Herbert Hoover).
    To fight Germany, Russia was needed. Therefore Britain needed Turkey to enter the war on the german side. As the remains of the Otoman Empire were to be dismantled - and yes, this included Palestine for the Jews - it was vital Turkey should loose the war alongside Germany.
    And now the trick about Gallipoli: This was a landing operation run by the british navy, bypassing the command of the army (whose chief, Lord Kitchener ended up dead at the time of the cover up). Gallipoli in this view was designed to fail, but nonetheless to impress the Russians, who at that time were believed to be on the point of entering a separate peace with Germany.
    Once the US were in the war - basically to save the money thrown in by Wall Street - and once the Balfour declaration had been made, it was time to drop the czar and give Germany a victory in the east which would drain it to exhaustion and give it thousands of revolutionaries which would be liberated POWs.
    Russia was meant to be destroyed before any obligation from treaty whatsoever might come into force.
    The game was to let Germany and Russia destroy each other and to integrate the english speaking nations as rulers of the world.

    This is somewhat the essential story which is being told in that aforementioned blog which has been spanning weekly installments for the last four years.

    You see, all wars are economic wars, and so You might say that the outcome of WWI was decided with the foundation of the Fed in 1913.

    You might read some of it and in fact it might merit some promotion in the Unz Review. Firstworldwarhiddenhistory by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgegor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Weird Wizard of Oz said: “Indeed were there any attempts being made to proselytize for Judaism?”

    Hi Wiz,

    Fyr, linked below is a September 2013 Veterans Today article by Kevin Barrett.

    Uh…, Did Jewish proselytization of Egypt begin before or after the Camp David Agreement?

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/16/al-sisi-jew/

    (Zigh) Is there anything that the washed-up Wizard knows that he ain’t said?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well you are clearly not WEIRD and, as one of the deficiencies is clearly in education it perhaps should not come as a surprise that

    (a) you do not understand the primary and usual meaning of proselytize - indeed the only meaning that could have been intended in context

    (b) you cite veteranstoday as a source.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. utu says:
    @renfro
    The Aschberg Diamond---from the Crown Jewels of Russia

    https://www.internetstones.com/image-files/ashberg-diamond-amber-coloured.jpg


    Olof Aschberg clamed he bought the diamond in 1934, when a Russian trade delegation visited Stockholm during that year.
    I seriously doubt he 'bought' it....a lot of valuables 'fell off the truck' and into the hands of those like Aschberg as the Bolsheviks looted Russia.

    The artwork and jewelry to be stolen was already on the lists with names of buyers before the looting gangs went after museums in Bagdad in 2003 the moment Americans entered Bagdad. I would not be surprised that similar targeted looting to the order was happening in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    How fortunes are made----some Bolsheviks pirated a lot of jewels and art when they fled Russia. There was an article in Art World several years ago where Jews were claiming some paintings that were actually stolen from a Russian noble family during the Bolshevik revolution ----in a rare incident of justice the court awarded the paintings to the Russian grandson.

    No. 26. Mr. Alston to Earl Curzon.— (Received January 25.) (Telegraphic.) • Vladivostock,
    January 23, 1919. FOLLOWING from High Commissioner : — " Following statements respecting Bolsheviks in Perm and neigh- bourhood are taken from reports sent by His Majesty's consul at Ekaterinburg. The Omsk Government have similar information : —

    ''Within three days of the arrival of the Austrian army in Odessa, the Russian Bolshevik troops fled at the approach of the Austnans. The Black Sea fleet left the morning Odessa was surrendered. Some of the ships were so heavily laden with plunder they could scarcely make way. A large proportion of the worst Bolshevik criminals of the district, together with the more notorious bands of assassins and highwaymen, escaped with the fleet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, I just came across a very interesting point relating both to the topic of this article and also my previous one. An eminent American historian noted that Britain's very famous Jewish-born Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli always greatly emphasized racial issues, and given his enormous prominence, may have been the single most influential 19th century advocate of that ideological perspective.

    Furthermore, in one of his most famous novels, he'd apparently promoted the existence of a vast and secret international organization of powerful Jews bent on dominating the world.

    Given that Disraeli was at the height of his political influence right around the time the Protocols was written, I can't think of a more plausible inspiration for that document.

    Given that Dizzie was one of my boyhood heroes after reading André Maurois’ biography of him I thought I remembered his dates as a bit early for the Protocols – first published in 2003. Indeed he died in 1881 but now I commend the Wikipedia article on the Protocols despite its uncompromising branding of them as an anti-Semitic fabrication.

