The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker Archive
Why I Use the Term ‘AngloZionist’, and Why It’s Important

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_301930013

One of the issues over which I am most vehemently criticized, even by well-meaning friends, is my use of the term “AngloZionist”.

After carefully parsing all the arguments of my critics, I wrote a special explanatory note on my blog two years ago, in order to make sure that my argument leaves no room for misunderstanding.

I reproduce it below as a (rather long) introduction to the article which follows, which is essentially a further development of the ideas in my 2014 post.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

– Voltaire

(The following quoted section is from the Saker’s blog (with slight modifications), from September 2014)

Why do I speak of “AngloZionists”? I got that question many times in the past, so I am making a separate post about it to (hopefully) explain this once and for all.

1) Anglo:

The USA in an Empire. With roughly 1000 overseas bases (depends on how you count), an undeniably messianic ideology, a bigger defense-offense budget then the rest of the planet combined, 16+ spy agencies, the dollar as the world’s currency, there is no doubt that the US is a planetary Empire.

Where did the US Empire come from? Again, that’s a no-brainer – from the British Empire. Furthermore, the US Empire is really based on a select group of nations: the Echelon countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and, of course, the US. What do these countries have in common? They are the leftovers of the British Empire and they are all English speaking. Notice that France, Germany or Japan are not part of this elite even though they are arguably as important or more to the USA then, say, New Zealand and far more powerful.

So the “Anglo” part is undeniable. And yet, even though “Anglo” is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural category while “Zionist” is a political/ideological one, very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.

2) Zionist:

Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word “Zionism” means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel“. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?

The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.

First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become a vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they had better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the networks of sayanim, etc.

In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet.

As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies they should always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.

So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles). It assumes the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again).

Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”

3) Anglo-Zionist:

The British Empire and the early USA used to be pretty much wall-to-wall Anglo. Sure, Jews had a strong influence (in banking for example), but Zionism was a non-issue not only among non-Jews, but also among US Jews. Besides, religious Jews were often very hostile to the notion of a secular Israel while secular Jews did not really care about this quasi-Biblical notion.

WWII gave a massive boost to the Zionist movement while, as Norman Finkelstein explained it, the topic of the “Holocaust” became central to Jewish discourse and identity only many years later. I won’t go into the history of the rise to power of Jews in the USA, but from roughly Ford to GW Bush’s Neocons it has been steady. And even though Obama initially pushed the Neocons out, they came right back in through the backdoor. Right now, the only question is whether US Jews have more power than US Anglos or the other way around.

Before going any further, let me also immediately say that I am not talking about Jews or Anglos as a group, but I am referring to the top 1% within each of these groups. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the top 1% of Jews cares any more about Israel or the 99% of Jews than the top 1% of Anglos care about the USA or the Anglo people.

So, here is my thesis:

The US Empire is run by a 1% (or less) elite which can be called the “deep state” which is composed of two main groups: Anglos and Jews. These two groups are in many ways hostile to each other (just like the SS and SA or Trotskysts and Stalinists), but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt. So they work together almost all the time.

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it:

To say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear:

When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers, the elites which form the Empire’s “deep state”.

By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are plenty of anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in no way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russians Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.

My personal opinion now:

First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I have always doubted it, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews can be racist, but that does not make them a race.

Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

Third, since being Jew (or not) is a choice: to belong, adhere and endorse a tribe (secular Jews) or a religion (Judaics). Any choice implies a judgment call and it therefore a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism.

Fourth, I believe that Zionism, even when secular, instrumentalizes the values, ideas, myths and ethos of rabbinical Judaism (aka “Talmudism” or “Phariseeism”) and both are racist in their core value and assumptions.

Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.

Sixth, I reject any and all form of racism as a denial of our common humanity, a denial of the freedom of choice of each human being and – being an Orthodox Christian – as a heresy (a form of iconoclasm, really). To me people who chose to identify themselves with, and as, Jews are not inherently different from any other human and they deserve no more and no fewer rights and protections than any other human being.

I will note here that while the vast majority of my readers are Anglos, they almost never complain about the “Anglo” part of my “AngloZionist” term. The vast majority of objections focus on the “Zionist” part. You might want to think long and hard about why this is so and what it tells us about the kind of power Zionists have over the prevailing ideology. Could it be linked to the reason why the (openly racist and truly genocidal) Israeli Prime Minister gets more standing ovations in Congress (29) than the US President (25)? Probably, but this is hardly the full story.

(This is the end of the 2014 blog entry. The current article begins below)

It is undeniable that Jews did suffer persecutions in the past and that the Nazis horribly persecuted Jews during WWII. This is important because nowadays we are all conditioned to associate and even identify any criticism of Jews or Zionist with the kind of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist rhetoric which the Nazis used to justify their atrocities. This is quite understandable, but it is also completely illogical because what this reaction is based on is the implicit assumption that any criticism of Jews or Zionist must be Nazi in its argumentation, motives, goals or methods. This is beyond ridiculous.

Saint John Chrysostom (349 – 407), the “Golden Mouth” of early Christianity, recognized as one of the greatest saints in history by both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, authored a series of homilies, Kata Ioudaiōn, which are extremely critical of Jews, yet no sane person would accuse him of being a Nazi. Chrysostom was hardly alone. Other great saints critical of Jews include Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Justin Martyr and many others.

But if these saints were not Nazis, maybe they still were racist, no? That, of course, depends on your definition of ‘racism’. Here is my own:

First, racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than similarities within the group.

Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life.

Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.)

I reject all three of these assumptions because I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

By that definition, the Church Fathers were most definitely not racists as their critique was solely aimed at the religion of the Jews, not at their ethnicity (which is hardly surprising since Christ and His Apostles and most early Christians were all “ethnic” Jews). This begs the question of whether criticizing a religion is legitimate or not.

I submit that anything resulting from an individual choice is fair game for criticism. Even if somebody is “born into” a religious community, all adults come to the point in life where they make a conscious decision to endorse or reject the religion they were “born into”. Being a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew (in the sense of “Judaic”) is always a personal decision. The same applies to political views. One chooses to become a Marxist or a Monarchist or a Zionist. And since our individual decisions do, indeed, directly impact our other choices in life, it is not racist or objectionable to criticize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Monarchism or Zionism. Criticizing any one of them, or even all of them, in no way denies our common humanity which is something which racism always does.

Having said all that, none of the above addresses a most important, but rarely openly discussed, issue: what if, regardless of all the arguments above, using expressions such as “AngloZionism” offends some people (Jews or not), what if the use of this term alienates them so much that it would make them unwilling to listen to any argument or point of view using this expression?

This is a very different issue, not an ethical, moral or philosophical one – but a practical one: is it worth losing readers, supporters and even donors for the sake of using an expression which requires several pages of explanations in its defense? This issue is one every blogger, every website, every alternative news outlet has had to struggle with. I know that I got more angry mails over this than over any other form of crimethink I so often engage in.

I will readily admit that there is a cost involved in using the term “AngloZionist Empire”. But that cost needs to be compared to the cost of *not* using that term.

Is there anybody out there who seriously doubts the huge role the so-called “Israel Lobby” or the “Neocons” or, to use the expression of Professor James Petras, the “Zionist Power Configuration” plays in modern politics? Twenty years ago – maybe. But not today. We all are perfectly aware of the “elephant in the room”, courtesy not only of courageous folks like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shahak or Norman Finkelstein but even such mainstream Anglo personalities as John J. Mearsheimer , Stephen M. Walt or even Jimmy Carter.

It is plain silly to pretend that we don’t know when we all know that we all know.

Pretending that we don’t see this elephant in the room makes us look either subservient to that elephant, or simply like a coward who dares not speak truth to power. In other words, if you do want to shoot your credibility, pretend really hard that you are totally unaware of the elephant in the room: some of your sponsors might love you, but everybody else will despise you.

What about the very real risk of being perceived as some kind of Nazi?

Yes, the risk is there, but only if you allow yourself to flirt with racist or even para-racist notions. But if you are categorical in your rejection of any form of racism (including any form of anti-Jewish racism), then the accusation will simply not stick. Oh sure, the Zionists out there will try hard to make you look like a Nazi, but they will fail simply because they will have nothing to base that accusation on other than some vague “overtones” or “lack of sensitivity”. In my experience, people are not that stupid and they rapidly see through that worn-out accusation of “anti-Semitism” ( a meaningless concept to begin with, as Michael Neumann so brilliantly demonstrates in his essay “What is Antisemitism?”).

The truth is that the Zionists are only as powerful as we allow them to be. If we allow them to scare us into silence, then indeed their power is immense, but if we simply demand that they stop treating some humans as “more equal than others” then their own racism suddenly becomes obvious for all to see and their power vanishes.

It is really that simple: since nobody can accuse a real anti-racist of racism, then truly being an anti-racist gives you an immunity against the accusation of anti-Semitism.

So what we need, at this point, is to consider the terms used.

“Israel Lobby” suffers from several major issues. First, it implies that the folks in this lobby really care about Israel and the people of Israel. While some probably do, we also have overwhelming evidence (such as the testimony of Sibel Edmonds) that many/most folks in the “Israel Lobby” use the topic of Israel for their own, very different goals (usually power, often money). Have the people of Israel really benefited from from the Neocon-triggered wars? I doubt it.

Furthermore, when hearing the word “Israel Lobby” most people will think of a lobby in the US Congress, something like the NRA or the AARP. The problem we are dealing with today is clearly international. Bernard Henri Levi, George Soros or Mikhail Khodorkovsky have no connection to AIPAC or the US Congress. “Zionist Power Configuration” is better, but “configuration” is vague. What we are dealing with is clearly an empire. Besides, this is clearly not only a Zionist Empire, the Anglo component is at least as influential, so why only mention one and not both?

Still, I don’t think that we should get too caught up in semantics here. From my point of view, there are two truly essential issues which need to be addressed:

1) We need to start talking freely about the “elephant in the room” and stop fearing reprisals from those who want us to pretend we don’t see it.

2) We need to stop using politically correct euphemisms in the vain hope that those who want us to shut up will accept them. They won’t.

Currently, much of the discourse on Jewish or Zionist topics is severely restricted. Doubting the obligatory “6 million” murdered Jews during WWII can land in you jail in several European countries. Ditto if you express any doubts about the actual mode of executions (gas chambers vs firing squads and disease) of these Jews. “Revisionism”, as asking such questions is now known, is seen either as a crime or, at least, a moral abomination, even though “revisionism” is what all real historians do: historiography is revisionistic by its very nature. But even daring to mention such truisms immediately makes you a potential Nazi in the eyes of many/most people.

Since when is expressing a doubt an endorsement of an ideology? This is crazy, no?

I personally came to the conclusion that the West became an easy victim of such “conceptual hijackings” because of a sense of guilt about having let the Nazis murder so many European Jews without taking any meaningful action. It is a fact that it was the Soviet Union which carried 80% or more of the burden of destroying Hitler’s war machine: most Europeans resisted shamefully little. As for the Anglos, they waited until the Soviet victory before even entering the war in Europe.

Okay, fine – let those who feel guilty feel guilty (even if I personally don’t believe in collective guilt). But we cannot allow them to try to silence those of us who strongly feel that we are guilty of absolutely nothing!

Do we really have to kowtow to all Jews, including the top 1% of Jews who, like all 1%ers, do not care about the rest of the 99%? How long are we going to continue to allow the top 1% of Jews enjoy a bizarre form of political immunity because they hide behind the memory of Jews murdered during WWII or the political sensitivities of the 99% of Jews with whom they have no real connection anyway?

I strongly believe that all 1%ers are exactly the same: they care about themselves and nobody else. Their power, what I call the AngloZionist Empire, is based on two things: deception and violence. Their worldview is based on one of two forms of messianism: Anglo imperialism and Zionism (which is just a secularized version of Judaic racial exceptionalism). This has nothing to do with Nazism, WWII or anti-Semitism and everything with ruthless power politics. Unless we are willing to call a spade a spade we will never be able to meaningfully oppose this Empire or the 1%ers who run it.

In truth, since we owe them nothing except our categorical rejection and opposition. It is, I believe, our moral duty to shed a powerful light on their true nature and debunk the lies they try so hard to hide behind.

If their way is by deception, then ours ought to be by truth, because, as Christ said, the truth shall make us free.

Euphemisms only serve to further enslave us.

(Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
 

169 Comments to "Why I Use the Term ‘AngloZionist’, and Why It’s Important"

Commenters to Ignore
Agrees/Disagrees Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Slightly OT but not surprising

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/disgraced-ex-imf-chief/2486008.html

    The looting by the filth continues

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “I strongly believe that all 1%ers are exactly the same: they care about themselves and nobody else.”

    A well stated and convincing discourse.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I am sincerely glad that Saker was brave enough to write on this topic again. His original explanation from two years ago was also great, but this expanded version is even better.

    Still, I don’t think that we should get too caught up in semantics here

    You can rest assured that people who will accuse you of anti-Semitism, racism and any other ism they can invent, will do just that.

    But the most important Saker’s contribution is his statement that Zionism, like most ideologies, is used for personal gain, that is for money and power of individuals or a select group. Zionism is one of the most powerful tools of the 0.1%-ers against the rest of the population.

    There is no discourse in the public domain which does not enhance someone’s money and power – if it is in the MSM, then someone is gaining one or both.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Kosheria

    Talmudonia

    Semite-Supremacists

    Supremo-Semitism

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.

    No they are not “twins.”

    Nazism was a defensive movement, defending German culture and territory; removing invading forces through exquisitely legal and humane means; and also seeking to expand in order to provide for the very real physical needs of its population. German experience of starvation in WWI, and repeats of the threat in Weimar era, left deep marks on the German people. German leadership in NSDAP took definite steps to remedy the consequences of starvation; and ensure it would not recur.
    Germans have been planted on their land for millennia, and for most of their history remained loyal to their land — much like Iranians, who had not migrated from their land in large numbers until very recently, remaining through thick and thin.
    Nazism was not ideologically driven, it was pragmatic: NSDAP built housing for the people, alleviated unemployment, built infrastructure, ensured food security, quelled street violence —

    Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
    Es schau’n auf’s Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen
    Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an

    In contrast, Zionism is uniquely Jewish; Jews are a migratory people whose pattern seems to be to migrate to a place, impose itself at the highest levels of influence/government and dwell there (as this Israeli PR hack states — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq04km4QRtU )

    The PR hack does not include other elements of the Jewish migratory pattern: they are “tricksters” while in place, (Yuri Slezkine calls Jews “tricksters, Mercurians”), they maintain themselves apart, and they destroy on their way out.
    Zionism’s span of history from just after the Franco Prussian war to today is best understood in biblical/Exodus terms, first, motivating/incentivizing the tribe; then moving the tribe by stages (that if, from Russia and Poland to Germany, from Germany to Palestine and USA), while an advance party prepares the target land — as Arthur Ruppin prepared Palestine from 1907 – 1938 and Irgun and others worked to terrorize and remove the indigenous population; then completing the in-gathering — still a work in process.

