The economy is the classic example where, because of usury, the wealth has been concentrated
in so few hands that these people can now buy the politicians and have created a political
system that is totally unresponsive to the needs of the overwhelming majority of the
American people.
And that is causing a reaction.
Now the reaction has to become conscious of what the causes are and come up with a program.
That hasn't happened yet.
And I think the main roadblock in discourse is this taboo about talking about Jews.
You can't address the issue.
If you're conservative, you're upset about pornography and abortion and gay marriage.
And if you're a liberal, you're upset about the wars in the Middle East and you're upset
about the banking system and the looting of the manufacturing base of the United States.
Well there's one group of people that has all these things in common.
And if we can't address that group of people, that group's pernicious influence on the
culture, we're never going to get anywhere.
There has been precedent.
The Catholic Church has had a long track record of dealing with a Jewish minority in a Christian
culture.
And the name of that precedent is called Sequel Yudeas Noi.
And basically, no one has the right to harm the Jew, but on the other hand, the Jew does
not have the right to corrupt your culture.
That's a modus vivendi, I think, that needs to be brought back and we need to have that
discussion again.
And we need to break through these barriers.
It's got to change.
You cannot understand history, the history of the West, beginning with the time of Christ
to the present day, unless you understand the role of the Jew as the protagonist of
antilogos.
When St. John wrote the Gospel in Greek, he had to incorporate Greek philosophy.
Greek philosophy became part of the Christian patrimony by the very fact that he wrote in
Greek.
And so when you say, the first sentence of the St. John's Gospel is, in the beginning
there was logos.
In a sense, that's the great metaphysical statement that we have to understand here.
We are all creatures of logos, and in a sense, logos created us.
And it's up to us to understand that.
It's up to us to find out our situation vis-a-vis logos.
Greek philosophy was integrated into Christianity by the writing of St. John's Gospel.
And the word then, in the bigger picture, is reason.
Logos is eternal.
There's no logos pre-Christ or post-Christ.
It's the same logos.
It is eternal.
And it takes energy to reject logos.
And I'm saying that's the job of Jewish leaders, is to keep these people all together
rejecting logos.
A contemporary example of this, the Coen Brothers film, A Serious Man, is a good example about
the tyranny of the rabbi over the Jewish people.
They understand it intuitively, that the rabbi is the enemy of the Jewish people, because
the rabbi is the roadblock between the Jewish mind and logos.
The rabbi is the representative of Talmud, which is the hate speech that keeps Jews separated
from logos.
Any human context, the people are going to respond to the truth, to reality, and that
is logos.
The Jew is in a special circumstance.
Every Jew has to face this, in one way or another.
You have to face the fact of, who am I?
Do I fit in with the group that they say I belong to?
And a lot of people say no.
Israel Shamir is one of them.
He was in an artillery fight.
He was serving in the Israeli army.
He thought, who am I?
Wait a minute, who am I working for here?
Gilad Atzma.
I could go down the line, all the way back through history.
Jews wake up to logos, and either they follow logos to the extent that it is possible, and
I'm saying as a Christian, the fullest extent possible would become to accept baptism, and
accept Jesus Christ as the logos, the incarnate.
But there are all sorts of intermediary stages.
And the crucial thing is, am I going to accept logos?
And follow it wherever it goes, the truth?
Or am I going to become part of this operation, because of the material benefits that accrue
from being part of this operation?
That's the fundamental question, I think.
You cannot understand history, the history of the West, beginning with the time of Christ
to the present day, unless you understand the role of the Jew as the protagonist of
anti-logos.
What is anti-logos?
It's exactly what Friedrich Romer said in his book Der Sinn der Geschichte, The Meaning
of History.
As soon as you say that there is a meaning in history, this is what the meaning has to
be.
This is the only possible meaning of history.
His book is an attack on positivism, which says there is no meaning in history, it says
history is meaningless.
No one believes that, ultimately, I think.
Everyone believes that there is a meaning to history, but the only candidate that can
fulfill this is the Christian.
That's what I'm saying.
the conflict, I think, between Jesus Christ and the Jews.
The true meaning of history, because it has expanded now
from that small beginning to encompass everything on earth.
In a sense, there's not a culture on earth
that has not been dragged into this conflict.
Take China, for example,
that had a culture that existed long before the culture of the West.
They were dragged into this via Karl Marx.
And now via Milton Friedman, who was the successor,
you know, the new architect of the economic system in China.
Thirty-some years after the death of Christ,
the revolution...
The revolutionary spirit reaches its fruition,
and there's an uprising in Palestine,
and they rise up against the Roman conquerors.