    What is interesting is the characterisation of them as plagiarism upon plagiarism. The train of plagiarisms is given, with links. Whether or not Thorfinnsson’s quote is genuine it seems reasonable to put Disraeli, especially as novelist, into a well known mystery thriller tradition of the times. The Sherlock Holmes stories and John Buchan’s “39 Steps”, Erskine Childers’ “The Riddle of the Sands” etc aren’t too far away in some aspects. Just add a twist of anti-Semitism to flavour the sinister foreigners theme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I thought I remembered his dates as a bit early for the Protocols – first published in 2003. Indeed he died in 1881
     
    My carelessness in that comment. The Protocols supposedly first surfaced around 1895, and for some reason, I vaguely thought Disraeli was still alive at that point. But anyway, his novel I was referring to was published in the 1840s.
    , @Anon
    Those "times" are late 19th and early 20th centuries, long after Disraeli's prime, and his work (or at least all I've ever known of it) does not really fit into that category at all.

    What is the significance of the date 2003?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Thorfinnsson

    “An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the Christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure. When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognize everywhere the Jewish element.”
     
    -Benjamin Disraeli, 1852

    Not implausible but can you firm up the source to somewhere 100 per cent trustworthy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Not implausible but can you firm up the source to somewhere 100 per cent trustworthy?

    Here you go! As you will see it's from his "political biography" of Lord George Bentinck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. What has always confused me is why the US-ZOG government, Wall st bankers use the CIA to go into all of the Socialist/Communist countries in Latin America to overthrow them. All the mass murder and brutal torture that takes place against dissidents in these coups are very similar to what I read about the Bolshevik rev. Seems like its the same players.
    If the same Bankers and their enforcers the CIA supported/funded the Commie Bolshevik Rev., why do they fight so hard against supposedly Commie/Socialist govts in Latin America, Vietnam too I guess. Seems that it really isn’t about the system itself, but about control.

    One thing that crosses my mind is maybe the Bolshevik rev. was basically like the Wall St./CIA adventures in Latin America, the death squads, sounds a lot like what happend in the Bolshevik Rev.
    Even the Syria war seems similar, it isn’t a civil war like we hear from the MSM, its US/Saudi/Israeli backed mercenaries from foreign countries.
    So were the Bolsheviks really Commies? Or were they just Capitalists playing a part, to go in and take control of Russia and loot its resources. Like CIA/Wall St. is now doing in Syria. Probably Iran next. Working on Venezuela because they want to control their oil as well.
    So who do you blame for the mass murder? The capitalists? Or the supposed Commie that was financed by the capitalist? It just seems to me that capitalism/wall st is the usury that is forbidden by the bible. Capitalism is the love of money, profit is all that matters, if people have to die or be oppressed so be it. I think American history proves this, what other country murders more than America? Look at the payday loans, title pawns, debt based society we live in, anyone that really believes the politicians who allow this usury are true Christians is beyond brainwashed.

    I don’t know what the solution is, no system will work with the bastards we have in power now still in control. I lean more to the socialist side, the international corporations should not be able to exploit all of our resources and not give anything back to the country. The monopolies and corruption should be punished not rewarded. But for any system to work we have to have an honest government, that cares about its citizens.
    The Jewish people should really be speaking out on the same things white Americans are speaking out on, the overwhelming influence of Zionist/supremacist Jews, anyone can see they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, digging their own graves. You just can’t act the way they act and expect to get away with it for too long. Maybe the Albert Pike thing about the three world wars is accurate, sure seems like it, they really do seem to be begging for a war to end all wars, destruction of Israel/Palestine, its almost like they want truly people to hate them. I think a lot of Jews/Israelis are just as brainwashed as some Americans though, they’ve been taught to hate. These types should never be in positions of power or influence.
    Good article, lots of questions remain for me. Wish I had more time to research all these events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What has always confused me is why the US-ZOG government, Wall st bankers use the CIA to go into all of the Socialist/Communist countries in Latin America to overthrow them. All the mass murder and brutal torture that takes place against dissidents in these coups are very similar to what I read about the Bolshevik rev. Seems like its the same players.
     
    Nationalism versus globalism. Many of those socialist/communist countries had a strong sense of national identity, or at least were relatively independent of the globalist US empire.
    , @Anonymous
    Kulaks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    I can’t think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia…or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Well, I did provide the sources that made those specific claims, and included their own explanations. The editor of the Times of London, one of the leading international journalists of his era, specifically says that Schiff and the other Jewish bankers backed the Jewish Bolsheviks so that they could exploit Russia, and US Military Intelligence said the same thing, while Schiff's grandson described the financial commitment decades later.