    The zionist project required financial resources. Pinsker wrote in 1881 “Of course, it requires many years and a great expenditure of money to establish a nation on a firm basis. But in Pinsker’s dictionary the word ” impossible ‘* does not exist.” “Impossible does not exist” as long as US taxpayers do. (Hitler is roundly condemned for acquiring financing from German industrialists and other financial elites, but he did tap Germans, rather than exploit others.)

    None of those elements characterize Nazism.

    • Agree: Mark Green
    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Dear Mr Saker,

    Thanks for a well articulated discourse. it was certainly well worth reading.

    For most of humanity WWII is a profound “hinge” in history. There is the world before it and the world after it…..and they are not the same.

    What characterizes civilization post WWII is the utter rejection of empires. Empires and empire building are recognized, universally, as criminal enterprises.

    No nation is permitted, through use of force, to conquer another….It is not just something we ought not to do….it is an international crime.

    We all understand that the “victors” in WWII divided much of the world into spheres of influence. The Cold War ensued based on competing ideologies for what should constitute the universal ideology which best represents the ways of men and their interaction.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990′s, it seems the world, by in large, made its choice to accept the ways of the West. The implication is that the efficacy of international law,free market capitalism, the rights of nations to their sovereignty, the notion of private property and the supreme rights of the individual became, by in large, universally accepted mandates for human interaction.

    Empire building did not.

    To this day….. all “empire building” is a crime.

    One can argue the second “hinge” in history, certainly for the “Anglo-Zionists ” who exploited it, was 9-11. They created a “new reality” which ,based on the pseudo-hoaxy “war on terror” allowed for the re emergence of empire and the bogus rationales for that new empire to transcend international law.

    But Mr Saker…..It is an “Empire of Fraud”.

    Consider the distinctions between the first Iraq war and the second.

    In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. its not a lie , a hoax or a fraud to say that it did….It truly did.

    This behavior is recognized as a form of conquering…as a form of “empire-ing” and was treated as such through the Security Council and its resolutions.

    The world made clear the unacceptability of Iraq annexing Kuwait with the intent of absorbing it into a Greater Iraq.

    This clarity of resolution was consistent with international law, and the binding principles the world accepts in the post WWII era.

    If the United States, with its overwhelming military capacity, chose to take the lead in enforcing these principles….few could complain too loudly. I know I didn’t.

    The gulf that exists between the first Iraq war in 1991 and the second in 2003 ,is the gulf that separates those who stop ax -murderers and those who have chosen to become them.

    The second Iraq war was an illegal war of aggression based on fraud.

    It should not be more complicated than that.

    The Anglo-Zionist empire that you refer to, Mr Saker, has become an Empire of Fraud, an empire of the ax murderers, not those resistant too them.

    I care nothing that it is Anglo or Zionist, only that it is murderous, criminal and fraudulent to its core.

    It has become everything that it claims to most despise….and needs to be stopped.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. You’re a fool Saker. Your heart is in the right place but you’re stuck trying to out pre-1930s Jew the pre-1930s Jews.

    The lesson which Jews, and indeed everyone, should have learned from the fate of European Jewry in WWII is that it is good to have a homeland. Yet it seems that only the Israelis learnt that. Everyone else seems to have decided that it is bad to assert anything like the right to a homeland.

    Your anti-Zionism is thus as much a part of the problem that Europe is facing as the whole multi-cultural agenda. It is a direct attack on the simple argument that it is in any peoples’ interests that they maintain a homeland.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Thanks for pointing out who the real enemy is. While the Social Justice Warriors create a distraction the .01% robs us blind. If the tribes cannot unite we will all be slaves.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. This is a thoroughly constructed rationalization, but does not completely wash off the marks of typical right wing nonsense, which include paranoid nationalism and, yes, vaguely racist undertones that are a consistent theme. Sorry.

    In my system, Saker is a well developed but nevertheless typical “type 2″: useful, intelligent but morally tainted right winger. (“type 1″ is the mindless regurgitator). See my system of political-blogger stereotypes here:

    https://spreadanidea.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/ukraine-the-frustrations-of-blogging/

    Note this was from 2014, in the midst of the the Ukraine Crisis, which motivated some of my own blogging activity at the time and was a very useful springboard into other explorations…

    I say useful, because people like him become a hub around which others initially gather when they reject the mainstream view. (some call them indulgers in conspiracy theories, though on many topics in international politics, from a factual point of view, they outperform those who indulge in mainstream narrative). It is this pool of people who have potential to make changes for the future… it is a worthwhile audience to try to win over, whatever your point of view is.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize“

    – Voltaire

    I see. You’re hoping that by combining these terms, some of the Zionists’ immunity will rub off onto Anglos. Or maybe the reverse, that by putting “Anglo” in front of “Zionist,” you’ll get a pass for criticizing Zionists.

    Because it’s pretty obvious that criticizing “Anglo” isn’t so much verboten as it is encouraged.

    And that criticizing “Zionists” isn’t quite as verboten as criticizing Jews, but it’s pretty close.

    Here’s a test: which would Israel rather lose, the Anglo-Saxons, or the Jewish diaspora?

    very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.

    You don’t say.

    The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions.

    This is the Jewish Supremacist answer, of course: whomever the Jews deem “in need” of an ethnostate homeland may have one. Conveniently, the the Jews have decided that the Jews qualify. It’s also special pleading: the Jews “need” an ethnostate homeland because history (as read and judged by Jews), while Whites must not have ethnostate homelands, because history (as read and judged by Jews).

    As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies they should always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.

    Right. Ethnostate homelands for Jews = good for the Jews. So, yes to ethnostate homelands for Jews. Ethnostate homelands for Whites = bad for the Jews. So, no to ethnostate homelands for Whites.

    Right now, the only question is whether US Jews have more power than US Anglos or the other way around.

    The answer to that isn’t a simple yes or no. Americans of NW Euro stock have more power than Jews, but practically zero will to use it in an effective way. Jews have less power than NW Euro Americans, but they use it in a far more effective way. Imagine the all-star team playing against a playoff team. The all-star team will have more talent, but they’ve never played together. They’d get their butts handed to them by the playoff team which, while it has fewer stars, actually plays as a team

    The US Empire is run by a 1% (or less) elite which can be called the “deep state” which is composed of two main groups: Anglos and Jews. These two groups are in many ways hostile to each other (just like the SS and SA or Trotskysts and Stalinists), but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt. So they work together almost all the time.

    And here’s where the loony Russian goes off the rails. Anglos are not hostile to Jews. They’re clueless. Anglos are in contention for having the least racist outlook on the planet. Their messianic ideology is very much in question. It’s more like a globalist ideology, insofar as they have an ideology beyond “get ahead and go along with the globalist oligarch flow.”

    They work together all the time because bucking the Jewish elite is a great way to find yourself out of work.

    By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words)

    AKA, Shabbos goy.

    and there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews.

    Who are the powerful ones?

    Jews are a tribe

    Yep. Dances With Wolves will tell you more about how to define Jews collectively than 99% of the public discourse will. Jewry is a tribe, and Judaism is their tribal religion. Obviously biology is important, just as it is with any tribe. Few tribes stay that way for long if they let other blood groups overwhelm their numbers. But it’s just as much a feature of tribalism that the tribe will let in a Kevin Costner now and then, if he proves useful. They may not be a race, but the tribe does have some pretty strong racial features. Particularly when you drill down to the sub-tribes like the Ashkenazi.

    Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.

    Mmm, not really. Judaism went in one end, and Zionism came out the other, but that doesn’t make it a child of 19th century nationalism. It’s a child of Jewish tribalism. You’re right to mention Zionism and Nazism in the same sentence (though probably for a lot of the wrong reasons, since you’re Russian and Russian thinking on the topic tends to be bizarre.).

    Sixth, I reject any and all form of racism as a denial of our common humanity, a denial of the freedom of choice of each human being and – being an Orthodox Christian – as a heresy (a form of iconoclasm, really). To me people who chose to identify themselves with, and as, Jews are not inherently different from any other human and they deserve no more and no fewer rights and protections than any other human being.

    To join equality of rights and protections at the hip with anti-racism is a non-sequitur. Human rights and protections are being denied, willy-nilly, under the aegis of “human rights.” All peoples have the right to protect their genetic heritage, to live in their own homelands, to continue to exist.

    I will note here that while the vast majority of my readers are Anglos, they almost never complain about the “Anglo” part of my “AngloZionist” term.

    That’s because they don’t identify as “Anglos,” and because you have misapprehended them entirely as “sharing a racist outlook” with Zionists, which is true only in the most perverse, self-abnegating, philo-Semitic sort of way.

    First, racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than similarities within the group.

    Keep working on that, it’s currently half-baked, and makes no discernable sense.

    Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life.

    I’m a racist, and a racial nationalist, and an ethnopatriot, and I’m here to tell you that your definition here is so narrow as to be useless. Replace “somehow predetermine” with “influence” and you’ll have a workable criterion.

    Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.)

    This is long past its sell-by date. The number of western racists (I can’t speak to others’ beliefs) who actually believe this nowadays (outside of Zionism, at any rate) is vanishingly small. Racism among non-Jewish whites these days is overwhelmingly defensive and/or separatist in nature.

    I reject all three of these assumptions because I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

    God disagrees. How many times did he dictate racism to his “chosen people” in the Old Testament? Too many to easily count. God doesn’t fundamentally change his own nature; to do so would be contrary to the definition of “God.” Put another way, God didn’t just wake up one day and realize that racism was wrong and he had to change.

    Christ refused to help the foreign woman, telling her he had come only for the sons of Israel. He only relented and cured her daughter when she announced that her people, dogs that they were, could still benefit from scraps from the master’s (master race’s?) table. I guess he realized she knew her (racial) place and wanted to reward her ethnic obeisance.

    Christ chose an almost-Jewish group, the Samaritans, for his parable precisely because they were so similar to Jews. The Levant was the crossroads of the world. If he’d wanted to make an anti-racist point, he would have chosen sub-Saharan blacks, or sub-continental Indians, or one the many other exotic groups around at the time. Instead he chose the practically-Jewish Samaritans precisely because of their similarity; he was making a pan-Jewish-ish argument, the way a pan-European White Nationalist might argue solidarity between Mediterranean Whites and Nordic Whites.

    The Old Testament says that a people shall only choose their rulers from among their own kind, their own race.

    it is not racist or objectionable to criticize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Monarchism or Zionism. Criticizing any one of them, or even all of them, in no way denies our common humanity which is something which racism always does.

    Obviously this does not immunize you from charges of racism, since no one has time to criticize all of those idea-groups equally, and even if they did, the criticism would all necessarily have a unique flavor, owing to their differences. Thus, you will remain vulnerable to charges of “racist” focus on Judaism or Zionism or Islam, none of which has a primarily white/western constituency.

    Having said all that, none of the above addresses a most important, but rarely openly discussed, issue: what if, regardless of all the arguments above, using expressions such as “AngloZionism” offends some people (Jews or not), what if the use of this term alienates them so much that it would make them unwilling to listen to any argument or point of view using this expression?

    It’s a waste of time to worry about this. Jews are the least persuadable people on the planet. They are strongly ethnocentric by nature, and notoriously hard-headed. They aren’t introspective enough to persuade.

    I know that I got more angry mails over this than over any other form of crimethink I so often engage in.

    Your diction is not determinative. It’s which side you’re on. The hostility and emails will continue if you come up with a different expression. Now, if you stop criticizing Jews, or a movement linked to Jews, sure, that will do a lot to stop the hostility; surrender usually does.

    Okay, that’s enough for now, I might pick this up later.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The weird part of the “Anglo” part of your description is that the Anglo elites in Britain and America have never gotten along. Just look at the Anglo elite “debate” in Parliament on banning another member of the United States Anglo elite, whose mother was from Scotland. Put another way, the elites in Britain hate and resent the elites in America. (Of course, they demand courtesy and affection from Americans in return). I’m not saying there isn’t an “Anglo” elite, there surely is, as exemplified by idiots like Caspar Weinberger, who helped the Brits in their hour of need and was given some sort of trinket in return. I think it was one of those commemorative dinner plates with Charles and Diana on it.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Kosheria
    Talmudonia
    Semite-Supremacists
    Supremo-Semitism

    Askhenazi Semitic Pseudoreligionists

    Or, ASPs. This way, we get to use an acronym that happens to also be a poisonous animal. Like a WASP. Icing on the cake is that all Ashkenazis are “Semitic,” so it gets there by being redundant, like “White Anglo-Saxons.”

    “Jewish Supremacists” also works. It so perfectly fits global Jewish behavior; it far better describes global Jewish behavior now and in the last century than “Nazi” described Germany under the Third Reich (Jews have never been very conflicted about their own Supremacism).

    The lesson which Jews, and indeed everyone, should have learned from the fate of European Jewry in WWII is that it is good to have a homeland. Yet it seems that only the Israelis learnt that. Everyone else seems to have decided that it is bad to assert anything like the right to a homeland.

    Indeed. Boil down Jews’ (and their water-boys’) message and you get: “If you are white, your group must be killed in the millions before you have the right to an ethnic homeland like the Jews have in Israel; we would never say this to Jews prior to the 1930s, of course – they’re the Chosen People of G-d, after all – but we’re definitely saying it to you goyim.” Textbook special pleading fallacy.

    Your anti-Zionism is thus as much a part of the problem that Europe is facing as the whole multi-cultural agenda. It is a direct attack on the simple argument that it is in any peoples’ interests that they maintain a homeland.

    His anti-zionism, perhaps. But not mine. Mine says “your ideology and position are predicated on a special pleading fallacy, and thus invalid. As long as you refuse to recognize anyone else’s right to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel, I refuse to recognize Jews’ right to have what they have in Israel. Oppose me and I oppose you. Give aid and comfort to my enemies, and I will give aid and comfort to yours.”

    peteybee says:
    February 5, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Nobody cares about your hopelessly vague comment, obviously constructed to bring traffic to your blog.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Part II

    Yes, the risk is there, but only if you allow yourself to flirt with racist or even para-racist notions. But if you are categorical in your rejection of any form of racism (including any form of anti-Jewish racism), then the accusation will simply not stick. Oh sure, the Zionists out there will try hard to make you look like a Nazi, but they will fail simply because they will have nothing to base that accusation on other than some vague “overtones” or “lack of sensitivity”. In my experience, people are not that stupid and they rapidly see through that worn-out accusation of “anti-Semitism” ( a meaningless concept to begin with, as Michael Neumann so brilliantly demonstrates in his essay “What is Antisemitism?”).