And it ends in disaster for the Jewish people.
The Jewish revolutionaries hold out at Masada,
at this mountain redoubt, and they commit suicide.
That's not the end, though.
Sixty years after that, another Jewish revolutionary rises up,
and this man's name is Simon Barclay.
He's the leader of the Jewish revolution in Palestine.
He is successful in driving the Romans from Palestine
for a certain period of time,
and then gradually, the Romans cut them off from the sea,
and they take over one city at a time,
and they basically start to starve them to death,
so that they're now holed up in Jerusalem.
At this point, a rabbi, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai,
recognizes that the Romans are going to win,
so he gets himself smuggled out in a shroud.
He goes to Jerusalem, and he says,
he goes to the Roman general, and says,
I'm a friend of Rome, please grant me one wish.
I want to start a school.
This is the man who starts Judaism.
This is modern Judaism,
because what happened in 70
was that the temple was destroyed.
You cannot have Judaism without a temple,
without a priesthood,
and without sacrifice.
That all was destroyed then,
and so you have to reconstitute Judaism,
and so it's this new entity
that is unique,
younger than Christianity.
It's not older than Christianity,
and that is what gets started,
and at that point,
the Jewish people are dispersed
throughout the Roman Empire,
and eventually take up their abode
in two main places,
which are the enemies of Rome,
the successor of the Roman Empire,
the enemies of Christendom,
which would be Turkey in the east,
and Spain in the west,
and then take up positions of power
generally at this point
in anti-Christian countries
like Turkey and Moorish Spain.
Rome was a culture based on usury.
It was capitalism
before there was capitalism.
Capitalism is state-sponsored usury.
So usury was in force
in the Roman Empire,
and the Jews did not bring it there.
The Jews got into the Roman Empire
and got involved in usury
primarily during the Middle Ages.
As a crucial factor in history,
it was the Middle Ages
because Christians were forbidden
to take usury on loans.
And so what you have
is a long, complicated process
during which the Christians
used the Jews.
Florence under Cosimo de' Medici.
Florence was a proto-capitalist culture
where the oligarchs
appropriated surplus labor,
surplus value from the laborers,
which meant that the laborers
were not getting paid a decent wage.
So what did Cosimo do?
He brought the Jews into Florence
to lend the worker
the money
that their employers
were not paying them.
Something similar to what happened
in the United States in the 1970s
when the wages started to go down,
the credit card appeared
to give the worker the illusion
that he had money, which he did not have.
So it was that kind of bondage.
Learned predatory Jewish financial behavior,
which is usury.
With usura,
with usura hath no man
the house of good stone.
1239,
when St. Raymond of Penaforte
introduced Nicholas Donan
to Pope Gregory IX.
Gregory IX was stunned.
He had never heard,
the church had never known
that St. Talmud had been in existence
for 600 years, the church didn't know that.
And so he said, this is awful
that they would have these type of
blasphemies in this book,
that the Blessed Mother was a whore,
that the Father of Jesus Christ
was a Roman soldier,
that Jesus Christ is now buried
up to his ears in burning excrement in hell.
This cannot be tolerated
in a Christian society.
It is not possible.
But remember,
it is possible.
But remember,
it is possible.
But remember,
there is no other way.
God's Word
is very good,
but not so.
I've found
that I have a little
more than 100 years
to go with you
and you will not
The written Talmud had been in existence for 600 years.
Church didn't know that.
And so he said, this is awful that they would have these type of blasphemies in this book.
This cannot be tolerated in a Christian society.
So he turned to Raymond of Penaforte and he said,
I want you to put this book on trial.
And if it's found guilty, burn it.
And I want you to dedicate your order to the conversion of the Jews and the Moors.
And what that led then to Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles,
Raimondo Martini's Pugeo Fidei Ad Versus Iudeos et Mauros.
It was the most successful conversion campaign in the history of the church, I'd have to say.
Or certainly one of them.
They had either converted or they had left and gone to Poland.
In a sense, you could say, well, they were forced.
There was an element of coercion there.
And that's one of the most tragic histories, tragic chapters in the history that I wrote.
Because what you saw from a theological point of view,
the minute the Catholic Church understood that there was such a thing as a Talmud,
they worked for the conversion of the Jews because they understood this is a totally,
totally wicked ideology.
It is an anti-Christian ideology.
To understand the crux of the matter, you have to go back to Alexander VI,
which many people consider the worst pope of the history of the papacy.
He was a Spaniard.
The Renaissance papacy was decadent.
It was carnal.
It was involved in the accumulation of wealth.