    What do I know?--- I wasn't there! But if all those seemingly credible contemporary sources said it, then maybe it's actually true. How do any of us know anything about the world? Just read the sources I provided and decide for yourself.

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.

    Good people can’t imagine real evil. At best they may try to explain to themselves that 2003 war in Iraq was because of greed of oil companies or because of Hussain trying to sell oils for Euros instead of dollars. They can’t comprehend that the real objective was to destroy the country and its infrastructure and to bring chaos and fraternal and sectarian fighting that can be fueled forever by supporting the weaker faction against the stronger faction that may reunify the country. Yes, the profit is necessary but it is not the objective of the 1st tier.

    http://www.unz.com/article/tracing-the-rush-to-war/#comment-2291549

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Very interesting observation. One relatively insignificant detail that nonetheless stands in support of the theory is the way the United States turned a blind eye to all the looting and destruction of Iraqi cultural and historical artifacts. It was as if the people behind the invasion wanted to destroy Iraqi (or at least Sunni) group identity.
    , @Anonymous
    Good post.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    There remain unresolved puzzles despite the elements of truth in your post. It goes without saying that Israel saw it as in its interests for the ME to be Balkanised. Iraq was seen as dangerous despite it's being under minority rule (if not as extreme as in Syria). But it must surely have occurred to those egging on the neocons and those they influenced who really thought they could democratize the ME that Iran might be given a lift to unwelcome dominance. Surely?

    Then the establishment of a Kurdish state that would prima facie be a friend seems a worthwhile goal - and one consistent with Iraq remaining destabilized by conflict between Shia and Sunni Arabs. But on the face of it the US has been for keeping all of Iraq united in one state.

    US oil interests - pre the fracking breakthroughs - would hardly want Iraq to remain in chaos and, indeed, the US must rationally have wanted to be able to show that its interventions worked for prosperity and peace. So....

    I am not sure that any major force was in favour of the permanently manipulable failed state condition you posit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. “Richard Nixon casually spoke in private of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were Jewish”

    As a child in England in the 70s, I’m old enough to remember how universally Nixon was abhorred. And as time passes it becomes increasingly clear that, for all his faults and crimes, he was the last serious man to be president.

    After him we have had a succession of puppets and clowns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. Anon[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @ChuckOrloski
    Weird Wizard of Oz said: "Indeed were there any attempts being made to proselytize for Judaism?"

    Hi Wiz,

    Fyr, linked below is a September 2013 Veterans Today article by Kevin Barrett.

    Uh..., Did Jewish proselytization of Egypt begin before or after the Camp David Agreement?
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/16/al-sisi-jew/

    (Zigh) Is there anything that the washed-up Wizard knows that he ain't said?

    Well you are clearly not WEIRD and, as one of the deficiencies is clearly in education it perhaps should not come as a surprise that

    (a) you do not understand the primary and usual meaning of proselytize – indeed the only meaning that could have been intended in context

    (b) you cite veteranstoday as a source.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Philosemitic undercurrent was present in many anti RC heresies. Often the idea was that the reform would bring Jews to Christianity. Before Martin Luther there was Jan Hus and the subsequent splinter groups that believed that their improved Christianity would be more palatable to Jews. The end result was Judaization of Christianity.

    Martin Luther's anti-semitism has all marks of resentment for being betrayed.

    Gnosis is the reigning heresy of our times. It was also the first, the one with which  Lucifer tempted Eve: “eat this, and you shall be like Gods”. 
    In stark contrast to other heresies, which are simply mistaken understandings of truths or Truth, gnosis starts out with a lie: the lie that there exists a hidden trove of knowledge, reserved for a select few. Those blessed few initiates will and then evolve, not through acts of the will, but by sheer knowing. They will become superior, perfect, deified. Essentially, man shares nature with God, the difference is of degree.  Gnosis is a deliberate lie, that springs up recurrently, in many places, in many religions, with modern pagans and atheists too. Lucifer knew it as well as any present day con-man with an ‘enhanced consciousness’ seminar to sell.

    It’s interesting that the Kabbalah, gnostic as you please, is a perversion of the original oral tradition of the Old Testament, through contamination during the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities. The original contained insights about a transcendent God, including a presaging of the Holy Trinity, that are consistent with the truths taught by Christ. 

    Gnosis is all around us: in New Age movements, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Wicca, ‘human potential’ sects and institutes. Depak Chopra and the Esalen Institute. There’s really no such thing as truth, except the one I can sell you. It even, I think, underpins theories that explains to the masses how the world really works, like Marxism and de constructivism, but those enlightened fellows generously chose to unveil the eyes of a wider public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Gnosis is all around us: in New Age movements, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Wicca, ‘human potential’ sects and institutes. Depak Chopra and the Esalen Institute.
     