    I don’t reject Zionism because it is ethnocentric. I reject Zionism because it is Supremacist. And not reciprocal. Manifestly and aggresively so. I believe all peoples have the right to ethnopatriotism and ethnostates for themselves, as long as they don’t attempt to rule over other groups or deny them their right to ethnopatriotism or ethnostates, etc. Zionism does both.

    The truth is that the Zionists are only as powerful as we allow them to be. If we allow them to scare us into silence, then indeed their power is immense, but if we simply demand that they stop treating some humans as “more equal than others” then their own racism suddenly becomes obvious for all to see and their power vanishes.

    Again, my racism rejects “more equal than others”; all peoples have a right (in truth, a duty) to their own living spaces, to preserve and protect their genetic heritage, etc. – an obviously racist belief system.

    It is really that simple: since nobody can accuse a real anti-racist of racism, then truly being an anti-racist gives you an immunity against the accusation of anti-Semitism.

    You’re big on definitions today: what is an “anti-racist”? You’d better cast an eye to those ranks, they’re in dire need of reform. All kinds of racism is carried out under that banner. In fact, “anti-racism” gives every indication of being inherently, if not deliberately, racist. E.g., when was the last time you heard an “anti-racist” complaining about Liberia’s constitutional character or immigration policies (hint: they’re black supremacist)? When was the last time you heard an “anti-racist” complaining that a non-white country doesn’t have enough white people? When was the last time you heard an “anti-racist” object to how white countries are the only ones that “anti-racists” expect to “diversify” themselves via open borders? Where are the “anti-racists” objections to Saudi laws concerning proselytization, the building of Christian churches, non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina, etc? I could go on like this forever.

    “Anti-racism” is obviously a meaningless term, insofar as you’d like “racist ‘anti-racist’” to be a contradiction in terms, which it clearly isn’t; the racism is baked into the “anti-racist” cake.

    “Anti-racism” is thoroughly corrupt. You taint yourself by association with it.

    “Israel Lobby” suffers from several major issues. First, it implies that the folks in this lobby really care about Israel and the people of Israel. While some probably do, we also have overwhelming evidence (such as the testimony of Sibel Edmonds) that many/most folks in the “Israel Lobby” use the topic of Israel for their own, very different goals (usually power, often money).

    How is that? It seems to me that the construction you’ve repeatedly made here, that Zionism/Israel Lobby/whatever is all about personal power, and not at all about Zion/Israel/whatever, is a house of cards waiting to be toppled. It makes no sense at all.

    Have the people of Israel really benefited from from the Neocon-triggered wars? I doubt it.

    Yeah, Jews are big on doing stuff that doesn’t benefit them. If you’re right, where’s the protest, the great outcry? Where’s the push-back in Israel? Why is Bibi on the way to becoming the longest-serving PM in Israeli history (assuming he hasn’t already)?

    Besides, this is clearly not only a Zionist Empire, the Anglo component is at least as influential, so why only mention one and not both?

    Proving that might be a good first step.

    Since when is expressing a doubt an endorsement of an ideology? This is crazy, no?

    Lol, don’t get me started. “I’m not convinced” or “I’m agnostic on the subject” is now “extremism” in the west, so triumphant is the Zionist/Holocaustian religion.

    The lack of any “Anglo” equivalents, BTW, is instructive. What can you say about “Anglos” that will get you into hot water?

    I personally came to the conclusion that the West became an easy victim of such “conceptual hijackings” because of a sense of guilt about having let the Nazis murder so many European Jews without taking any meaningful action.

    Which is itself merely a function of Jewish Propaganda Power. If they’d turned that power toward inculcating a sense of guilt about having let the Soviets murder so many Europeans without taking any meaningful action, that’s where the guilt would be today.

    I strongly believe that all 1%ers are exactly the same: they care about themselves and nobody else.

    America’s continued support of Israel, and Israel’s continued success in the face of supposed western values, argue to the contrary.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. We need a term for the place where all the thought-criminals are exiled to by the GLOB.

    Jewlag, the Gulag controlled by Zionists.

    Helen Thomas
    Rick Sanchez
    Jason Richwine
    Richard Spencer (in Hungary esp)
    Mel Gibson

    all ended up in the Jewlag.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. While it’s true that the Suprema-Semites or Supre-Semites have exerted tremendous pressure on Russia, much of the failure of Russia must go to the Russians.

    Unlike many smaller nations, Russia is in a unique position.

    A nation like Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Poland, Korea, Philippines, Croatia, Belgium, and etc. can easily be destroyed by the Suprema-Semites who control US as the head of globalist empire. Because of their limited size and range of resources, they cannot be self-reliant and must rely on international trade and globalist system as controlled by the Suprema-Semites. So, they must play ball or else be destroyed. I mean Suprema-Semites who control the globo-institutions can destroy Japanese, German, Saudi, or whatever nation’s economy almost overnight.

    But Russia is big enough that it could conceivably withstand international pressure.
    In this sense, Russia is sort of like the US. While the American economy would be harmed if the entire world economically sanctioned, US could sustain itself because it has enough people, resources, and etc. (Due to climate, one could say Russia is more like Canada than the US, but still, Russia has advantages most nations can only dream about.) In contrast, Japan would be totally destroyed without access to foreign trade. Same with Germany.

    So, it is in the interest of Russia to build a largely autonomous economy that will produce lots of jobs for Russians.
    So, why have Russians failed to do this?

    1. Too much corruption at top.
    2. Not enough rule of law.
    3. Low national character in work ethic and civic-mindedness.
    4. Too much swilling vodka.
    5. Too much dancing on tables.
    6. Too much wrestling with bears.

    Imagine if Russians could become good like Prussians. If Prussia could achieve so much on that worthless piece of land, imagine what Russia could do with tip-top Russians.

    The real war Russians must fight is with their own sickness of law, structure, and character. If Russians were strong in national character, they could withstand any amount of international pressure.
    It was because of Russia’s size and population that it could withstand Napoleon and Hitler. Even the Supre-Semitic putsch in the 90s. And the recent GLOB pressure.
    And consider how Red Russia was economically choked from all sides. So, how did the commies manage to survive? As Russia was huge, it could be self-sufficient and develop by using its own resources.

    [MORE]

    But Russia has thus far relied on quantity and mass than on quality and mastery.
    If Russians were to have the national character of Germans, civic-mindedness of Anglo-Americans of old, and law and order of Northern Europe, it would be unshakeable as long as they never lost their national pride.

    But with too many Russians acting slovenly, they will always lag and never live up to their full potential.

    I mean what kind of civilized people wrestle with bears?

    Great Britain is so little but why did it become so great?
    Discipline! It’s like what Colonel Brighton says in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA:

    “Dreaming won’t get you to Damascus, but discipline will. Look, Great Britain is a small
    country, much smaller than yours. Small population compared with some. It’s small, but it’s great. And why? Because it has discipline.”

    Jews are so small in number, but why are they so powerful? Sure, they got higher IQ but that’s not the only reason. It’s because they are organized, disciplined, and tireless. And they are united and focused on issues of power.
    After all, Germans are not higher in IQ by Russians — not by much anyway — but Germans have done so much more with far less.
    And Japanese only are slightly smarter than Russians. But why have Japanese, with habitable land mass of only that of Indiana, done so much more than the Russians?
    Russia must stop being the underachiever of the world.

    And for this to change, it won’t do to just blame Jews and Anglos. Of course, Suprema-Semites and Anglo-cucks-toadies are trying to bring Russia down and totally own it as a vassal state.
    Then, Russians must use this as an opportunity to really look in the mirror, identify their weaknesses, and fix up their national character, outlook, attitude, and habits and build a better Russia on something culturally and ethically more solid. But the ONLY thing Russia seems to be doing is hoping that gas prices will go up again so that Russia will once again have easy cash by selling natural resources.

    The problem is Russians are still barbarians at heart. Germans as a people were acculturated into civilization. Their inner-character was change and elevated. So, the basis of German social order wasn’t simply repression from top but self-control among the Germans as individuals. People think that because Prussia was military state, most Prussians were beaten into submission at all times. But in fact, most Prussians had self-control and discipline because those qualities had become internalized in every Prussian.
    This was due to the very active role that the Prussian state(through good schools and governance) and German Protestantism(by instilling strong moral sense on an individual level) played in the lives of the people. So, social order was achieved not only through state power but through moral elevation and habit-improvement.

    In contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church was about men with big beards bellowing and telling the masses to be stupid sheep who mindlessly obeyed the Tsar. There was no individual spiritual-moral content. It just saw people as sheep.
    Also, as the Russian state was corrupt and inefficient — Russians sucked at effective statecraft so bad that they had to import Germans to run things — that it only knew how to control people by beating them over their heads.

    And the people had lousy self-control since they were not properly civilized and acculturated and because they often lived close to bears who wanted to wrestle. If Russians obeyed the Order at all, it was out of Fear or some sentimentality than out of good sense and civic sense of duty.

    Compare a barbarian and a civilized person.

    Both persons can be made to behave.

    Even a wild barbarian understands fear. So, if you tell him, ‘You better behave, or I’ll beat up over the head with this stick’, he will behave. It’s like even a bear will behave if it knows you will inflict pain if it doesn’t behave.

    In contrast, all you have to do with a civilized person is put up a sign that says, ‘keep out of grass’ or ‘don’t pee here’, and he will obey. Being civilized, he controls his own behavior and understands the importance of laws. He has an internal mechanism of control.

    Now, what is the more effective way of control? Threatening a barbarian soul or guiding a civilized soul?

    Also, which soul can do more with freedom?

    If you let a barbarian be free, he will act like Big Boss Man and destroy everything.

    But if you let a civilized man be free, he will make machines and use the freedom to come up with all sorts of idears.

    Now, some degree of barbarian soul is essential, but it has to be controlled by civilized soul. One thing for sure, excessive civilized soul can become anemic like today’s Western Europe that is so into PC and obeying authority that it doesn’t even have the barbarian energy to fight against the invasion and suprema-semitic control of their societies.

    The great thing about 19th century America was that highly disciplined and civilized Anglo-Americans regained some barbarian spirit to build a great big continent of wilderness into a modern nation. In Andrew Jackson, we see the gentleman and the barbarian rolled into one. And we see some of that in Donald Trump too.
    So, some degree of barbarian soul is essential. Like with John Wayne and Ward Bond in THE SEARCHERS as civilized men with some barbaric spirit at war with the childish savages.

    But Russians are too barbaric. Even when Russians have acceded to socio-political order, it was more due to overt pressure/threat and Fear than to internal ethical-emotional mechanism. It’s like Stalin, like the Old Tsars, got people to obey by kicking them around like a circus trainer might kick bears and tigers. And even now, Russians still look too much to Putin and the state to solve everything instead of having any initiative themselves to make things happen. It’s as Russians, still being so barbaric, don’t trust themselves or each other and look to the Strong Hand to control everything and provide stuff.

    So, the great challenge of Russia will have to the change of national character.

    Because, unless the character is changed, Russia will always be vulnerable to better organized, more disciplined, and more clever forces from the outside and from clever fifth-columnists.

    Another thing. Russians need to learn to think more clearly. There is something to be said for Russian mysticism and spiritualism. Not everything in life should be rational, material, and logical. But sometimes, Russians get carried away with their mysticism and have a rather loopy way of seeing reality. And they get overly sentimental about stuff. When an Anglo-American saw land, he thought in terms of how to use it produce food. A Russian might hold a piece of dirt and think he’s holding Godliness himself.

    Consider the following video clip: Only Russian mystical logic could believe a son could be older than his father or that a clump of earth is holiness itself.

    Perhaps, the great advantage of America was that it was a case of HUGE NATION founded and built by people whose national characters were developed in SMALL nations. In small UK and Germany(or smaller German states), people developed virtues of cohesiveness, community, discipline, organization, and etc. Such character would have been more difficult to develop in a HUGE nation. It is like Japanese are more orderly than the Chinese cuz Japanese developed their character in a small cohesive community with closer link between the power and the people.

    So, even though both US and Russia are big, US was founded by people whose national character developed in small nations whereas Russia has always been inhabited by people whose national character was developed in a hugeness without much unity, organization, discipline, and efficiency.

    Well, Russians need to find a way to develop a small-nation character so that they will be more clear-headed, disciplined, organized, and clever in their thinking.

    Russians need to watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to understand what is wrong with Russia. Not by accident did Anthony Burgess use Russian-ness to suggest at the barbarization of Britain. (Unfortunately, he failed to see the far bigger danger of Jafro-Jiverishness, but I suppose back then, the mighty Soviet Empire loomed larger on British intellectual minds. The world of ACO is like a combination of American consumerism and Russian barbarism and British welfare socialism.)
    In ACO, the British youths have become un-moored from old social restraints. They roam the streets like gangs of futuristic cossacks raping and robbing and murdering like in the pogroms that scared Jews half to death.
    This future UK is becoming Russian-ized: coarse, vulgar, wild, boorish, etc.
    In contrast, there are still remnants of the Old British order and discipline that stand in such contrast to the Russo-ficaiton of UK. And we can see such in Chief Barnes, the kind of men without whose shoulders the British Empire could not have been built.

    British civilization culture:

    Russo-fied barbarian culture:

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. 1990 Iraq war was still illegal from multiple analyses from multiple angles. Its execution was immoral and illegal The follow up sanction was ilegall.

    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Hi Volga,

    It seems the world community gave Iraq ample opportunity to comply with UN resolution 660. Which, as I recall, was the demand for an unconditional withdrawal of all its military forces from Kuwait.
    It seems that after numerous other resolutions the UN Security Council voted, nearly unanimously, for the implementation of resolution 678….which was a final demand for Iraq to remove all its forces by a given deadline, otherwise the world community would act….to expel it.

    You can argue another analysis if you choose…but the record is very clear.

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Wow, the Hasbara reaction was swift and overwhelming. I am glad that I managed to put in my comment together with a few other normal commentators, before the expected avalanche of Hasbara crap drowned the comments.

    For some, it may be interesting to note that there was no reaction by the Anglos, only by the Zionists. It is my prior opinion that Anglos are mostly opportunists and first rate servants in the Anglo-Zionists assembly. This is why I have been arguing for a term ZioAnglos because it is better in describing who is really trying to rule the World through endless warfare. Also, it should not be forgotten that in the most of Western Europe serving the Zionist interests is still an important business: the Dutch, the Danish etc.