The reform in the church came through the mendicant orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans.
And the great Dominican preacher at this time was Savonarola,
who showed up in Florence and denounced sodomy and usury,
just as Dante had denounced sodomy and usury in Florence 200 years before that.
The papacy had to respond.
And the papacy, because Savonarola,
because he was a Christian, because he was a Christian, because he was a Christian,
because he was a Christian.
Because he was a Christian, he hated Athenians, because Alexander VI hated the papacy,
and because he was hoping that the king of France would come in and depose the pope,
Alexander VI turned on Savonarola and basically connived in his death.
He was murdered by the citizens of Florence.
That was the crucial turning point.
The church, the papacy, should have joined in with this reform—they should have stopped
usury dead in its tracks at this point.
Because they did not, the next time that…
the church did not stop
being corrupt. And the next time
the protest came, it was
Luther. And this time
it was not going to be an intra-Jurist battle
because the
aristocracy saw its chance
to steal church property
and confer on Luther
the status of state church in exchange.
And once that happened,
the church's police power was
broken, and that began
the rise of capitalism,
what we call capitalism now.
Which is basically
state-sponsored usury.
With usura sin
against nature as thy bread
evermore stale
rags.
There was still this corruption
in the papacy. There was. There's no question about it.
You also had the rise of German
nationalism at this time. There were people
who felt that gold... Remember,
gold is money. That's
the only source of wealth. Gold is pouring
out of Germany into Rome.
And they're depleting.
You also had a group of
people, the minor aristocracy.
Ulrich von Hutten
was one of the leaders of the Reformation.
It's the minor aristocracy that's being
frozen out of the picture
by people like the Fugger family,
the bankers.
The aristocracy is bound up with land.
And you've got all these guys who are
paying you in bushels of grain
and you need money. And you're frozen
out of the money operation, and the
leadership is being taken over by these banking
families in Augsburg, like the Fugger.
And so you've been disenfranchised.
And that becomes,
a disenfranchised aristocracy is the best,
probably the best revolutionary cadre you can have.
And that's precisely what Ulrich von Hutten was.
So you add that to Luther's situation,
which is exactly the situation with the Hussites,
of monks who were carnal.
Zalewski in the defrenestration of Prague,
a monk like Luther, a monk like Thomas Munzer,
these were people who hated the evangelical councils.
They didn't want to live that way.
They were sick of celibacy, sick of fasting,
all this type of stuff.
The classical world knew about usury.
And all of the leaders, the intellectual leaders
of the classical world, whether the Hebrew writers
or the Greeks, knew that it was toxic
and you had to prohibit it.
The most hated, and with the greatest reason,
is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself,
and not from the natural object of it.
For money was intended to be used in exchange,
but not to increase at interest.
And this term, interest, which means the birth of money
from money, is applied to the breeding of money,
because the offspring resembles the parent.
Wherefore, of all modes of getting wealth,
this is the most unnatural,
Aristotle 350 BC.
But the empires all practiced usury,
and the Roman Empire was the classic instance
of a usurious empire.
Usury then concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
It reduced workers to slaves that would work
on huge agricultural operations called latifundia,
and it reduced labor.
It reduced labor.
it indirectly brought about the collapse of the roman empire christianity arose
to fill the gap left by the collapse of the roman empire and oftentimes they simply took over
the whatever was left of the mechanism of the roman empire and so diocese is a word that's
a roman designation of an administrative unit and it's obviously a catholic designation of a unit
but the difference was that christianity understood the value of labor in a way that
no usury empire can because there are fundamentally two choices either you think that
money can copulate then that's all you need because you can just put two coins together
and they will copulate and you'll end up with three coins if you don't believe that then you
have to accept the the premise that labor is the source of value and this is precisely what the
church did
the people who saved civilization were the benedictines largely
the benedictine monasteries and their motto was aura et labora and for the first time in
human history you had a a culture that honored labor and so for a thousand years you had a
labor-based economy where the monastery would store up the values that are required by labor
and concentrate them and put them to social use
this was unprecedented it's it's in a sense a unique period of history
because it was the period of history where the catholic church had hegemony over the culture
total hegemony this was also a period with during which economic exchange almost went out almost
ceased and in some areas there was basically not a monetary economy so in places like venice you
It still was a monetary economy, never stopped being that.
But in the interior of places like the Holy Roman Empire,
you had an economy where you owed your lord labor,
or the produce of your labor.
The culmination is Savonarola takes over,
he's preaching to people, they're in the bonfire of the vanities,
reform is sweeping through the city of Florence,
and then was threatening to sweep through all of the city-states of Italy.