    Indeed. One would have to put transhumanism squarely within this macro mold too. This movement got its impetus from the likes of Julian Huxley and Arthur C. Clark and perhaps inadvertently by Clark's confidente, Robert Heinlein. All humanistic attempts to try to deal with and alleviate the maladies associated with life and life extension itself. Obviously an atheistic philosophy. True deification can only proceed from the teachings of Christ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Anonymous[930] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  222. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @Winnetou1889
    In its most simplistic description, it's nationalism vs. globalism. Nationalists want borders and respect of property rights; globalists want no borders, sharing of everything and to pack more people in to sell more widgets to. Nationalists want to build homes; globalists want to build housing. It's just a different and competing set of values.

    Interesting. And you think that’s what was going on then, too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Winnetou1889
    No, today is the modern iteration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @redmudhooch
    What has always confused me is why the US-ZOG government, Wall st bankers use the CIA to go into all of the Socialist/Communist countries in Latin America to overthrow them. All the mass murder and brutal torture that takes place against dissidents in these coups are very similar to what I read about the Bolshevik rev. Seems like its the same players.
    If the same Bankers and their enforcers the CIA supported/funded the Commie Bolshevik Rev., why do they fight so hard against supposedly Commie/Socialist govts in Latin America, Vietnam too I guess. Seems that it really isn't about the system itself, but about control.

    One thing that crosses my mind is maybe the Bolshevik rev. was basically like the Wall St./CIA adventures in Latin America, the death squads, sounds a lot like what happend in the Bolshevik Rev.
    Even the Syria war seems similar, it isn't a civil war like we hear from the MSM, its US/Saudi/Israeli backed mercenaries from foreign countries.
    So were the Bolsheviks really Commies? Or were they just Capitalists playing a part, to go in and take control of Russia and loot its resources. Like CIA/Wall St. is now doing in Syria. Probably Iran next. Working on Venezuela because they want to control their oil as well.
    So who do you blame for the mass murder? The capitalists? Or the supposed Commie that was financed by the capitalist? It just seems to me that capitalism/wall st is the usury that is forbidden by the bible. Capitalism is the love of money, profit is all that matters, if people have to die or be oppressed so be it. I think American history proves this, what other country murders more than America? Look at the payday loans, title pawns, debt based society we live in, anyone that really believes the politicians who allow this usury are true Christians is beyond brainwashed.

    I don't know what the solution is, no system will work with the bastards we have in power now still in control. I lean more to the socialist side, the international corporations should not be able to exploit all of our resources and not give anything back to the country. The monopolies and corruption should be punished not rewarded. But for any system to work we have to have an honest government, that cares about its citizens.
    The Jewish people should really be speaking out on the same things white Americans are speaking out on, the overwhelming influence of Zionist/supremacist Jews, anyone can see they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, digging their own graves. You just can't act the way they act and expect to get away with it for too long. Maybe the Albert Pike thing about the three world wars is accurate, sure seems like it, they really do seem to be begging for a war to end all wars, destruction of Israel/Palestine, its almost like they want truly people to hate them. I think a lot of Jews/Israelis are just as brainwashed as some Americans though, they've been taught to hate. These types should never be in positions of power or influence.
    Good article, lots of questions remain for me. Wish I had more time to research all these events.

    What has always confused me is why the US-ZOG government, Wall st bankers use the CIA to go into all of the Socialist/Communist countries in Latin America to overthrow them. All the mass murder and brutal torture that takes place against dissidents in these coups are very similar to what I read about the Bolshevik rev. Seems like its the same players.

    Nationalism versus globalism. Many of those socialist/communist countries had a strong sense of national identity, or at least were relatively independent of the globalist US empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Easy, the Entente were blocking Russian ports so that they could not be utilized by the Germans, whom they were at war with.

    This was of course a tragedy for Russia, since the Bolsheviks could point to this as evidence of an Angl0-French "invasion" of Russia and portray themselves as its defenders (even though they themselves were more or less direct hirelings of the Germans), while the Whites got entirely negligible military benefits from it.

    There's no need for conspiracies on this score. None of the Western Powers had a democratic mandate to participate in the Russian Civil War, and having the Bolsheviks win was not entirely negative from their perspective, since there would then be no need to share the postwar spoils with it (the French were a partial exception, since the Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist era debt hit them far harder).