    I also single out SolontoCroesus comparison between Nazism and Zionism. I do not agree with this opinion completely, only partially, but I find it very positive that he dared touch the untouchable subject.

    Of the Hasbara, I read only the first short one from a new nick. Perhaps this is a lesson for the Hasbara – no point in writing under the same nick – people work out who you are and stop reading your crap. Must keep creating new nicks and using new proxy servers to post.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. “It seems that after numerous other resolutions the UN Security Council voted, nearly unanimously, for the implementation of resolution 678….which was a final demand for Iraq to remove all its forces by a given deadline, otherwise the world community would act….to expel it.”

    Aint it funny how the world community never pressured Israel to return Golan Heights or to stop occupying Palestinian land?

    And US rewarded Iraq for invading Iran in the early 80′s.

    And when US invaded and occupied Iraq, the world community didn’t do anything about the US like it did about Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. In the end, Might is Right.

    Also, it’s possible that the US tricked Hussein into invading Kuwait. US ambassador willfully or unwittingly gave mixed signals to Hussein. Back then, I thought maybe it was all just a mistake. Given more recent events, I think US pulled a dirty one on Hussein.

    Hussein was scum, but US sociopaths are no better.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. It sounds as if “Anglo-Jewish empire” would be more accurate for what you’re talking about. “Anglo-Zionist” sounds like it means Anglos who prioritise the defence of Israel.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    wrong on the facts.

    Saddam’s compliance was above and beyond the demands of inspectors, according to Richard Butler who was the director of the inspection team.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. US ambassador told that US had no ” position” on the internal Arab conflicts when Saddam explored the options to prevent Quwait from stealing oil.
    It was the relentless pressure from the Brtish Thatcher murderer who lampooned Bush sr and pressed for attack
    It was Israeli FM Levy who threatened to attack if west did not
    It was the well planned conspiracy of Lantos who focussed on ” incubator babies” killed by Iraqis to galvanize America. America got galvanized .

    Egypt was stopped by America to conclude a face saving deal with Saddam .
    Saddam agreed to get out

    There is war and then there is war . This war was targeted at Iraq as a society tobe degraded
    May be you should ask the Harvard Faculty, Pentagon strategist, Italian history expert and author of the book Coup de tat – A Practocal handbook Edward Luttwalk and an advisor to Reagan National Secirity why Iraq was attacked.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. ‘Anglo-Zionist’ as term sort of makes sense given that so much of world affairs have been distorted by the uber-national ambitions of Anglos and Jews.

    It goes back to the Crimean War, but it got really crazy during the Russo-Japanese War.

    Given that Russia is a white power, it would have made sense for UK and US to side with Russia. But UK was paranoid about Russia cuz of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world.
    And US too often followed Anglo-centrism and prejudices. Sometimes, US was right to follow the UK-lead. Other times, it was stupid, and the Russo-Japanese War was a prime example.

    Enabling Japan to win the war(though it was more like a tie with the advantage going to Japan) messed things up for everyone in the long run. It undermined Tsarist authority cuz Russia became the first white nation in modern times to lose to non-whites. That paved the way for revolution.
    And it was bad for Japan in the long run cuz it made it over-confident in Asia and finally against America. If Russia had won the war, Russians would have gained influence in Manchuria and Korea, and that would have been better for Chiners and Korons since Russians were more tolerant and willy-nilly than the the control-freak psycho-anal Jappers. Also, Russian aims were limited in Asia whereas Japan wanted to win it all.
    In a way, Japanese over-ambition was understandable given the historical context. For most of Asian history, China was the most powerful nation. And Japan respected that. But because Japan modernized first, it became the PREMIER Asian power. Now, if Jappers had a proper long-term view, they would have resigned themselves to the fact that China too eventually modernize and become the greatest Asian power. But once the Jappers got a taste of ‘greatness’ and respect(from white nations) as the premier Asian power, Japan didn’t want to let it go. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War would have cured the Japanese of hubris.
    If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have licked its wounds, gained sobriety, and accept its loss of role in continental Asia. But once it ‘beat’ even Russia, it got addicted to its role as the #1 Asian power. It could no longer accept the inevitable rise of China. It had to everything to prevent China’s rise cuz it would mean Japan would be #2 in Asia, not #1.

    Japan got its foothold on continental Asia with its defeat of China over Korea in 1895. Next, the Jappers were eyeing Manchuria. If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, there was no way Japan could encroach further on China. Also, it would likely have lost its influence over Korea to the Russians who, being more tolerant, wouldn’t have been as aggressive against the Korons.

    So, there would have been no Japan-China War, and China would gradually would have developed and modernized and surpassed Japan — and western powers would gradually have withdrawn from China. And since Japan would have learned its lesson by losing to Russians, it would never have dared to take on the Americans.
    Also, losing to Russia would not have been End of the World. Russia had no plan or means to invade and occupy Japan. Russia would have driven Jappers out of Manchuria and control seas near northern China. In contrast, when Japan lost to the US, it lost all sovereignty and became a total whore-cuck nation of America. And it is still a sorry-ass whore nation.

    So, imagine that. If Russia had won the Russo-Japan War, it would have been better for Russia, China, and Japan.
    But, why did Russia ‘lose’? Because of the damn Anglo powers. Brits made it difficult for Russian navy to get to the Pacific. They were denied the use of the Suez Canal.
    And not so subtly, US favored Japan too.

    Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Jappers as the honorary whites who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.
    UK and US developed such paranoid-hostile feelings about Germany. Anglos and Anglo-Americans were good civilized whites while the Germans were Huns and Teutons.

    To be sure, Germans and Russians are also to blame for seeing each as enemies when they could have been friends. Germany vs Russia in WWI was pretty tarded. Stalin realized this, which is why he was willing to work with Germany, but that Shitler decided to violate the pact and attack Russia and ruin everything.

    [MORE]

    It is the Russian Jinx. Every time some great white power makes things bad for Russia, its seismic effects mess up the whole world.

    The problem long ago was that UK and US saw the world in Anglo-centric terms and failed to see or acknowledge the important role Russia could play.

    Fast Forward to today, and we have the same kind of petty ethno-centrism messing up the world. Now, it is Zio-centrism with Anglos playing the role of cuck toady dogs. Zios now control US and EU. And Zios see EVERYTHING in terms of “Is it good for the Jewsters?”

    Given the rise of yellow Chiner, it would make sense for white Europe and white Russia to come together and grow closer. And given the massive population explosion of Africans and invasion of EU by the Moos(Muslims) and the Boos(black Africans), it would make sense for white nations to increase nationalism and national sovereignty and work with Russia as a great white power to fend off the darky masses.

    But instead, US and EU are doing everything to isolate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy.
    This is not in the interest of white Americans, white Germans, white French, white Italians, white Britons, and etc. So, why are US and EU at loggerheads with Russia? Because there is nothing Jews fear more than white identity and unity.

    Now, because of WWII and Holocaust, even those who call for white identity and white unity are not for persecution of Jews. If anything, most white right parties in Europe are pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So, why are Jews so worried? It’s because Jew are no longer satisfied with the good life under the rule of law in the West. They want Zio-centrist supremacist rule over the world. Jews totally control the US, and Jews want EU and Russia under total Jewish control as well. There are lots of Jewish oligarchs and rich Jews in Russia, but that is not enough for Jews. As long as there is Russian identity and unity, Jews fear it may one day check and restrain Jewish power.

    So, Jews are out to totally destroy white power. This is why Jews push massive migration of black Africans into Europe, massive homo propaganda, massive feminist propaganda, and massive interracism via pop culture. It is a way to drive a wedge between the most crucial racial unity, that of man and woman. After all, no amount of technology , science, economy, and government can create white people. White people can only be created by union of white man and white woman. So, Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men and ONLY white men. Jews use massive (jiga)boo and moo(slim) migration to make white women mate with non-white men. And Jews promote whore culture so that white women will go with negro studs than white boys.

    This is bad for whites, but Jews push such an agenda. As far as Jews are concerned, the interests of white folks don’t matter one iota. It doesn’t matter how much the white world is harmed and ruined as long as it is good for Suprema-Semitic power.

    More than 100 yrs ago, overweening Anglo and Anglo-American hurt Russia and set off a series of events that led to all sorts of disasters.
    Today, Zio-Anglo power is acting in much the same manner and once again against Russia for the sake of Zio-centric rule of the world.

    Anglos long ago failed to treat other great white powers — arguably with the exception of France — with any respect. And in its overreaching, events led to Revolution and the World War II.

    Today, Jews cannot accept a multi-polar world where Russia plays a role and China plays a role. But Jews are more willing to accept Chinese power since Jews figure — correctly — that whites in US and EU will never identify with China no matter what China does since China is an Asian nation. (And in the US, it is acceptable to be ‘racist’ against China, so there is a fair amount of yellow peril alarmism, and that means whites will always see the Chinee as the Them).
    But because Russia is white, European, and Christian, the rise-success-and-pride of Russia is a threat to the Jewish model and narrative for the West.

    Russia and nationalism. Jews don’t like. Russia and Christianity. Jews don’t like. Russia and anti-homo-agenda(as proxy of Jewish globo-imperialism). Jews don’t like. Russia and international agenda independent of Zio-global approval. Jews don’t like. Russia and its role in WWII as the #1 destroyer of Nazi Germany. You would think Jews would like this and be grateful, but Jews don’t like it since Russians are one people they cannot pin with Holocaust Guilt.

    Jews are now like Hitler. There is the combination of grandness and pettiness. Zio-globalism is grand cuz it has a grand vision of remaking the entire world. Likewise, Hitler was a grand visionary who wanted to remake the world.
    But if you’re gonna have such a grand vision, you have be for all peoples and nations.
    Hitler’s grand vision only served his petty prejudices. At least Napoleon invaded Russia to spread Enlightenment values(and rule by iron croissant, to be sure). But Hitler’s view of Russians was just to see them as slaves of German invaders. If you only care about your own people, then stick to your own nation. Bismarck’s vision and his actions complemented one another. He was for Germany and came up with policies that mostly affected Germans.
    Hitler only cared about his own kind and despised Slavs and other races, but he had global ambitions. If you have national ambitions, stick to your nation. If you have global ambitions, think about what is good for everyone. Hitler was incapable of such grandness of heart to match his grandness of vision.

    Likewise, Jewish zealotry is too petty for a grand world vision. Jews are less than 0.1% of the world population but Jews want to steer all of global power and events in the interest of “Is it good for the Jews?”

    Anglos were sort of petty too but not entirely. The Christian and universalist side of them did sincerely believe in some of that White Man’s Burden stuff. Many Anglos and Anglo-Americans were sincerely devoted to improving other parts of the world and feeling some degree of sympathy for the bloody darkies.

    But Jews? Just take a good look at Victoria Nuland’s countenance, and you know what it’s all about. The world must not be ruled by people with the personality and prejudices of, say, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, and Sheldon Adelson.

    http://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/G45232323.jpg

    http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/1/14/Salacious_Crumb_(DB).jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150525052822

    Also, even though Anglos were full of themselves, they never claimed to be perfect and were open to criticism from other peoples. And there were plenty of Anglo writers and critics who were harshly critical of Anglo over-reach, hypocrisy, and etc.

    But Jews? Even the slightest whiff of criticism of Jews is treated like Mein Kampf.
    Consider how Gregg Easterbrook ended up in the Jewlag.

    Jews are the most powerful people in the world but want to be seen and treated like the most powerless. Jews want the whole world to see Jews like the GOP does. Jews boss around the GOP, but GOP acts like it needs to protect poor poor Jews from all those ‘anti-semites’.

    Also, if Christianity and Marxism had some universal strains, there is nothing about Jews and Zionism that is about universal good or justice. It’s all about “is it good for the Jews?” and nothing else.
    When Zio-centrism is the most powerful animating force of globalism, we live in dangerous times indeed.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Hi Carthage,

    I know about most of these issues.

    It is not up to me, Carthage, to make a determination of the legitimate or illegitimate rationales for Iraq’s decision to invade Kuwait . It is not up to me to winnow through the various back room discussions, who green lighted whom, and when, or whether or not there was a legitimate opportunity for Iraq to avoid confrontation.

    That should happen in a deliberation of the UN Security Council.

    You can argue the Security Council is sometimes mistaken.

    But in the ways of men, and the ways of nations the Security Council is the best tool we have, however flawed it may be, to provide a check on wanton aggression and perhaps prevent the world from destroying itself.

    As it almost did in World War Two.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Hi Anonymous,

    I might be wrong on the facts.

    But in this case, I don’t think so.

    Rather you are referencing the wrong war.

    Maybe you should read U.N.S.C. resolution 678 and get back to me.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Yes, I agree with most of your comments.

    On the issue of “In the end, might makes right” what am I to say , Priss ?

    If I , while walking down the street, decide to randomly beat the living tar out of some poor shmoe walking the other way….Am I right by mere virtue of the fact I was successful in turning him into a bloody pulp?

    Am I Priss?

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Always entertaining. Always interesting.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    When I talked with Richard Butler in 2013 he told me that he and his team had searched Iraq more thoroughly than any other such inspection previously.

    Maybe Dr. Butler didn’t know what he was talking about. Maybe I should have told him to read UNSC Res. 678 and get back to me.

    Until Dr. Butler gets back to us, you may be interested in a conversation Vernon Loeb had with the son of Jack O’Connell, about the deal the (late) senior O’Connell helped Jordan’s King Hussein negotiate with other Arab leaders to resolve the Kuwait crisis without violence and without US intervention.

    Their efforts were brushed aside by George H W Bush and his advisors: the Berlin wall had just fallen and USA was no longer constrained in a bi-polar relationship; the USA was now the world’s sole superpower. Dennis Ross (you may recognize the name), Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft were key advisors to Bush; they urged him to invade Iraq to save those incubator babies.

    Mikhael Gorbachev was in frequent contact with Bush; he practically harangued him not to intervene in the situation.

    You know which team won.
    And which side lost:

    If one of your children was among those who died in Iraq, would you be just as uncritically confident of the competence of the UN Security Council and its “back room deals?”

    Your response about it “not being up to you to winnow through the back room deals” is, imho, an abnegation of the responsibilities of a citizen and a moral agent. If a person were wrongfully imprisoned or even executed because of “back room deals;” and if you had information that might exonerate him/her, would you remain silent because, after all, the legal system that included the corrupt judge that convicted the poor bloke, however flawed it may be, is the best tool we have to check wanton aggression?

    If a system is flawed, how does one correct its flaws if not by submitting its actions to critical oversight?