And the Pope, Pope Alexander VI, sided with Savonarola's enemies and he was murdered.
At that point, the church lost control of the discussion.
It lost intellectual control, they did not resolve the usury issue
in the way that the Muslims had resolved this centuries before.
The next time
there was a protest against the decadence in the church,
it was a German monk by the name of Martin Luther,
and that caused one of the most massive looting operations in all of European history,
which is otherwise known as the Protestant Reformation,
where the princes stole the property of the church,
and Luther and other Protestant leaders in all of these countries,
Scotland, Sweden, John Knox was in, same thing,
legitimatized or sanctified,
or approved of this looting of property in exchange for a certain amount of property
and a new status as a state church.
And now you had geographical areas that were physically beyond the police power of the church,
even if they wanted to enforce it, they couldn't now.
And these were some parts of Germany, they were mostly won back by the counter-reformation.
The German War
England remained too difficult, and the Spanish Netherlands, the Habsburgs, could not get the entire Spanish Netherlands back,
and so Holland, the northern provinces, became an outpost of the new religion.
And the new religion, I think, is what Karl Marx said it was.
I think Protestantism is the worship of mammon.
It's Christians acting like Jews, which means collecting usury on loans.
The legitimatization of usury began not with Luther, but with Calvin, who said that if it was a productive loan, then you could charge.
In other words, if a businessman was borrowing money, it was different than a poor man, and so on and so forth.
It has led to the situation that we're in today.
Basically, once the church's police power was broken, once they did not solve the usury problem,
these outposts were created, and they had basically usury-based economies.
And they came over here.
In other words, they came over here.
In other words, the Puritans, when they were expelled, when that fell through in England, they came over here,
and so we had America that involved in it.
Henry VIII was one of these wretched monsters who was just nothing but appetite
and got into trouble with his finances because he was in debt.
And the temptation, having seen the example of what happened in Germany
decided he could do the same thing in England, even though he was opposed to the Lutherans,
and tried to create some type of via media, like halfway between Catholicism and Protestantism, Lutheranism.
So basically, he authorized the seizure and looting of the monasteries.
One of the reasons it succeeded as well as it did is he had to cut in a lot of the nobility,
cut them in on the looting operation.
And so there were certain families that became fabulously wealthy by the looting of church property.
So basically, what you had was 900 years of stored labor.
Overnight, ripped from the matrix where it was put to the social good and stolen and looted
and put into the hands of thieves.
And so what you had was basically a criminal conspiracy in charge of Europe now.
And lots of criminals in on it.
And so therefore, it prevailed.
It created a kind of criminal cast.
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.
Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.
And lots of criminals in on it.
And so therefore, it created a kind of criminal cast in Europe that would now be dead set against everything that was happening.
Everything that the Catholic Church stood for.
Because of the guilt that they incurred from this theft.
Because of the guilt that the English ruling class has been bearing for all these years.
Because all of their wealth and all of their power came from the looting of the Catholic Church.
Enormous amounts of wealth were destroyed.
I mean, Cobbett goes into this.
These prayer books.
These missles.
They had gold and jewels encrusted.
People just bust in.
They rip the cover off.
Rip the jewels off.
Throw the thing.
This illuminated manuscript in the mud.
Their horses trampled on it.
And they're off to the next monastery to loot that.
Hundreds of years.
Centuries of stored labor and acquired wealth gone within a period of a year or so.
And then, of course, the people who got a hold of it then wanted more.
And they started.
There was this big land speculation.
And people were taking out mortgages on the land.
And that's when the usury came in.
And then it started to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands.
And misery across the board.
Because the people who lived.
Who benefited from these properties were no longer able to benefit from them.
There were things like purgatory societies in England.
Where a certain man would bequeath a certain property.
Piece of land to the church.
The church would set up a purgatory society.
If you prayed for this man's soul, you could graze your sheep on his land.
Or you could use this land for something or other.
Social use of the land.
All of this was totally abrogated.
The peasants.
The agricultural class was driven from the land.
The land was enclosed.
And sheep were raised.
Because that was big business at this time.
Because there was this voracious appetite for English wool in places like Florence to make cloth.
And so you created people.
People like Cobbett.
And Belloc.
And Chesterton.
Marx.
All across the political spectrum.
Would say this was the beginning of the creation of the proletariat.
In England.
And in a sense never went away.
Never went away.
And so what you had in the 19th century.
After economic advance.
After industrialism.
After all these things.
You realize these people are permanently miserable.
And nothing seems to change their lot.
And it gave rise to socialism.