    For lack of strength? The British Empire was at the time at the peak of its strenghth, the word’s superpower. In 1919, they sent 100,000 men, of all places of the world, into Afghanistan. Was there any “democratic mandate”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

    Just like in Syria and other places, the “intervention” was calculated to prolong the war as much as possible, for maximal death and destruction. It worked then, and it still works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Good people can't imagine real evil. At best they may try to explain to themselves that 2003 war in Iraq was because of greed of oil companies or because of Hussain trying to sell oils for Euros instead of dollars. They can't comprehend that the real objective was to destroy the country and its infrastructure and to bring chaos and fraternal and sectarian fighting that can be fueled forever by supporting the weaker faction against the stronger faction that may reunify the country. Yes, the profit is necessary but it is not the objective of the 1st tier.

    http://www.unz.com/article/tracing-the-rush-to-war/#comment-2291549

    Very interesting observation. One relatively insignificant detail that nonetheless stands in support of the theory is the way the United States turned a blind eye to all the looting and destruction of Iraqi cultural and historical artifacts. It was as if the people behind the invasion wanted to destroy Iraqi (or at least Sunni) group identity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Looting was done by lower lever operators who were prepared in advance and probably had lists of things to be looted and names of buyers who were ready to pay for the items. Nothing was left to chance. It was not spontaneous because of chaos. Looting began the moment Americans entered Bagdad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...“The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire..." '

    Yes, but...

    I think all the great powers were making preparations and calculations in the same way.

    Against this must be set the fact that Germany was essentially a 'satisfied power' at the time. As even your quote implies, she sought no change in the status quo, but on the contrary, feared such a change.

    It was other powers that threatened to bring about that change: France, with her incessant scheming and machinations to create a coalition that could avenge 1870, Serbia, with her pathological belligerence towards everyone, Russia, with her Slavophile pretensions that, in the upshot, led her to support a Serbia that was manifestly in the wrong. Here, too, France played an apparently key if obscured role in egging both Serbia and Russia on, and then in the case of Russia, making sure she didn't back down.

    I am not arguing that Germany was innocent. I am merely insisting that (a) it was above all the underlying paradigm that made an eventual explosion probable, and that (b) other powers were more at fault.

    There's a lot to be said about it. For example, it's been argued that if Austria hadn't delayed and sought the support of Germany, but rather, had promptly attacked Serbia, then the other powers wouldn't have found themselves taking up the positions that made general war inevitable. Of course, this makes the rather dubious assumption that Austria could in fact have quickly beaten Serbia, but it is an example of how the blame for the greater conflagration shifts depending on how one looks at it.

    Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. However, if there was any one nation that could have prevented the war from breaking out, it would have been France. Absent her activities, a great war becomes discernably less probable. Serbia would never have dared to have engaged in the provocations she did, and isolated and without encouragement from France, Russia would have been more likely to seek security in an accord with Germany and Austria rather than hostility towards them. After all, for Russia above all, a great war objectively offered nothing. Finally, theories about British bankers notwithstanding, I see Britain as less guilty than any other player. She didn't even have an immense conscript army. She was the only player who had refrained from building one.

    That all states make preparations for war and calculations about the chances of winning it is a truism. The real problem is the real intentions underlying these preparations. There is not an exact equivalence between preparations for offense and preparations for defense.

    Germany was not a ‘satisfied power’ at that time. On the contrary. Her building of a High Seas Fleet was not a ‘gratuitous provocation’ but an assertion of her pretensions to be given ‘a place in the Sun’, rather at the table of the big spoliators of the world, of England in the first place. Unimpeded control of Russia’s resources (particularly of its oil resources, but also of the newly discovered oil fields of Iran and Mesopotamia) was practically an imperative in view of the lack of internal ones (the more in the conditions of the conversion of the British Navy to oil, which multiplied its advantage over the German upstart fleet). The High Seas Fleet was a mistake, here Germany was punching above her weight.
    German professors started talking in terms of Germany “fulfilling a world mission” by virtue of that ‘fitting share of the world power which human nature and higher Providence assign to the civilised peoples’ which her army and navy would ensure for her. Against the ‘cultural monopoly of the Anglo- Saxons’ (Britain and America) and the ‘Russo-Muscovite world’ they called for a policy which should make Germany’s special cultural and political heritage safe and thereby guarantee at once the multiplicity and individuality of all peoples and the balance of power in a new world system of states”. This ‘world mission’ could not have been successfully fulfilled without a solid European economic basis under German leadership. Clamors for ‘Lebensraum’ for the young and energetic German nation became louder, sustained by the intoxicating fumes of ‘European cultural superiority’.