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. ” UK was paranoid about Russia cuz of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world.”
    And nary a mention of the tiny matter of India (i.e. the entire subcontinent plus Ceylon) and “The Great Game”, or even the Crimean War and its ostensible longterm causes. Jolly fine dodging of the ball, sir.

    ed.
    “In a letter to Queen Victoria, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli proposed “to clear Central Asia of Muscovites and drive them into the Caspian”.” -wiki
    Howzat for “AngloZionism”, eh?

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Once again you seem not to have taken the time to review UN Security Council res.678, anonymous, nor did you take the time to review my comment #6, on this thread .

    Had you taken the time to review either, you would not be making the comments you have chosen to…..at least not to me…..unless you are immensely stupid.

    UN Security council resolution 678 makes no reference to inspections in Iraq….nor does resolution 660…..They all reiterate to Iraq the unacceptability of “acquiring territory through force”, as in the invasion and annexation of Kuwait….They make no reference to inspections or Iraqs weapons programs….or possible WMD”s within Iraq’s weapons programs.

    Why would Mr Butler be “searching” Iraq in 1990….when nobody asked him to?

    Please get your facts right.

    In 1990 nobody was tasked with inspecting anything…there was nothing to inspect…they were not inspecting….but “expecting”……. Iraq to comply with international law and remove his military forces from Kuwait….ASAP.

    You are referring to the run up to the war in 2003…which happened 12 years later..and which I believe was an illegal war of aggression based on fraud (comment #6)….Please take time to review material presented to you. It makes it much easier for you to make criticisms or arguments that are constructive and helpful…..not stupid and irrelevant.

    If you want to discuss an issue with me, I am more than happy to oblige…but it is you , not I, anonymous, who needs to get the facts right, before that can happen.

    When you do…. please get back to me.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. “And nary a mention of the tiny matter of India”

    What would have been the point of mentioning India?

    Russia had no designs on India. It was British possession, and Brits and French(along with the Dutch) were the main imperialist powers in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

    As for Central Asia and Middle East, the main powers should have been Russia, the Ottomans, and Persians(whatever was left of them). After all, it was in their neighborhood.

    But that region was far far away from the UK. Brits had no business interfering there. Indeed, Brits had no right to rule over India.

    Brits interfering in Central Asia would have been like Russia interfering in Ireland.
    Russia was dealing with borderlands and neighbors. Brits were messing with areas far far away from home.

    Today, Jewish-controlled US does the same thing. It sticks its nose into affairs far far from the US.

    China deals with Asia, and Russia is involved with border nations.

    In contrast, US interferes everywhere. But it’s worse now.
    When US was largely Anglo-American, at least the interests of the elites were partly in line with the glory of most white Americans.
    But today, US policy is all about very narrow Jewish interests.
    Jews want us to believe that their hatreds should be our hatreds, but more and more Americans are not buying it.
    Also, if US was a decent moral nation in the past that stood for solid values of family and church, today’s America spreads homo agenda, tranny worship, decadence, ghetto gangster culture, and etc. The new imperialism is about pornifying the entire world. Jews use black jungalo culture and homo decadent culture to corrupt young people all around and to turn them into mindless sheep of Jewish finance.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Hi Kiza.

    You said, ” This is why I have been arguing for a term ZioAnglos…”. This argument doesn’t really make sense in English. In “Anglo-Zionists” (in English) ‘Anglo’ is the modifier, so the emphasis is already on Zionists. Now, I can’t be sure that this is how Saker meant it, but I believe he understands this principle.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. “… and also seeking to expand in order to provide for the very real physical needs of its population.”

    How’s that for chosen-ness! And to where were they expanding? And did the populations in those places have no needs? Or were those untermenschen just less deserving of the Lebensraum? This looks totally Zionistic.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. wow you are really obsessed with jews . Very heavily emotionally invested in this . How many hours per day do you spend obsessing and copy pasting this nonsense ?? Funny thing is it won’t change a thing . Wasting your life like this and nothing will change . Even other obsessives like yourself will read part of your 1000 word comments and forget them minutes later . And you will never take it to real life .Funny Ive never heard a single person in my whole life mention the

    alt right/white nationalist

    talking points in real life . The Alt Right/White Nationalist movement , changing the world one comments section at a time !!!!!!!!

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. I agree that it’s reasonable to talk about an Anglo-Jewish elite controlling policy making in the UK and the US, but I’m not sure if the term AngloZionism has much value outside the US. Other English-speaking countries are generally supportive of Israel but not to the same extent as the US. The BCC for example, is a lot more critical of Israel that the US mainstream media.

    It is fair to say that in most other matters Jewish and Anglo elites in both the US and UK Commonwealth countries are very much on the same page – free markets, open borders, financial deregulation, hostility to Russia, opposition to nationalist and populist movements everywhere except in the Ukraine, and the US and buddies serving as “the world’s policeman.”

    If the Angloshere takes a populist/nationalist turn then serious consideration to be given to affirmative action policies to ensure Jews are not over-represented in the media, government and education sectors. Ensuring Jews aren’t over-represented in certain fields is good for the long-term interests of both Jews and non-Jews.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. But the ‘holocaust’ storyline is an impossible & quite laughable fraud. It is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.
    Get over that and the major problems are solved. Just think about how that scam is used.
    Nothing changes until then.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Why is free speech on the absurd ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ illegal in Europe & Israel?

    Because it cannot withstand scrutiny, simple.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. 2 things.

    First, I don’t know the demographic make up of the arms industry, but I guess the stereotype would suggest that’s more of the Anglo part of the empire rather than the Zionist part. I bring this up because I really think that there has to be some PR guy somewhere who earned his pay when he figured out that the warvangelicals in America could be easily moved to basically support any policy as long as it was presented as having Israeli support. Not to say all American evangelicals are warmongers, but a large majority of them buy into the messianic role of America’s military to bring “justice” to the world, particularly in the Middle East.

    Second, on a completely unrelated topic. I always find it strange that Zionists like Sheldon Adelson, and other donors, as well as Israeli politicians, are constantly trying to influence American policy so brazenly. I would think that, after being victom of a genocide (along with the mass murder of Slavs in even greater numbers) and actually creating their own state, that they would focus on NOT having any political ties with other country’s and being purely isolationist. It’s just weird that after being scapegoated and accused of ruling the world behind the scenes, that within a single lifetime they would develop a whole system of influence on the worlds sole superpower (although that is quickly becoming inaccurate) which is probably in reality far more influential than anything they were accused of before WW2.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    you’re a bore, Alexander, but in a peculiarly officious way, like the fat smartass with zits on his face who tries to correct the teacher in freshman geometry.

    nighty-night

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Conceptually pure talking, race-ism is (or could be) the great emphasis on the matter ”race” as well happen with capital-ism.

    Is the context that give moral considerations to the abstract words.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Saker a Christian? It’s always Christians who reject the genetic-ness of Judaism.

    They think that if it’s only an ideology then Jews can be saved by Jesus.

    Jews have been inbreeding for 2500 years, and live in a manner such that dissenters are shunned and those not very good at Judaism get pogromed by the goyim they couldn’t dupe. Their ideological inclinations are bred in the bone at this point, just like their IQ and their sociopathy and suites of genetic diseases. If you were to put a bunch of babies on a desert island and leave them free of outside influences, when you returned 50 years later, you’d find the babies of Jewish descent running the banks, owning the presses, producing the pornography and committing the really spectacular white-collar crime.

    The wannabe Jews– the Christians– probably have selected for many of the same traits over the past couple millenia– the schizophrenic wannabe Judaism of the Jesus set is likely irrevocably in our blood now, too.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. What does ‘AngloZionist’ really mean? In a nutshell, it means that the American Empire is the continuation of the British Empire:

    They had the ‘empire upon which the sun never set’, we have the ‘new world order’.
    They had Lord Rothschild, we have the Fed.
    They had Lord Balfour, we have AIPAC & the Neocons.
    They had Halford John MacKinder and his ‘world island’, we have Zbigniew Brzezinski and his ‘grand chessboard’.
    They had the Boer War concentration camps, we have Gitmo.
    They had the Freemasons, we have fake ‘NGOs’.
    They have a figure-head monarch, we have figure-head president.
    They had rotten boroughs, we have gerrymandering.
    They had Ireland, we have Latin America.

    There is at least one major difference, however: while the British Empire had colonialism–i.e., sending poor white people to settle the colonies–we instead have reverse colonialism, importing destitute colored people from the (former) colonies to come settle the mother countries. Because of current birthrate differentials, they had to change that policy slightly.

    But otherwise, we’re very similar to our British forebears … mutatis mutandis.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Also, it’s possible that the US tricked Hussein into invading Kuwait. US ambassador willfully or unwittingly gave mixed signals to Hussein. Back then, I thought maybe it was all just a mistake. Given more recent events, I think US pulled a dirty one on Hussein.

    I agree. I now believe the whole thing was a scam to justify putting bases in the Persian Gulf, pursuant to the ‘Carter Doctrine’. Before 1990, the US had no bases in the Persian Gulf–or, as far as I’m aware, anyplace in the middle east. Ever since, we’ve continuously had some base somewhere in the Gulf. Hussein was a dupe.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. [quote]The weird part of the “Anglo” part of your description is that the Anglo elites in Britain and America have never gotten along. [/quote]

    Sir, I must disagree there. British elites made a conscious effort to curry favor among the elites of America starting in the 1890s. I believe the British were already planning to enlist American support in a great European war as early as the 1890s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement Also you should read “The Anglo American Establishment” by Prof. Carroll Quigley

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. [quote]As for Central Asia and Middle East, the main powers should have been Russia, the Ottomans, and Persians(whatever was left of them). After all, it was in their neighborhood.

    But that region was far far away from the UK.[/quote]

    Sir, you need to make further study of geopolitics. Britain regarded Russia and Central Asia as crucial areas affecting control of the entire world. Sir Halford Mackinder formulated his Heartland theory specifically about this area of the world. Mackinder’s theory was a formulation of the principles that drove British foreign policy.

    [quote]in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:

    “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
    who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
    who rules the World-Island commands the world.”[/quote]

    p.s. I recommend “The Empire of the City” by E. C. Knuth for anyone who wishes to understand Anglo imperialism and the financial power at its heart

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. racism is … the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than similarities within the group.

    Huh? I’m having trouble following Saker here. Does he instead mean: ‘Racism is the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than differences within each group’?

    That would make more sense to me.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Well that is understandable- Saker is very much the rootless fifth columnist. For some reason the Third Rome isn’t quite up to snuff for his needs so he lives in the belly of the Great Satan.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. I am surprised that you don’t try unpacking that bit of rhetoric and see whether, apart from whether there is worthwhile evidence that sheds light on the questions of fact, it actually has an ascertainable testable meaning.

    Who is he talking about and how does he know enough to ascribe characteristics? Most bloggers here are probably 1%ers in global terms and lots, certainly including Ron Unz, 1%ers in American terms.

    For want of any suggestion to the contrary let us assume that the Saker is defining his 1% by reference to net worth or after tax income. One only has to recognise that he must be including Ron Unz in his anathema to cause one to withold praise or assent to his vast overstatement. Indeed you have, surprisingly, chosen to approve a quite obviously much falsified overstatement. What about the philanthropies of George Soros, Warren Buffett or Bill Gates? How do you distil even some vestige of truth out of those overblown words? No, better tell us what you really think in your own words which acknowledge that simply picking up that empty rhetoric is a false start.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. I always find it strange that Zionists like Sheldon Adelson, and other donors, as well as Israeli politicians, are constantly trying to influence American policy so brazenly. I would think that, after being victom of a genocide . . . and actually creating their own state, that they would focus on NOT having any political ties with other country’s and being purely isolationist. It’s just weird that after being scapegoated and accused of ruling the world behind the scenes, that within a single lifetime they would develop a whole system of influence on the worlds sole superpower (although that is quickly becoming inaccurate) which is probably in reality far more influential than anything they were accused of before WW2.

    Yeah, kinda of amazing how “within a single lifetime they would develop a whole system of influence.”

    3000 BC all the way to 1948, Jews are pure as the driven snow. Innocent as lambs. Never harmed a hair on a gentile head, and certainly not a German head-hair; never attempted to influence or overtake the government of another state or people. Nevah evah.

    Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, as if some spaceship descended and performed an extra- planetary cosmic weltanschauung transfusion to the point (EPCWT, pronounced, Ep-quit)that now, and only now, are Jews actually doing the things that Jews have been accused of doing since at least the time of Esther.

    Dominique Francon Society”s narrative of history implicitly endorses the extra-planetary cosmic weltanschauung transfusion (Ep-quit) . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n295hjktHD0

    Dominique’s error is to have failed to acknowledge the existence of Jews as agents and actors within that history.

    For example, Dominique writes:

    Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Jappers as the honorary whites who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.

    But if this set of facts, from Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement,” is incorporated into the narrative, it changes dramatically:

    Point 1: As early as 1906 Jews organized and were wealthy enough, and had experience with, using wealth as a weapon:

    page 4

    “In 1906, as Czar Nicholas continued his anti-Semitic pogroms, men like Jacob Schiff, Louis Mrshall, and Cyrus Adler went beyond philanthropy and constituted the American Jewish Committee. These powerful men would now function as a special lobby concerned with political problems important to Jews. The Committee initially limited its membership to roughly sixty prominent men, led by about a dozen central personalities from the realms of publishing, finance, diplomacy, and the law. (fn 4} . . .Once united as the American Jewish Committee, they waged effective private economic war against the Russian monarchy. Their motives were not based on concern for East European Jews, but rather on a solid opposition to organized Jew hatred anywhere in the world. . . .

    Point 2: Motivated by animus toward the Russian monarchy, wealthy Jews who considered themselves leaders of Jews throughout the world, and who acted for Jews and not anyone else, used their wealth to incentivize and advantage Japanese to wage war against Russia, and to destabilize and disadvantage Russia in that war:

    page 30

    Jews also believed in the power of Jewish boycotts. It mattered little whether the real might of the boycott was the statistical business harm or simply the perception of it. Boycott was a weapon the Jews were ready and willing to use in emergencies to dissuade the forces of anti-Semitism.

    The anti-Ford boycott was but a commercial skirmish compared to the international financial war waged against Russian Czar Nicholas II by Jewish banker Jacob Schiff and the American Jewish Committee. The war began when Jews were blamed for Russia’s social and economic chaos in the 1880s. . . .