Which Pesch refers to.
Wherever you have the disease of capitalism.
You are going to have the purulent boil of socialism.
As the manifestation that the body.
The political body is sick.
And so what you had then was socialism as the example.
And then you go to England.
And you see you know.
Large areas of indigenous.
You know people are not foreigners there.
Buying lottery tickets.
You know.
Going to soccer games.
Soccer hoodlums.
The police.
And what appears to be a section of the Manchester United support.
The proletariat continued and never really emerged.
From that kind of degradation.
The state in a sense funneled the more money.
Because of socialism.
But it never really recovered.
England never recovered.
So all that wealth was taken.
Stolen.
Concentrated.
And turned into a kind of predatory economic system.
That we now call capitalism.
It's the spirit that counts.
It's not the flesh.
There's always going to be some type of manifestation.
This is the problem with trying to identify Jews.
With a particular political direction.
Especially in America.
Like Jews in the thirties.
They're all communists.
So how can they be conservatives?
Well the neo-conservative movement was more revolutionary.
Than the communist party of the 1930s.
In terms of actually implementation of Trotsky's principles.
Of actually going out and conquering other people.
It's just that they attach this revolutionary fervor.
To the United States.
Instead of to the Soviet Union.
That's why it's important to identify the spirit.
And not a particular manifestation.
You can't mistake the part for the whole.
Capitalism according to Heinrich Pesch.
Is state sponsored usury.
And it's the appropriation.
The systematic appropriation of all surplus value.
So the first reform would be.
To eliminate usury.
And that would be the alternative.
One of the places that has eliminated usury.
Is the Islamic world.
And Islamic banking has banking without usury.
Where you can have fees instead of compound interest.
So that's the simplest answer I can come up with.
A history of capitalism is different.
Than a history of economic development.
Even though they do have similarities.
Because capitalism is a predatory ideology.
That preys on legitimate economic activity.
Through usury primarily.
And we've reached a point where people.
If you say you're against capitalism.
They say well don't you believe in economic development.
Or don't you believe in science.
Or don't you believe whatever.
We have been so brainwashed.
That we've confused the disease with the person.
The other aspect is.
That whenever capitalism runs into trouble.
They loot.
In America they loot pension funds.
That is always the first thing.
And so you always have a capitalist saying.
Well we can't afford social security anymore.
Well wait a minute.
We can afford all these wars.
But we can't afford social security.
This is the pension to loot labor.
Usury concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
And so a group like the Jews.
That is always a small minority.
Will be interested in strategies that will concentrate wealth.
They've also had centuries of experience in dealing with it.
From small time stuff to big time stuff.
And so they would naturally gravitate toward this.
They have become experts.
In using these covert means of taking over the culture.
Using finance in a predatory way.
That is covert.
And so most people don't see them as being involved in it.
You have to have trust.
And I'm saying that this is the problem with Jewish involvement in finance.
They're taught not to trust the Goyim.
They're taught to exploit the Goyim.
This is what they learned from the Talmud.
Eventually through usury they take control.
And there's no trust in the society.
And the society breaks down.
And that's where we stand now.
I mean investment.
Would you feel confident investing your money in some type of Wall Street operation?
And not feel that it was going to be stolen from you?
This is the problem.
This is what's causing the breakdown of the economic system now.
We have to clarify.
What is a Jew?
We've already tried the theological basis.
Now when you say a Jew.
The Jews do X.
I'm talking about the Jewish people.
The Jewish people are an organized entity.
Whose constitution is the Talmud.
Which is anti-Logos.
It is a way of keeping Jewish people from the truth.
And keeping Jewish people from Christ.
So what you're talking about is a Jewish control mechanism.
The Jewish leaders keep the Jewish people captive in order to push their agenda.
Israel Shamir said that Jewish people are the human shields for the Jewish leaders.
The Jewish people are the human shields for the Jewish leaders.
Totally debilitating.
It's totally debilitating.
It's so debilitating we don't even know we're blind.
That's the problem.
It's like conducting a military campaign and you're firing the artillery into fake tanks.
Well you're not firing at the target.
You don't even know what the target is.
It's been so suppressed.
I'm saying we have to go back at least a hundred years.
In Culture Wars we're going to publish the three-part series that appeared in Civiltà Cattolica in 1890 on the Jewish question.
Because that's when all of Europe was dealing with the Jewish question.
Because largely of the predatory nature of Jewish finance in the 19th century.
So I'm saying it's totally debilitating.
We don't have this vocabulary.
We can't talk about it.
We are always engaging in something you'd have to call shadow boxing.