    As a matter of fact Russia was the ‘satisfied power’, essentially preoccupied with her internal development. Russia had more than enough ‘Lebensraum’ of her own and she was not after any external conquests. Russia was the first power in the world to ask for a limitation of the crazy arms race that gripped the ‘civilized’ world, Germany in the first place. It was the steady refusal of Germany to reduce armaments that compelled Russia to initiate her program of modernizing her army and not any fanciful ‘Slavophile pretensions’. Russia’s protection for the Orthodox peoples in the Ottoman Empire (not only Slavs, actually primarily Romanians and Greeks) was a policy inscribed in the peace treaties concluded with the Ottoman Empire since the 18th century. It was not only a moral obligation. Russia’s ‘ambitions to control the Straits’ was in fact a policy meant to keep them open for her trade and to prevent a repetition of the Crimean war. The Black Sea was not given by God to the English merchants and Light Brigades.
    The famous ‘Damascus speech’ of Kaiser Wilhelm, his casting himself as the ‘protector’ of the ’300 million Mohamedans’ in the world ‘at all times’, and the building of the Berlin-Baghdad railway couldn’t have but raise Russian and British alarms.

    And it must be remembered that it was Germany seconded by Austria who renounced all the security agreements with Russia, foolishly and irresponsibly not heading the warnings of Bismarck.
    Serbia’s ‘belligerence against everyone’? What about the annexation of Bosnia-Hertzegovina by Austria?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Germany was not a ‘satisfied power’ at that time...'

    I feel that your points about Germany have some validity; after all, I am not claiming that Germany was blameless, merely that she was no more to blame than others.

    On the other hand, you appear to grant legitimacy to the most extravagant Russian claims. You would grant her domination of the entire Balkan peninsula and control of 'the straits' -- which would happen to be the core of the Ottoman Empire. That's a bit like deciding Turkey should have title to Moscow. To get back to the immediate cause of the war, Russia had no rational reason to decide that Austria deciding to bring Serbia down a peg was any of her business; Serbia was literally hundreds of miles from the nearest Russian frontier. Why should Russia have perceived herself to have a cause for war in anything Austria did vis-a-vis Serbia?

    Finally, I note you don't contest the role of France in all this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
     
    Good people can't imagine real evil. At best they may try to explain to themselves that 2003 war in Iraq was because of greed of oil companies or because of Hussain trying to sell oils for Euros instead of dollars. They can't comprehend that the real objective was to destroy the country and its infrastructure and to bring chaos and fraternal and sectarian fighting that can be fueled forever by supporting the weaker faction against the stronger faction that may reunify the country. Yes, the profit is necessary but it is not the objective of the 1st tier.

    http://www.unz.com/article/tracing-the-rush-to-war/#comment-2291549

    Good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. I bought a copy of The Protocols and read it about a year ago. I was struck by the same thing Ron was, how anti climactic it was. Given its fearsome reputation I was expecting to hear stories of Jews dining on goy babies but it reads more like the plans for a corporate takeover of a company or CIA plans to take over a small nation.

    And that, to me, makes it even more chilling and believable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    That was my impression after reading it as well.

    The people who wrote it certainly knew a lot about social engineering which leads me to think it was not written by some crank in a basement but by those whose job it is monitor nations and peoples, and to manipulate them. IOW intelligence agents. Probably British given they had a world wide spy network at the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Mr. Hack says:
    @Anon
    Gnosis is the reigning heresy of our times. It was also the first, the one with which  Lucifer tempted Eve: "eat this, and you shall be like Gods". 
    In stark contrast to other heresies, which are simply mistaken understandings of truths or Truth, gnosis starts out with a lie: the lie that there exists a hidden trove of knowledge, reserved for a select few. Those blessed few initiates will and then evolve, not through acts of the will, but by sheer knowing. They will become superior, perfect, deified. Essentially, man shares nature with God, the difference is of degree.  Gnosis is a deliberate lie, that springs up recurrently, in many places, in many religions, with modern pagans and atheists too. Lucifer knew it as well as any present day con-man with an 'enhanced consciousness' seminar to sell.

    It's interesting that the Kabbalah, gnostic as you please, is a perversion of the original oral tradition of the Old Testament, through contamination during the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities. The original contained insights about a transcendent God, including a presaging of the Holy Trinity, that are consistent with the truths taught by Christ. 

    Gnosis is all around us: in New Age movements, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Wicca, 'human potential' sects and institutes. Depak Chopra and the Esalen Institute. There's really no such thing as truth, except the one I can sell you. It even, I think, underpins theories that explains to the masses how the world really works, like Marxism and de constructivism, but those enlightened fellows generously chose to unveil the eyes of a wider public.

    Gnosis is all around us: in New Age movements, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Wicca, ‘human potential’ sects and institutes. Depak Chopra and the Esalen Institute.