    Although America’s German Jews detested the unkempt Russian Jews, they were nevertheless infuriated by the barbarism of the czar’s persecution. Among the Hofjuden who considered themselves the custodians of Jewish defense, Jacob Schiff stood out as a central figure. A major factor in international finance, Schiff’s greatest weapon was money: giving it, denying it. After the notorious Kishinev pogrom of Passover 1903, Schiff decided to personally lead a crusade to force Czar Nicholas to abandon his anti-Semitic campaign. (fn 42)

    Schiff used his influence with friends and family in Euorpe to commit major Jewish and even non-Jewish financial houses to a banking boycott of Russia. (fn 43) And before long, Russia’s loan requests were in fact systematically denied in most French, English, and U. S. money markets. *** In 1904, after war broke out between Russia and Japan, Schiff lobbied tirelessly among commercial adversaries and cohorts alike to grant high-risk war loans to the Japanese, allowing them to score a series of humiliating victories. (fn 44) Schiff’s loans were officially recognized as the pivotal factor in Japan’s victory, and the Jewish leader was commemorated in Japanese newspapers and history books as a new national hero. (fn 45)

    *** not unlike what the 21st century iterations of Jacob Schiff — Stuart Levey and his partner Daniel Cohen– are doing to Iran and Russia (again).

    That flaw in Dominique’s narrative is but one example of how the spots have been erased from the leopard, then magically reappear as a result of Ep-quit — or of the whitewash having been washed away.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Why do you call Khodorkovsky a Jew – at least by clear implication? I was told by a friend who runs one of his charities in the West in answer to my assuming he was Jewish that he is Orthodox Christian.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. AshkeNAZIS are to europoids or white European groups as differentiate ethnicity as well Ethiopians are to africanoids or black African groups.

    Seems clear that there are a plenty of phenotypes which are very common and characteristic to the Jewish groups.
    of course there are Jews who will not be stereo-typically “looking-jewish” or armenoid but this don’t prove that they are not genetically linked.

    Jewishness is simultaneously a ethnicity-core with a common ideological/religious basis.

    Old Judaism seems was universalist and the racial diversity of Jewish groups express this past.

    Race become more cultural or relative in the borders between the two or more races.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. The Saker claims to be a Russian that hates anglo-zionism . Yet the saker chooses to live in the west in an anglo country (USA ) in a state (Florida) that is one of the most heavily zionist in the anglo world !!!!

    This type of unbelievable retardation can only get you loyal following in the brilliant alt right /white nationalist community . You guys would be worshiping Jeffery Dahmer’s corpse if he wrote in his diary that he hated jews and the holocaust didn’t happen !!!!!!!

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. I have a better term for “Anglo-Zionist”. Let’s call them “Presbyterian-Zionist”. The Presbyterians I know are maniacs who somehow believe they are also Jews in the literal sense because of their special covenant with God. Because of this covenant, which is a “sign” that their belief in predestination is coming to pass, these fools actually believe they, too, are “chosen”. It takes a special kind of insanity to buy off on this BS.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. General subject of the post by esteemed Saker is above my pay grade.
    But he writes:
    First, racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than similarities within the group.

    Does it mean that Saker promotes Lewontin’s Fallacy ? See

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

    His statement about non-existence of the notion of race reminds me one of the jokes from former USSR, the jokes about a boy named Vovochka Ivanov.
    *
    A teacher in class asks to name word, which starts with letter ZH.
    Vovochka jumps and shouts “Zhopa”.
    [For English speakers: it is Russian analog of “ass”, but not in the meaning “donkey”.]
    Teacher: Remember, Ivanov, there is no such word “zhopa”.
    Vovochka: Sounds strange to me, Maria Ivanovna: zhopa is there, but there is no such word ?!?
    *
    Ask any biologist, what is race (not necessarily human race), and you will get clear definition.
    *
    Also, I reject Saker’s right to speak in the name of all Russians as if all of them are Orthodox Christian believers. Yes, my late mother (1907 y.b.) was baptized into that branch of religion, my wife was baptized into the same branch, her mother was, I was not. Nevertheless, my mother and my wife, all my siblings and myself, we are atheists (or, may be, agnostics.)
    *
    The person (Saker) who writes
    I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image […] By that definition, the Church Fathers were most definitely …
    does not understand the meaning of word “definition”. Otherwise he should continue:
    “Albeit by some other definition … “
    No personal hostility. I wish Mr. Saker well.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. “the Soviet Union which carried 80% or more of the burden of destroying Hitler’s war machine”

    Yes, and it was the British, & specifically Churchill, who carried 80% or more of the guilt of causing & creating Hitler’s war machine.

    A Very Perfect Instrument: The ferocity and failure of [Churchill's] sanctions apparatus

    https://harpers.org/archive/2013/09/a-very-perfect-instrument/

    “the qualities of the English at their subtlest” ?? Was actually a not so subtle travesty.

    THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15776/15776-h/15776-h.htm

    Nothing occurs spontaneously in a vacuum. There’s always a causality chain.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. And humans reason via continuously refined pattern recognition, not just by knee-jerk pattern projection.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Brilliantly put. The name tells it all. “NAZI” is just Jewish slang for NSDAP, it never existed except in Jewish propaganda. (aka lies) And since the Holohoax didn’t exist either, they had to invent the invented perp to do the invented crime.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. “Ask any biologist, what is race (not necessarily human race), and you will get clear definition.”

    ?? I’m a PhD biologist & long time bio researcher. In all my experiences, the crude concept of race was always ridiculed as non-scientific.

    “Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

    No clear definition there.

    Perhaps you are conflating “race” with “species” ?

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Moreover, it is the clarity of picturing that makes Saker’s reasoning so powerful:
    “Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles).”

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. First, my apologies. In previous post I accidentally put only one letter from my handle.

    Dear Dr. Erickson:
    If I had conflated something, it was probably races and sub-species.
    Definition of different species includes mutual infertility. Definition of sub-species does not. I am not a biologist. But how about Lewontin’s Fallacy ? See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy The (modern, as opposed to Lewontin’s) idea of multidimensional space of properties, where different races belong to different clusters. Probably, Razib Khan is the best person to address this question on unz.com .
    Respectfully yours, IffU.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. “In my system, Saker is a well developed but nevertheless typical “type 2″: useful, intelligent but morally tainted right winger. (“type 1″ is the mindless regurgitator). See my system of political-blogger stereotypes here:
    https://spreadanidea.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/ukraine-the-frustrations-of-blogging/”

    Your system defines what you use to define others as if we are to accept your premise. And what if we reject your premise as to “Type 1″ or “Type 2″? You’re going to need a military to back up your rejected notions. The frustrations of blogging should come with a trigger warning for most because some of the filth scattered about as a result of frustration here and elsewhere is deep. No one defines the other. One expresses an opinion, the rest accept or reject. No system mandates what others will accept or reject. Certainly not YOUR system. My system, for instance, indicates to me that you’re a moron and have a higher opinion of your skills and opinions than you ought to.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Last paragraph says it all Marwin, good take. Now get ready for the shit storm from the Middle Eastern participants. Those are the ones that hate Jews, Israel and that cuddle with their goats at night. A story, every one.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I do not like the term simply because the average person is likely to misconstrue what’s meant by it. Not everyone is an initiate or has read an explanation of what it’s intended to mean. Writing is communication. In communication the reality is that it’s not necessarily what you are objectively saying or even what you believe yourself to be saying but rather what the other person believes you to be saying. Thus the average, casual reader is apt to be confused by terms which require an explanatory footnote. Which is not to say it shouldn’t be used at all, just that using it in headlines or in stand-alone ways might not be optimal but rather should be used within the body of the essay whereby readers could infer meaning through surrounding context. Otherwise there’s the risk of developing insider jargon that addresses just a number of readers. It would be best to coin new terms or phrases that are initially baggage-free where the corresponding meaning could then be assigned to it.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Nice read.

    Impugning ‘Anglos’ for the evils of Zionism is just as racist and wrong as impugning Russians for the evils of Bolshevism.

    Both the Anglos of today and the Russians of the last century are and were victims of the tribe- who were able to seize control of their respective governments and institutions.

    Yesterday it was the Russians who they had ‘by the hair of the head’. Today it is the West, or the ‘Anglos’ who you unfairly vilify IMHO even as the Anglo world, (the Western world) is dying from this parasitic scourge.

    Yes it’s the US who they’re using as their golem to smash anyone who looks at them cross eyed, but it’s also the US who is being bankrupted and whose young people are coming back in body bags or worse and are snuffing it in droves. The US is the most hated nation on earth, next to Israel, and for good reason. But not for doing anything to benefit the Anglo people. Hardly. As you point out, only a tiny fraction of the Anglos are the ones actually benefiting. And tens of thousands are dead or maimed or are reeling from the losses from all of these evil wars imposed on our countries by the Zionists, who control our governments and media absolutely.

    AngloZionist is fine so long as it’s understood that it is the governments of the Anglo world (and the rest of the West) that are raining death and misery upon the planet, and that the people of these lands; the US, England and the rest are also victims of this terrible evil that blankets the world.

    It is just as wrong and racist to blame the average white American or Brit for the evils of these wars as it would be to blame the average Muslim for the evils of ISIS. Or the average Ukrainian for the atrocities committed by Kyiv. Or the average Turk for the criminal stupidity of Erdogan. Or, for that matter the average Jew for the enormities of Zionism.

    But insofar as it is the US and England and the rest of NATO under the thrall of these assorted banksters and Zionists, the important thing is to recognize that there is a dire threat to the world that is Zionism, and it bully-dog NATO. Call it what you want to. May the world find a way to free ourselves from it. And pronto.

    Go Trump!

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. RobinG,
    One of the problems with whacking away at the lebensraum meme is that it reveals a fundamental ignorance of German history as well as of the histories of other peoples, like the Anglo- component of Saker’s thesis.

    Regarding the Germans, their reasons for seeking to expand were far different from the zionist project, as explained in the original comment. Please try to understand each group in its own, unique historical context.

    The German people were on their own land, land where they had dwelt and developed for millennia. In the course of their history they acquired other territory; they unified; they colonized on other continents.

    During WWI, as Andrew Cockburn details here: https://harpers.org/archive/2013/09/a-very-perfect-instrument/ , German civilians were starved to death by the British.

    The Allies could not defeat the German army on the military field of battle so they attacked their women and children.** Brave sots, that lot.

    Versailles treaty stripped Germany of all of its extra-continental colonies and large chunks of its territory in Europe. Germany depended on those possessions to feed its people. The combination of the present experience of having seen their women and children starve to death, and having lost the land that they needed to be able to feed their population as well as carry on the industrial activity that was essential to keep up with the technologically developing world of which Germans were, arguably, leaders.

    German leadership believed it was incumbent upon them to provide for their people and ensure that they would never again be starved into submission. For those reasons, they eyed land that was beyond the reach of British naval capabilities.

    Jews have written hundreds, maybe thousands of books about WWI, Weimar, Versailles, WWII. Very, very few of those Jewish authors include the fact that German women and children were starved to death in WWI. If Jewish women and children had starved to death in Germany in WWI, do you have any doubt that the world would know about it?

    It is reasonable to assume that very very few, if any, Jews starved to death as a result of the WWI blockade on Germany that cost the lives of an estimated 800,000 German women and children. (see The Politics of Hunger, by C. Paul Vincent.)

    As for the Anglo- aspect of lebensraum — does Manifest Destiny ring a bell?

    As for taking over other people’s lands and dispossessing them of their own homes, cultures, ways of life, etc., William Howard Taft was no slouch. Flip through The Imperial Cruise, by James Bradley.

    I am aware that I’m a broken record on this topic, but I think it’s important: The USA — rather, the Anglo-Zionists keep on doing the same thing: Anglo Zionists are attempting to starve — or economically impoverish and destabilize — Iran, Russia, and Palestine into submission.

    I don’t understand women who allow themselves to be associated with Madeleine Albright, who said “the price — of killing 500,000 Iraqi children– was worth it.”
    Hillary Clinton acquiesced in and endorsed Albright’s policies.
    I suppose I’m old fashioned. I thought women were the caretakers and nurturers of children; all of the women in my family functioned in those roles. The women in my life did not set out to starve me or or anybody else. That would have been considered a monstrous thing to do.
    If one of my kids had been starved to death I wouldn’t stop with just decapitating someone.

    The US government, incited and blackmailed by zionists, Jews and Christozionists, are doing just that. That makes them monsters in my book.

    Neither the German people nor the NSDAP set out to starve other people’s children in peace time, as the US, British and Jewish people and governments have done. Polish intransigence regarding the Danzig corridor was threatening the physical wellbeing of the German people; that is, during peace-time, and it must be said, in violation of the terms of Versailles which guaranteed rights to minorities– Poland was threatening the German people with starvation.
    It was the obligation of the German leadership to seek to remedy the harms their people were enduring. NSDAP attempted to do so by nonviolent means. Due to the manipulations of the Anglo Zionists, those attempts failed and Germany was forced to wage war to protect the German people. In the context of that war, indeed, Germany laid siege to cities and many people starved. War did not have to happen; that it did should not be laid at the feet of Germany.

    Robin, I am neither German nor Jewish. Neither are facts differentiated by their Germanness or Jewishness; facts are facts. And what is written above is based on fact and reality.

    If you have different facts, and if you align them in a different argument, put them forward and let’s hash it out, get at the truth of the matter.

    But please, stop with the lebensraum = zionism. It makes the proponent look stupid and it makes Bibi look like he OD’d on viagra.

    ——-

    **(Allies did much the same thing in WWII: the Wehrmacht was disciplined and effective; the British had neither money nor men to confront them. FDR to the rescue, and firebombing German women and children as a means of accomplishing what the British army could not.)

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. The Sacker swoops down on his prey again and again..just one example of many in his text….”but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind” (a very dubious claim with regard to the US which champions Racial Equality worldwide primarily for Commerce, with the only possible outfit that could out-do the US in this regard being the UN). As for the rest of White people, we seem to be divided about equally with regard to luving the darkies.

    (I assume The Sacker will throw even greater fits if and when The Trump is elected…despite Trump’s stated interest in normalizing things with Putin.)

    We Are All Equal is the US mantra. US Imperialism is thus the Imperialism of Race Equality and Universal Rights for Mankind….a strange combination of principles.

    The sacker continues his wacky argument with anti-biologism, and more heroics of race equality.

    He must be an older guy, like myself, who came up in the 60s and 70s movements of ‘civil rights’ and Vietnam and socialism, which was OK if one ultimately grows up and starts Thinking. Of course I did, that is, grow up to smell the stink of Humanity, or Dark Humanity, both literally and figuratively. Stink by the way is the Camp of the Saints novel’s olfactory assault on the reader’s sensibilities.

    As for genetics and the Jews, it will all come out soon in the scientific literature, that Semites, all of them…carry some genes that substantially increase the likelihood of odd and excessively hostile behavior toward out-groups.