Is it the liberals who are the problem?
Or is it the conservatives who are the problem?
Is it the Democrats who are the problem?
Or is it the Republicans?
Well to give you some reference point.
After President Obama announced his initiative about going back to the 67 borders.
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines
with mutually agreed swaps.
Within one day Benjamin Netanyahu showed up in this country.
And the entire Congress of the United States gave him 29 standing ovations.
A totally disgusting act of groveling before a foreign potentate
that you would think would be impossible in a country like the United States.
But they did it.
And not only did they do that.
They were told to do it by IPAC.
And they were told, these congressmen, that if you don't do it you will never get any money.
Now is that a Republican issue or is that a Democrat issue?
No, that's a Jewish issue.
And if we don't have the vocabulary to deal with it, we're crippled.
And that's exactly the situation we're in.
We're crippled.
The government is totally unresponsive to the people of the United States.
The government under the institution of the United States has nothing to do with it.
We're all part of this system.
We're not all part of it.
What do you mean by that?
All of us are part of the problem, and we don't know what it is.
And it's not that I want to take the seats of the United States.
They intend to make sure that this não-regềnismo is over.
No, they're doing it.
Understand how or why Oh, we're marchin' into Syria
The fun has just begun Tom and Trotsky would be proud
To be known as a real kind To keep the joyin' pacified
While watchin' their TV We let them watch them Irishmen
Like Sean O'Hannity Bill O'Wiley and Chris Matthews
They can ring our boos inside But to run the New World Order
No Tom Irish need apply Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
Support us on TV While waiting to be
Raptured into pre-Eternity
Oh, we're marchin' into Syria
The fun has just begun Tom and Trotsky would be proud
To be known as a real kind
Amber Abbey's tablets got busted During the looting in Iraq
But we're marchin' into Syria Behind George Bush's back
They've got weapons of mass destruction And they got them from Saddam Hussein
They've got weapons of mass destruction Oh, if he wants what he'll say
Oh, if he wants what he'll say
They've got weapons of mass destruction Oh, believe me, oh, believe
If you want to know just where they are They're hidden in Tel Aviv
Oh, we're marchin' into Syria The fun has just begun
Gun, gun, come back Trotsky would be proud
To be known as a real kind
United at the think tank
And she said, yeah, yeah, yeah Proud of peace, yeah, yeah
She said she'd make a fine return Till she's known as a real kind
M либо por la Wyndham she'd say Oh, she's a real kind
© transcript Emily Beynon
behavior. There's, there's, this is wrong with it. The physiocrats started it first, but then Adam Smith, and that became the, uh, the beginning of modern economics, where you realize that, okay, gold is not wealth, okay, and there are certain behaviors that are self-defeating. All these tariffs, if they, they're taken to excess, they become self-defeating. It's better if we can do what we're good at and trade with other people, and that will be the best, uh, avenue to wealth.
So, the effect, in effect, the, the Dutch, because of their excess, because of this excess in Jewish predatory economic behavior, overplayed their hand, and they were defeated by a superior military power, and then they went into a state of eclipse, I think, ever since then. You don't hear about, you know, New Amsterdam anymore. That was a Dutch colony. They just went into eclipse.
The Jews were heavily involved in the early colonization attempts in America.
Most of the Jews we're talking about,
were Sephardic, we're talking about Sephardic Jews, who had come from Spain and, and Portugal, and these were where the colonies were, and so the Jews were involved in commerce already, with the Levant, and so now they just headed off in a different direction.
When they moved to Holland, they still had these contacts, and they were going back and forth to places, usually in, in South America.
Jews were also very prominently, uh, present in non-Dutch parts of the Caribbean.
This is like Barbados.
This is like Germany.
This is like Jamaica.
St. Thomas, and many of the other islands as well.
First Masonic Lodge was in Newport, because it was basically Jewish traders who had ships going there.
The first synagogue, they established the synagogue there, and they played a huge role in commerce, and commerce at that point was basically the triangular trade, where you'd get slaves and you'd ship them over in those ships, and then you'd drop them off in the Caribbean.
You get sugar or rum, and then you take that north to New England, and then you get wood
and turpentine and tar, and then you ship that back to England.
So you go back and forth.
And then you take manufactured goods from England and go back down again.
And so you'd have to keep the ships full going around that way.
The Jews were heavily involved in that.
The Jewish involvement in the African slave trade begins, as far as I can tell, long before
the actual slave trade across the Atlantic itself.
The transatlantic slave trade has its immediate origins around about 1441, when Portuguese
sailors landed on the West African coast and kidnapped a few Africans, brought them back
to Europe.