    Indeed. One would have to put transhumanism squarely within this macro mold too. This movement got its impetus from the likes of Julian Huxley and Arthur C. Clark and perhaps inadvertently by Clark’s confidente, Robert Heinlein. All humanistic attempts to try to deal with and alleviate the maladies associated with life and life extension itself. Obviously an atheistic philosophy. True deification can only proceed from the teachings of Christ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    O Bly proceed through Christ. Sounds like super-Gnosticism to me
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @Godfree Roberts
    Did you read the critique, Ron's link?

    ‘Did you read the critique, Ron’s link?’

    I scanned it. It seemed to rely on (a) an a priori assumption that Mao was a wise and benevolent leader, and (b) a belief that Edgar Snow could be relied upon to give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the situation. This is a bit like consulting Hitler and Goebbels in 1943 and concluding that Germany’s got it in the bag.

    Conversely, Tombstone is a carefully researched and painstakingly reasoned book that leads inexorably to the conclusion that while no exact total can even be established, the number was indeed in the region of thirty five million deaths plus forty million fewer births.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I scanned it. It seemed to rely on (a) an a priori assumption that Mao was a wise and benevolent leader, and (b) a belief that Edgar Snow could be relied upon to give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the situation. This is a bit like consulting Hitler and Goebbels in 1943 and concluding that Germany’s got it in the bag.
     
    Actually, I'll admit I didn't find Godfree Roberts's article too convincing, but the long comment-thread led me to a couple of other sources that raised some serious doubts in my mind. I'll freely admit I haven't read Tombstone, and it's very possible that book would settle those doubts.
    , @Godfree Roberts
    It relies on data. What a concept.
    , @BillyBob
    It's rather simple actually to deconstruct the dishonest arguments in "Tombstone". Patrick McNally does so with relative ease in his two star Amazon review:


    "Not surprisingly, many proponents of capitalist restoration in China have sought to promote the most wildly inflated estimates of famine deaths in these years in an effort to justify counter-revolution. The more honest books will simply quote plausible numbers for the years 1957-63, but without telling the reader anything about what real mortality patterns in China historically looked like. But there is another even more dishonest approach favored among some proponents of capitalism which actually requires deliberately faking statistics by citing numbers from the official statistics where it is politically convenient, yet citing higher numbers from other sources for other years."

    "It is analogous to if someone found two census agencies which regularly offer an annual estimate of the black population in the USA, but which use a different criterion so that there is always a disparity of one million in the numbers for each year. Now suppose that someone looked up such numbers from such sources and quoted them for two consecutive years in a way which implied that white racists had murdered one million black people. That is the type of hoax which Yang Jisheng tries playing in this book."

    "It's easy to cite specific illustrations of this from the text. On p. 394 he says:"

    "The mortality rate in Sichuan from 1958 to 1962 was 1.517 percent, 4.69 percent, 5.39 percent, 2.942 percent, and 1.482 percent."

    "Comparing these numbers with the numbers given by both Judith Banister and the Statistical Yearbook, it's clear that the number "1.517 percent" which he gives for 1958 is meant to read as a little bit higher than the number "11.98 per thousand" which the Statistical Yearbook gives. Yet this number is significantly lower than the number "18.12 per thousand" which Banister gives for 1957, and the gap is even larger when compared with the "20.65 per thousand" which Banister assigns to 1958 itself."

    "This isn't just a fluke accident. On pp. 408-9 the author lists alleged death rates which clearly come from the Statistical Yearbook and he uses to compute what he declares to be a "normal mortality rate" of 1.047 percent. This is obviously a very steep underestimate of what real mortality rates in China up to 1957 had been like. Banister's guess of 18.12 per thousand may even be too low, as it assumes a dramatic heretofore unprecedented drop in Chinese mortality over the years 1949-57. If Chinese mortality in 1957 had only been as low as 25 per thousand then that would still represent a dramatic gain over the preformances of Czarist Russia and pre-1949 China, while still being larger than each of the mortality rates which Banister assigns to 1958, 1959 and 1961."

    "Obviously the reason why Yang Jusheng uses the number of 1.047 percent as an estimate drawn from the Statistical Yearbook is because when such a steep underestimate of real mortality in China is cited, then followed by more realistic estimates for the later years, it allows one to dramatically raise the numbers of deaths occurring over an alleged "normal mortality rate." This is a very dishonest cut-and-paste method of generating false statistical results. Because of this all of the more special assertions made in this book which do not already have a general corroboration need to be treated with high skepticism. This book was put together with an agenda, and that shows."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. utu says:
    @Anon
    Very interesting observation. One relatively insignificant detail that nonetheless stands in support of the theory is the way the United States turned a blind eye to all the looting and destruction of Iraqi cultural and historical artifacts. It was as if the people behind the invasion wanted to destroy Iraqi (or at least Sunni) group identity.