    Martin Luther King, the womanizer, communist-symp, plagiarizer, and pied -piper of White fools, like myself at the time, is The Sacker’s totem animal.

    This guy is a relic of a bygone day, who is probably a covert admirer of Alexander (is it?) Dugan, the Russian Nationalist-Bolshevist who truly is wondrous to read.

    So, leaving aside the dubious “anglo-zionism”, itself an intellectually crippled notion, but one that can limp along amongst the innocents looking for an easy Answer, The Sacker has many in his bag I guess who love to hate the US White folks, as well as Hate the Jews . Another strange combination of left-wing anti-semitism, and political paranoia.

    Myself, I don’t hate the jews, they are just an enemy whose Darwinian goals of national/racial survival threaten my goals of White and national survival.

    The Sacker finds racialists to be devils…and what is particularly enraging to him I guess, is the obvious fact that all races are racialists, except a large chunk of Whites, who also, yes, cash in on that posture in international commerce, but who in the main are Nice people, welcoming (like the Europeans of late) but for whom also, Anger, long in coming, is at last arising against those who take advantage of White generosity. (This too must be driving the Sacker nuts.)

    The Sacker actually hates the World for not being Anti-Racist. Good luck.

    Joe Webb

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Last paragraph says it all Marwin, good take. Now get ready for the shit storm from the Middle Eastern participants. Those are the ones that hate Jews, Israel and that cuddle with their goats at night. A story, every one

    Hi Jim ,
    I don’t think there are any middle easterners or muslims posting here . There are guys like Rehmat , but he is just an alt right / white nationalist pretending to be a muslim to kill 2 birds with one stone . He trolls jews and other normal people and simultaneously makes muslims look even more stupid .

    The rest are just run of the mill alt right / white nationalists who weaponize Palestinians due to their jew hatred . They spend their time whining about palestinians but are completely silent about real genocide . 2 million black christians killed by the islamic republic of sudan and the janjaweed militia doesn’t ruffle their feathers . 500,000 papuans killed by indonesia will not cause them to shed tears . 1 million killed in darfur by the islamic republic of sudan will not prompt a comment from them . Boko Haram kidnapping christian girls and raping them and selling them in slave markets are of no concern for them . Afghani men buying and selling young dancing boys for the purpose of forced sodomy and sex slavery is not something that offends them . Do they really care about palestinians ? No but they are the only ones that they can weaponize against jews !!!!

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. “Presbyterians I know are maniacs who somehow believe they are also Jews’ – Is Trump presbyterian?

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. “I am neither German nor Jewish”

    I can assure you neither people want anything to do with a psycho like you.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. “Presbyterians I know are maniacs who somehow believe they are also Jews’ – Is Trump presbyterian?

    Haven’t you been listening ?? Trump is the savior of the white race !!!! You know the very same Donald Trump whose son married a jewish woman, and his jewish daughter who converted to judiasm after marrying a jewish guy .

    Hahahhahaha , this is the pathetic state of the alt right / white nationalist movement !!!!!!!!

    Their savior is a zionist with jewish kids !!!!!!!

    1.1 kids per white couple !!!!!! white power !!!!!! The superior race !!!!!! Down with anglo zionism !!!!!!!

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. While pursuing an explanation for my observations that the Caucasian ‘race’ [of which I am a member, decended from Highland Scots] is disproportionally inclined toward aggression, invasion, and empire, I happened upon a book by Canadian-based writer Michael Bradley titled – The Iceman Inheritance.

    I found it very interesting and as valid a reason as any other that I’d encountered.

    Later, as I searched on-line for more by this author I discovered that he had experienced sudden rejection – Warner Books had dropped the book almost instantly, in breach of contract. Two speaking tours by the author were cancelled because the organizers could not guarantee his safety in view of threats of violence by —- the Jewish Defence League.

    Bradley, who himself has Jewish origins, had never even thought about any “Jewish implications” of the book. Neither did the Jewish publisher of the original Canadian edition, Larry Goldstein.

    Bradley – “and, obviously, Dr. Judith Posner had not thought about any “Jewish implications” either when she wrote an Introduction for The Iceman Inheritance – unless, of course, courageous Judy Posner simply had more affinity with all of humanity than with her own ethnic group. Jews were blandly mentioned on half a page in the 226-page book”.

    For the explanation check out Bradley’s book promotion web site -

    http://www.michaelbradley.info/books/iceman/iceman_promo.html

    For info on another of his books – Esau’s Empire: Chosen People from the Caucasus – and some of his research and ideas -

    http://www.michaelbradley.info/

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. So what can be done about this 1%? Not much. It would be like declaring war upon the angels.

    This 1% is insulated by a mercenary army who do very well within this system, and they aren’t about to turn upon the hand that feeds them any time soon.

    Then you have inculcated beliefs that are treated as sacred. To notice and to criticize this elephant is to generate a negative reaction not only from the mercenaries but from almost everyone else to boot.

    They control the use and allocation of resources and they control the accepted system of beliefs. Short of divine intervention, you’re shoveling against the tide.
    ———-

    It seems to me that the only effective way to do this is to put culture and politics ahead of economics. This means to embrace a form of nationalism. The East Asians understand this better than we do.

    They have an elite, but one that understands that nation and thus culture, at least most of the time, need to outweigh reducing everything to some base economic value.

    This would mean doing away with all forms of Western universalism, including Christian universalism.

    The Europeans are better equipped to understand this than are American for reasons of history and culture.

    The next few decades will be interesting.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Very well said.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Samuel Untermyer was called “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe.”
    Untermyer, a deeply committed zionist, was a key organizer of the boycott by which “International Jewry” intended to “bring Germany to its knees.”

    His son married an Anglo — the daughter of an Episcopalian family.

    A grand wedding had been envisioned but had to be trimmed back to quiet nuptials in someone’s home because the mother of the bride was, er, indisposed.

    Hahahhahaha , this is the pathetic state of the Jewish anti-assimilationist zionist movement !!!!!!!!

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Thanks for the links!

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide.

    Jewish-dominated, certainly, but I don’t see much evidence of an attempt to make Israel Goyenfrei.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Anonymous
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Who cares where he lives. America is still a free country for now anyway.

    Also, not everyone who criticizes Jews is an antisemite or is obsessed. Jews hold a lot of power in the world so Jews getting blamed for a lot of things makes sense.

    The only obsession I see is your own racist tendencies to see the whole world being antijewish.

    • Agree: Soarintothesky
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. ” 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt.”

    Hardly exclusive to the power brokers of one or two cultures. Those who get to the top in most cultures, not least Russia, tend to have this characteristics. Hard to stick a messianic ideology on the British. Anglicanism? It lead to the abolition of the slave trade and slavery first time anywhere for an Empire.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. “Who is he talking about and how does he know enough to ascribe characteristics? Most bloggers here are probably 1%ers in global terms and lots, certainly including Ron Unz, 1%ers in American terms.”

    Far too rational for this debate or the original coiners of the term who failed to Occupy Wall Street.

    He thinks 9/11 was an inside job and is probably anti vax.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Geopolitics is a tool of people who already know who they hate.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Being Orthodox and being Christian are not the same. There are Russian Ariosophists who claim to be Orthodox! And its hard to see the join.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Russia’s first attempt to invade India was in 1801. The army collapsed before it left Russian territory. Alexander II, a committed republican and admirer of Napoleon, intended to conquer the whole of India with force. At the time, the British presence, already 200 years old, was subject to native rule, de jure and remained so for 66 years.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. It takes a certain kind of personality to reach the top in large bureaucracies. Entrepreneurs are a bit different in their skill set. So are those who inherit their power. But none have much scope for real action. Since 2012 Putin has followed his whims with very negative results despite tactical successes. If Ashkenazi Jews are really more intelligent (and forced by prejudice into a narrow range of professions) then there will be more at the top. Other closed ethno-religious groups that value education (examples – Armenians, Levantines, Parsees, some Hindu castes overseas – Mr Patel anyone?) do very well in the narrow spheres their host communities channel them into.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Even the Wikipedia article you mention admits that Lewontin’s thesis is broadly accepted, and not a fallacy.

    Making a big to-do about phenotypic groupings can be of some use for fanciers of dogs, horses, etc … but has found no utility in human endeavors, outside of various sports or other, tiny markets.

    Even accepted “breeds” are not, however, called races. Races are a purely subjective topic, of mostly historic interest.

    Even when wildly different phenotypes of people develop, we’re usually more interested in the hybrid vigor that often occurs when they interbreed, as in homo sapiens + Neanderthal + Denisova, which has been much in the news of late.

    Yes, I’ve followed Razib’s articles here with some interest, but they’re not germane to this old concept of races. Genetic molecular markers have been very useful in elucidating the movement and inter-breeding of ancient populations … which is contrary to and more interesting than the concept of races.

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Sort of like samizdat that way.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Dear Dr. Erickson:
    You may want to read FAQ by another prominent author:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-race-faq.html

    From there:
    Q. Why do you talk about race so much?

    A. Most human beings talk about race a fair amount. I write about it.

    Q. Why do people care about race?

    A. Why do people care about who their relatives are? Maybe they should care, maybe they shouldn’t. I’m not here to preach morality. But people do care, so it’s important to understand the implications.

    Q. What’s race all about?

    A. Relatedness.

    Race is about who is related to whom.

    Q. Do you mean a race is a family?

    A. Yes, an extended family. (To be precise, a particular type of extended family, one that’s more coherent over time than the norm, a distinction I’ll explain below.)

    Q. Race means family? I’ve never heard of such a thing!

    A. It’s remarkable how seldom this concept essential to understanding how the world works is mentioned in the press. Yet, in my Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, the first definition of “race” is:

    “1. A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.”

    Q. If races exist, then, pray tell, precisely how many there are?

    A. How many neighborhoods are there in the place where you live?

    For some purposes, an extremely simple breakdown into, say, City vs. Suburbs is most useful. For other uses, an extremely detailed set of neighborhood names is helpful: e.g., “The proposed apartment complex will aggravate the parking shortage in Northeastern West Hills.”

    Similarly, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like.

    For instance, should New World Indians be considered a separate race—or merely a subset of East Asians?

    Every system of categorization runs into disputes between “lumpers” and “splitters.” Whether lumping or splitting is more appropriate depends upon the situation.
    …………………….
    Read the rest FYE (Entertainment).

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Even by the low standards of spammy, self-linking bloggers the linked post sucks.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Also, it’s possible that the US tricked Hussein into invading Kuwait. US ambassador willfully or unwittingly gave mixed signals to Hussein. Back then, I thought maybe it was all just a mistake. Given more recent events, I think US pulled a dirty one on Hussein.

    I love this idea that the poor Iraqi Muslim despot was tricked into invading Kuwait (so America could smash them) by some female nobody in the American State Department. Never mind that Muslims are misogynists who don’t trust the word of women. Never mind that “we don’t have a position” from some nobody in the State Department is about as valuable as a couple squares of toilet paper. How about the fact that we told Saddam, and the entire world, that we’d kick his ass if he didn’t pull out of Kuwait? How about the fact that if Saddam really thought he should get the west’s blessing, he’d go to the UN or at least to the USG and get public guarantees?

    It’s amazing to me, how deliberately obtuse a lot of “anti-war” types are.

    wow you are really obsessed with jews . Very heavily emotionally invested in this . How many hours per day do you spend obsessing and copy pasting this nonsense ?? Funny thing is it won’t change a thing . Wasting your life like this and nothing will change . Even other obsessives like yourself will read part of your 1000 word comments and forget them minutes later . And you will never take it to real life .Funny Ive never heard a single person in my whole life mention the

    alt right/white nationalist

    talking points in real life . The Alt Right/White Nationalist movement , changing the world one comments section at a time !!!!!!!!

    And yet here you are, obsessing about us. What does that say about you? Puts you somewhere below us, it would seem.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Even the Wikipedia article you mention admits that Lewontin’s thesis is broadly accepted, and not a fallacy.

    Even Tom Cruse admits that Scientology is true.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. “…it is good to have a homeland. Yet it seems that only the Israelis learnt that.”
    Hopefully you do not speak for the Jewry worldwide, don’t you? The above article is not about “homeland” (on what basis, by the way, ethnic, religious?), but about this principle: “… Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles). It assumes the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives…”
    The consequences of this principle are the following: 1. The Jews are inherently disloyal to the country of their dwelling (if this country is not Israel), and 2. The Jews treat any country but Israel the same ways a parasitoid treats its host, that is, exclusively for the benefits of the parasitoid and to the detriment of the host. This ugly picture does depict the US/UK ziocons. But it is not true when related to anti-zionists of whatever ethnicity.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Hard to stick a messianic ideology on the British.

    Is this satire? You’ve heard of “the Enlightenment” perhaps?

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. “…Jews have less power than NW Euro Americans, but they use it in a far more effective way.” –– You mean less scrupulous? But this is exactly the point that the Saker has made.

    “I’m a racist, and a racial nationalist, and an ethnopatriot.” Great, but could you practice your nationalism and ethno-patriotism in a country to which you are a loyal citizen, namely, Israel? Otherwise, as a self-proclaimed “nationalist and ethnopatriot” you would be rather irritated when some of your fellow-citizens kept their loyalty to some other “homeland” than your nation. Here is a key to the Saker’s article:”Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles)…”

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. And who can forget the plaintive story of the witness decrying the murderous Iraqi’s ripping Kuwaiti babies from incubators and basing their brains out?

    Too bad the lying bitch turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter.

    Then there was was nonsense about the 250,000 Iraqi troops amassed on the Saudi border that Bush assured us he had the usual secret evidence of that was also lies.

    Any US resolutions based on lies from the murderous American filth are invalid.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. “Khodorkovsky’s father was Jewish, and his mother was Russian Orthodox.”

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

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Was the “Anglo” British Empire really ”Anglo” or was it the enforcement arm of Jew trading firms and Rothschild banking?

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. You seem to be obsessed with what other people think about Jews. Do you spend all your time following the comments sections looking for some criticism of Jewish people that will allow you to be offended so you can act “holier-than-thou” and sneeringly comment about how much better than every one else you are? Get a hobby or an interest in music or art, stop obsessing about the beliefs of other people.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Have felt for a long time, that the seat of Jew tribal power is the Rabbi and the synagogue.

    The Big Jew, the 1% Jew, can do whatever they want because the Little Jew, the 99% Jew, has been conditioned by the Rabbis to follow their leaders. The Rabbi cracks the whip!

    “The Mufti did it” Netanyahu can say one asinine thing after another because the Rabbi is looking down his nose at all his people (victims) with a “you better not publically disagree” stare.