Africans were brought back to Europe, to Portugal and to Spain, as part of that particular trade
for several years.
Columbus, of course, arrived in the Americas in 1492, approximately half a century later,
in 1502.
The first African slave trade began in 1492.
Africans were brought to the Caribbean.
The Caribbean is where the transatlantic slave trade begins.
For over a hundred years before Africans were brought as slaves to this country, the United
States of America, Africans were being brought across the Atlantic to the Caribbean, to places
like Hispaniola, the island which today is shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic
and to other places as well.
Jewish involvement then, in that transatlantic slave trade, precedes, by a very long time,
by many, many years, perhaps by a thousand years, the actual beginnings of the transatlantic
slave trade.
The earliest multinational corporation involved in the Atlantic slave trade was something
called the Dutch West India Company.
Even in this early period, globalization was already a fairly entrenched phenomenon.
The slave trade was a great example of globalization.
Here you have the Dutch West India Company, out of Holland, of course, which went to West
Africa.
They had their own private army.
They established forts on the West African coast.
They had their own colonization via private enterprise.
It was like privatized colonization.
These were like surrogate governments almost, these chartered companies as they were often
called.
So the Dutch West India Company, in the 1600s then, was the pioneer in this kind of multinational
globalized prosecution of the slave trade.
And apparently, a large number of the shareholders, the stockholders, in this Dutch West India
Company were Jews.
The Jews had been chased out of Portugal and Spain, they had been chased out of all kinds
of places, they found some respite from their wanderings in Holland, they became an influential
factor in Holland, and I've seen a variety of figures.
This too is an area of some controversy, I've seen estimates varying from 25% to 50% concerning
the trade.
I've seen the stake of Jewish stockholders in the Dutch West India Company.
But suffice it to say that they were an important element in the Dutch West India Company, which
was the preeminent entity carrying on the slave trade in the early period.
The Dutch West India Company was responsible for importing the earliest slaves to places
like Brazil, to some parts of the Caribbean, either directly or indirectly, I think, to
this country as well, in a very early period.
In the 17th century.
In many areas in the Americas, Jews were a dominant element in the slave trade.
In Brazil, for example, in the 17th century, Jews were a dominant element in the slave
trade.
They owned a large number of the plantations, they were often very importantly positioned
in other aspects, not necessarily the plantation aspects, but things like, say, the importation
of slaves, things like the warehousing of slaves.
Things like the auctioning of slaves.
Things like the provisioning of slaves.
Things like manning slave ships, provisioning slave ships.
In New England, for example, at the height of the Atlantic slave trade, rum became a
major economic venture in New England.
Places like Providence, Rhode Island, places like Boston and so on.
And rum was a major factor in the slave trade because rum was one of the major items of
trade.
One of the major items that slave trade was.
One of the major items that slave ships carried when they went to West Africa to trade in
exchange for slaves and so on.
At one point, all the rum distilleries in Boston were owned by Jews.
I think there were something like 18 rum distilleries.
So in all of these areas, both directly and in terms of ancillary industries feeding the
slave trade, Jews were very, very important.
Some, of them slave ship owners, were the most important ones.
There were, of course, different types of slave ship owners.
There were different types of slave ship owners.
There had to be different orders.
There would be the slave-arya mix of all the slave, blah-blah, blah-blah.
Yeah.
And as you know, you want to be a slave ship owner.
Gottes.
colonial America were Jews. Perhaps the best known of these is a man
called Aaron Lopez. I noticed that many of these persons had Spanish or
Portuguese sounding last names and that's because they were Sephardic Jews.
When this whole question arose around my involvement in all this, many
Jews were heard to say that there were no Jews in America prior to the 1880s.
In fact Nathan Glazer, a very famous academic out of Harvard University who
should know better, he actually wrote that there's no way that Jews could be
responsible for the slave trade in America since there were no Jews here he
said before 1880. Of course there were European Jews in the 19th century before
1880, German Jews and so on but there were Sephardic Jews here from the very
beginning. From the 17th century there were Sephardic Jews coming in here to New
York and later to other places so hence the Spanish sounding names, names like
Nunez, names like
Lopez. Names like Castro, interestingly enough. Names like Ferreira, Herrera, Gomes, Gomez.
All of these names, interestingly enough, suggested Jewish origin in colonial times.
The first Masonic Lodge was in Newport because it was basically Jewish traders who had ships going there.
The first synagogue, they established a synagogue there.
So Aaron Lopez was out of Newport, Rhode Island. He was one of the largest slave ship owners in colonial America.