    Looting was done by lower lever operators who were prepared in advance and probably had lists of things to be looted and names of buyers who were ready to pay for the items. Nothing was left to chance. It was not spontaneous because of chaos. Looting began the moment Americans entered Bagdad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    ...the way the United States turned a blind eye...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. mcohen says:
    @jsm
    Ron, my heartfelt thank you for being one Jew who IS doing what us Gentiles have begged for for so long:

    Explaining to your own ethnicity why the Jews need to clean up their act.

    We've tried. They won't listen to us. Us, they mock, they call us insane, "anti-Semites" who've gone nutso, claiming we're just making up bizarre stories. Thank you, thank you, for doing it. They might LISTEN to you!

    Ron, continue to tell them, knock it off with the anti-White propaganda, the pushing for mass immigration of hostile non-Whites, and the economy manipulating.

    Keep telling American Jews to stop themselves, before we White Americans of Christian Heritage are forced to take care of the Jewish Question ourselves -- for the umpity-umphth- time. We don't wanna "go there" -- and neither do the American Jews want us to, I should think.

    Tell them, stop it all now, clean up the mess you've made, and if you do, it's likely we can probably come to a modus vivendi without bloodshed or expulsion.

    Ron, tell them, if they DON'T do it now, if they leave it to us, it's gonna end badly --just like every time prior.

    Keep telling them, Ron. Head off what's coming!!

    Hey man i feel your pain but instead of blaming the jews why not do something to stop the migration.go down to to the border and physically ask those non white people to go home.dont forget to take your leatherman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader
    Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me...all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.
    The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).
    I can't think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia...or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about "Jewish exploitation", there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.
    But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.

    If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about “Jewish exploitation”, there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution

    Such as what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Did you read the critique, Ron’s link?'

    I scanned it. It seemed to rely on (a) an a priori assumption that Mao was a wise and benevolent leader, and (b) a belief that Edgar Snow could be relied upon to give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the situation. This is a bit like consulting Hitler and Goebbels in 1943 and concluding that Germany's got it in the bag.

    Conversely, Tombstone is a carefully researched and painstakingly reasoned book that leads inexorably to the conclusion that while no exact total can even be established, the number was indeed in the region of thirty five million deaths plus forty million fewer births.

    I scanned it. It seemed to rely on (a) an a priori assumption that Mao was a wise and benevolent leader, and (b) a belief that Edgar Snow could be relied upon to give a clear-eyed and objective appraisal of the situation. This is a bit like consulting Hitler and Goebbels in 1943 and concluding that Germany’s got it in the bag.

    Actually, I’ll admit I didn’t find Godfree Roberts’s article too convincing, but the long comment-thread led me to a couple of other sources that raised some serious doubts in my mind. I’ll freely admit I haven’t read Tombstone, and it’s very possible that book would settle those doubts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BillyBob
    Hey Ron, I sent this reply to Colin Wright who advocated reading "Tombstone". The West will never promote any history which accurately depicts reality. Here's a quick deconstruction of "Tombstone".

    It’s rather simple actually to deconstruct the dishonest arguments in “Tombstone”. Patrick McNally does so with relative ease in his two star Amazon review:

    “Not surprisingly, many proponents of capitalist restoration in China have sought to promote the most wildly inflated estimates of famine deaths in these years in an effort to justify counter-revolution. The more honest books will simply quote plausible numbers for the years 1957-63, but without telling the reader anything about what real mortality patterns in China historically looked like. But there is another even more dishonest approach favored among some proponents of capitalism which actually requires deliberately faking statistics by citing numbers from the official statistics where it is politically convenient, yet citing higher numbers from other sources for other years.”

    “It is analogous to if someone found two census agencies which regularly offer an annual estimate of the black population in the USA, but which use a different criterion so that there is always a disparity of one million in the numbers for each year. Now suppose that someone looked up such numbers from such sources and quoted them for two consecutive years in a way which implied that white racists had murdered one million black people. That is the type of hoax which Yang Jisheng tries playing in this book.”

    “It’s easy to cite specific illustrations of this from the text. On p. 394 he says:”

    “The mortality rate in Sichuan from 1958 to 1962 was 1.517 percent, 4.69 percent, 5.39 percent, 2.942 percent, and 1.482 percent.”

    “Comparing these numbers with the numbers given by both Judith Banister and the Statistical Yearbook, it’s cl