    The lemming 99% Jew will follow his 1% Jew into hell. It has happened many times throughout history.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. I watched the youtube video of the “Israeli PR hack”, and I was also immediately struck with how he neglected to connect the dots between some of the migratory Jews reaching the highest position of power and influence and the subsequent reactionary anger, violence and even exile by the indiginous population. I don’t think you explain it concisely and clearly, though. I think a few points must be clarified. First, the Jews who reach the positions of power and influence, in government, labor, media, industry, etc., do not represent the entire population of Jews. Second, they are not just “tricksters”. They act under the prime motivation of what is good for the Jews, not what is beneficial to the state, community, etc in which they live. I feel that this is a vital point; this hack wants to attribute the “victimology” of the Jews over millenia to the goys and their inherent “antisemitism gene”, when he should be looking at the actions of the Jews who reach the high positions, and the fact that the victimology of the Jews is due almost entirely to their actions, not some fabled hatred of Jews by the nations.

    Think about it. How often have you seen Jews throughout history actively criticize the actions of the Jewish community or religion, and there is plenty in the Talmud for any humanist to want to attack. More importantly, what happens to those Jews in reference to the Jewish community. Labeled “self-haters”, they are ostricized at best. Shahak called on Jews to be introspective, recognize and apologize for the wrongs that they have committed. Have you seen it?

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Thanks. So probably Orthodox and indeed technically not able to be Jewish without becoming a convert.

    Do you know anything about the typical cultural affinities of Russians whose fathers are Jews who marry Orthodox Christians? Secular urban liberals (European sens) one would suspect.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. , You are free to ignore it. Have a nice day :-)

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. “One expresses an opinion, the rest accept or reject.”

    Which I did, and you’re rejecting it, and that’s fine.

    My opinion was that the Saker, who by the way I think has plenty of valuable things to say, also fits neatly an archetype which I described. In other words a “system”. Love it, hate it, ignore it, piss on it. You’re a free man, do what you want.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. It really should be Anglo-American-Zionists. Because the U.S. has been the one calling the shots since WWII, and no matter how entangled with the mother country is our establishment, saying “Anglo” without “American” or mentioning the U.S. makes it sound like it’s a British-Jewish thing. Which considerably weakens the menace. I mean, come on? Where would the New World Order be without our money, weapons, and willingness to use them.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Your post is your fantasy. You make up definitions for words and then say that your definition matches your argument so it somehow proves your point. How bizarre.

    Zionism is just the belief that the Jews should have a homeland.

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. It was really British. You’re somehow discrediting yourself even further by terming the Brirish Empire a Zionist conspiracy.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Have felt for a long time, that the seat of Jew tribal power is the Rabbi and the synagogue.

    Your feelings are completely irrelevant. I doubt most Jews ever speak to a rabbi. Watch ‘This is where I leave you’ to see how normal western Jews perceive their rabbis. (He gets punched in the crotch repeatedly and is made fun of remorselessly)

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Think about it. How often have you seen Jews throughout history actively criticize the actions of the Jewish community or religion, and there is plenty in the Talmud for any humanist to want to attack. More importantly, what happens to those Jews in reference to the Jewish community. Labeled “self-haters”, they are ostricized at best. Shahak called on Jews to be introspective, recognize and apologize for the wrongs that they have committed. Have you seen it?

    Yes, half of Hollywood films, for example…are you totally bloody blind?

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anyone who wants to understand “Anglo-Zionist Imperialism”, I recommend them to read ‘The Empire of the City’, by E C Knuth. This little book written in 1944 really gives one an understanding in my opinion.

    http://arcticbeacon.com/books/E_C_Knuth-The_Empire_Of_The_City,1944.pdf

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. What characterizes civilization post WWII is the utter rejection of empires. Empires and empire building are recognized, universally, as criminal enterprises.

    Well…. no. What changed was the rules for empires. Overt, Nineteenth Century style imperialism just isn’t the cool way to do empires anymore. I think there was a genuine recognition on the part of FDR that imperial drives were a force of oppression and war. Forcing Britain to renounce imperial war aims with the Atlantic Charter was also good politics since much of the resistance towards the US joining the fight against Germany arose from the (correct) sense that the US got snookered into fighting for the imperial aims of Britain and France during WWI. The Atlantic Charter laid the foundation for the UN Charter. Winnie still did everything he could to find a way to steer the war effort towards his imperial aims, to the detriment of allied strategy. He tended to let his imperial desires take his eye off the ball when it came to the best way to defeat Germany. Maybe he figured that the Atlantic Charter would be a disposable piece of paper once the war was over. Having 51 nations sign on to those principles with the UN Charter in 1945 made them harder to walk away from.

    The postwar resurrection of empire illustrates the principle of “where there’s a will there’s a way.” The will to maintain economic dominance over the postcolonial world was resourceful in capitalizing on two elements of the postwar environment, the Breton Woods financial system and the Cold War standoff. Breton Woods was founded on a good purpose, to stabilize finances in the postwar environment and mitigate the war debt situation. It soon became an instrument to privilege the financial position of the Euro-Atlantic powers against the postcolonial world. Dictating the terms of finance and trade using the authority of institutions “for the greater good” became the preferred means of imperial domination. Having the seat of imperial power in financial centers rather than national capitals made it more difficult to recognize, but its effects remained very real. Fighting “Communists” or “defending the free world” was a way to gain a waiver from the UN Charter when more forceful means were desired. France overtly flouted the UN Charter under that guise in Indochina. More recently we’ve seen those same goals pursued under the pretense of fighting evil dictators and terrorists in general, while the empire has no qualms about supporting evil dictators and terrorists that serve their purposes.

    The other insidious change in the nature of empire was the consolidation of financial, trade, and policy power in transnational institutions in the late Twentieth Century that put the developed world under economic colonialism akin to that experienced by the postcolonial world. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are campaigning against different aspects of that arrangement, but they’re campaigning against fundamentally the same thing while appealing to vastly different sensibilities.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Tramp is the new jewsus, but with some liiiiitle more shekkkels….. ;)

    A LOT of white people even when look for REALITY continue to refuse to accept it….

    Tramp have a lot of jooische friends,

    their sons are married with jewish persons,

    blablablablabla

    White nationalists are pawns, to promove a race war. Blacks against whites …. while the great responsibles of all this shit ” irish exit ”.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Steve Sailer, 2016 / 02 / 12 (Friday, February 12, 2016)
    Q. Does Race Exist? A. It’s Good Enough for Government Work.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-finland-idUSKCN0VL0UE

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Zionism is just the belief that the Jews should have a homeland.

    One slight modification and your statement is accurate:

    “Zionism is just the belief that the Jews should have a Jews only homeland.”

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Well, let’s see:
    This is a quote from your post: “…it is good to have a homeland. Yet it seems that only the Israelis learnt that.”
    This is my comment: “Hopefully you do not speak for the Jewry worldwide, don’t you? The above article is not about “homeland” (on what basis, by the way, ethnic, religious?), but about this principle: (a quote from the Saker:) “… Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles). It assumes the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives…”
    This is my comment to the Saker’s concise definition of Zionism, which seems to be intolerable for you: “The consequences of this ideology are the following: 1. The Jews are inherently disloyal to the country of their dwelling (if this country is not Israel), and 2. The Jews treat any country but Israel the same ways a parasitoid treats its host, that is, exclusively for the benefits of the parasitoid and to the detriment of the host. This ugly picture does depict the US/UK ziocons. But it is not true when related to anti-zionists of whatever ethnicity.”
    My point was that if the Jewish people think that their loyalty should be dedicated to Israel first and foremost, than this kind of nationalism is highly harmful for the countries where the Zionists decide to dwell. See the US misadventures in the Middle East (PNAC?), the indecent spectacle of Lobby” influence on the US Congress (who is Netanyahu for the American citizenry?), and the assault on the freedom of speech and academic freedoms by the Ziocons.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. A Jewish majority homeland…which is what a Jewish homeland is duh! It is also perfectly reasonable.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Zionism is just the belief that the Jews should have a homeland.

    Zionism is the belief on the part of groups and leaders of the Jewish community that someone else should pay for and support Jewish-only enterprises, and also that Jews are entitled to extraordinary privileges and dominance in other people’s homelands, which is a core argument in this essay on Unz.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Well , Thirdeye , It is precisely for the reasons you mentioned that the world is so F#cked up.

    Considering that the US is now fully 19,000,000,000,000.00 dollars in debt…and the world currently has close to 60,000,000 refugees from war torn areas roaming the earth…..conducting business like an empire, while pretending not to be one, has not produced very stellar results.

    As a matter of fact….one could only conclude it is an absolute catastrophe, on nearly every level, everywhere you look, both at home and abroad.

    Except, I suppose, for the .01 percent, who have increased their wealth a hundred fold(if not more) on the backs of everyone else.

    If an empire exists at all, today, it is truly an Empire of Fraud, concocted by and for the one percent alone, whom it seems could care less about the United States as a nation with a future….. but sees it, quite malevolently, as a tool from which to extract more money and inflict more pain.

    This is not a very healthy situation, short term, long term, and just about any which way.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Wrong. Read ‘The Jewish State’ by Herzl.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding, Zionism simply means the belief in the legitimacy of a homeland for the Jews. Jew is a category which is mostly ethnic, although quite complicated and obviously a homeland requires that the core ethnicity be a (democratic) majority.

    I support this a hundred percent. Who wouldn’t?

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Except, I suppose, for the .01 percent, who have increased their wealth a hundred fold(if not more) on the backs of everyone else.

    WASHINGTON — The hedge fund manager boasted that he had traveled to “every country” in the world, [on taxpayer's dime?] studying overseas stock markets as he fine-tuned an investment strategy to capitalize on global companies’ suffering because of economic or political turmoil.

    But the fund manager had an even more distinctive credential to showcase in his marketing material in June 2013: He was a “U.S. congressman,” Representative Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Now he is also among the leading Democratic candidates for one of Florida’s United States Senate seats. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/alan-graysons-double-life-congressman-and-hedge-fund-manager.html?_r=0

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. It is also perfectly reasonable.

    Perfectly reasonable, indeed. We all see how well the Zionist project is reasonably maintaining its Jewish majority by reasonably dealing with the demographic time bomb in a reasonable manner.

    Why, who in his right mind could complain about such a reasonable endeavor? Ok ok, so creating an enthnocracy in the middle of the Muslim world admittedly may not have been a great idea, but with a little perseverance we might get it to work. All we need to do is highjack the FP of the world’s leading military and get them to do us one small favour – declare a War on Islam (aka GWOT) in order to remake the ME by regime changing those countries deemed hostile to us, all in an effort to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    Seems perfectly reasonable to me…. duh!

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Stop adding nonsense. Israel is a perfectly sensible, if small, place to serve as the homeland for Jews. The rest of your post is just your fevered imaginings.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

    Right, and no doubt you are unable to tell the difference between a Chinese and a Australian aboriginal, or between and Eskimo and a Sephardic Jew, or between a San bushman and a pigmy.

    Why is it that people who don’t know what they are talking about presume to tell the world that the term “race”, a perfectly valid, useful, important concept in biology, is meaningless?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. …and obviously a homeland requires that the core ethnicity be a (democratic) majority.

    I was surprised you had the courage to, albeit parenthetically, insert the word “democratic” in this sentence. Because I too support nations, especially old world nations, that strive to preserve their historic, linguistic, and cultural heritage and identity. But, that said, I do so, so long as those nations adhere both to domestic and international law… something that cannot be said about your pet project, unfortunately. That’s why I disagree with your concluding statement: “I support this a hundred percent. Who wouldn’t?”

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. The rest of your post is just your fevered imaginings.

    “Fevered imaginings” LOL..

    How did I guess this would be your retort? Ever heard of two professors Mearsheimer and Walt, one from Chicago the other from Harvard?

    Have you ever read Ch 8 of their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy? You should, as it provides the incriminating evidence that the Iraq war was pushed by the Lobby to enhance Israel’s security:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.” http://mailstar.net/iraq-war.html

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. I don’t care a hoot about international and domestic law. Whatever they are this week. Also by democratic majority I really meant one which decides elections, so 51 percent would not cut it really as inevitably there will be splits. It should be minimum 80 percent, better over 90 and ideally over 95 percent. Though the ideal is rarely achievable and 80 percent is good enough if it means you avoid having to act in an inhumane manner.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. I don’t care a hoot about international and domestic law. Whatever they are this week.

    Somewhat surprising, given the extent to which international law was brought to bear against the nazis.

    btw – this demonstrates the fundamental difficulty the defenders of the Zionist project have – the requirement for consistency. From one side of their mouth, they play the moral card, from the other they play the “might is right card”… and the card they choose to play depends on whichever one suits them best. Anyone for a game of power?

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Correction: “Anyone for a game of poker?”

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Somewhat surprising, given the extent to which international law was brought to bear against the nazis.

    If you’re referring to Nuremberg that was not “international law,” that was a kangaroo court.

    http://www.spectacle.org/596/nurem.html

    “No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”
    U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
    Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.

    1. The charges pressed against the defense were created In Post Facto, meaning that they were created after the acts had already been committed. At the time that the German officials on trial committed the various atrocities for which they were charged, no international law specifically banned their actions. The prosecution was therefore able to construct their charges to maximize the rate of conviction. Most national legal codes, including the law of the United States, stipulate that a crime must have been illegal at the time the act was committed in order to charges to be pressed.

    2. The Nuremberg Trials were meant only the punish Germans and not all those who had committed reprehensible acts during the war. Given that the charges were created after the crimes, it is suspicious that not of the questionable actions undertaken by the Allies were brought up. Both sides bombed large numbers of civilians, a notable example of this being the firebombing of Dresden by Allied forces. This was notably left out of the definition of both “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes” though it can easily be seen as either. It follows from this that the court was not interested in punishing actual crimes that had been committed, but simply in punishing the German leadership.

    3. The main indictments of the Nuremberg Trials have not charged against nations of the winning side in following years. There is now a clear precedent for pressing charges of war crimes, aggression, and conspiracy against peace, but these charges have notably not been pressed against many world leaders. Noam Chomsky summed it up by saying, “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.” . . . US and British government officials remain uncharged for any such crimes. It follows that when the charges were being brought against the Germans, Allied officials had no intention of these charges ever being brought against their own nations.

    Conclusion:

    Considering the historical context and legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, it is hard to believe that they were meant to be just at all. They were not fair to the defendants, and equally importantly they did not treat both sides equally. . . . many crimes just as terrible as theirs went unpunished because they were committed by the winning side. http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Nuremberg-Trials-Just-or-Unjust/1/

    “I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future.”
    Honorable Justice Learned Hand
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.

    Not the best argument one can make against “I don’t care a hoot about international law.”

    • Replies: ,
    Reply