This man had a fleet of ships for many years. He sent his ships to West Africa.
They traveled from West Africa to the Caribbean, to Barbados, to Jamaica, St. Thomas, places like that.
He had members of his family situated in the Caribbean.
He had a whole network going on, and he brought slaves back here as well.
Many of his slaves helped to build some famous synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in colonial times.
What is the message of Amsterdam?
Exploit your fellow man to the fullest extent possible.
And that's, I think, the legacy that Calvinism and these Judaizers left with Holland.
There's a Babylonian Talmud and a...
A Palestinian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud was codified in the 7th century.
And so after that, what you have are commercial centers.
Like Prague, for example, was a big Jewish commercial center for trade in slaves and salt.
They had contact with the East because they were selling Slavic slaves.
And Prague was kind of an entrepot for that type of thing.
They were selling European slaves to them?
Yeah. To people in Spain, for example.
Yeah, anybody who wanted to buy them.
They had contacts in the East.
And gradually, as this campaign of conversion took off in the West,
the Jews who did not want to convert gradually gravitated toward the East.
And at this point, it was Poland that became what they called the Paradisus Judeorum.
The paradise of the Jews.
Beginning in around the 13th century.
Which was about when the campaign started to kick off.
The conversion campaign.
And so the Jews gradually migrated there.
Gradually, they were given rights.
And in a sense, this was the beginning of the problem.
They were given special status.
And that status allowed them...
They exploited that status through...
Their main weapon was usury.
With usura.
With usura hath no man a house of good stone.
Each block cut smooth and well-fitting.
By usura, caramacy is unbridled.
One of the articles by Ivo Pogonowski that we published
had a picture of the Jew and the Polish peasant.
And the Jew is sitting behind his desk.
And there's a big bottle of vodka there.
And the Polish peasant is scratching his head.
Well, what we're talking about here is the Jew has lent him money.
And he's poured him some vodka
to make him more likely to sign on the dotted line.
And the Jew is scratching his head
because he can't figure out what compound interest is all about.
And how he keeps paying him money
and it never seems to pay down.
So the Jews took over Poland.
And Poland began to expand
because on this borrowed money
and they expanded into the east
and they expanded into Cossack territory.
And basically everywhere the Jew went
he alienated the local population
until the reaction came
and that was the Chmielnicki pogroms of 1648.
So for basically a 400-year period
they took part in the expansion of Poland
and alienated everyone
and there was this huge reaction.
Where Chmielnicki was a Cossack
who had been cheated of wife and money
by a Jew
and organized the resistance
and it was a violent resistance
and now you found the Poles
defending the Jews to some extent
but that was the beginning of the end of Poland.
The Polish ruling class
was a land-based aristocracy.
And land-based aristocracies
always have trouble with money.
In a sense the feudal period in Europe
was basically you owned the land
and you had people on the land
and those people owed you
X number of bushels of grain.
But you need money right now.
So how are you going to transfer
those long-term prospects
into short-term cash?
Well that's where the Jew came in
in terms of lending money.
This was the case much later in Poland
than let's say in Italy
which was the forefront of economic development.
In Europe.
The city-states in Italy.
So this is basically how they took control
of the Polish aristocracy
by lending money.
They did the same thing in England.
They landed aristocracy money
and if the Jew lends you money
you become the slave of the Jew.
The classic instance of this
was Winston Churchill
whose family was deeply involved
and he became a representative
of Jewish interests
because they forgave his debts.
That's how they
got their hold over the Polish aristocracy.
Because the Polish aristocracy felt
that they could not engage in industrial
or they couldn't for example
make whiskey.
That was beneath the dignity
of the Polish aristocracy.
So they would give licenses to the Jews.
Well the Jews exploited this
as a way of taking control of the peasantry.
They used alcohol
as one of their weapons of cultural warfare.
And that was a constant tradition
among the Jews
and was brought over here
and it's dealt with in
Henry Ford's International Jew.
There's a chapter on nigger gin
in Henry Ford's book.
Which is basically this alcohol
with some white woman
her dress hanging over her shoulder
that was sold to the black population
as a way of exploiting them.
This was the tradition
that they had brought over from Poland
where the Polish aristocracy
had simply licensed them
as alcohol producers.
And the final moment came
at the end of the 18th century
when Poland was wiped off the face of the map
by the three empires
Prussia, Austria and Russia.
So they basically had the partition of Poland.
This meant that all of those Jews
in the Paradisus Judaeorum
where they had all of these rights
in Poland
were now suddenly found themselves
on the western border of Russia.
In a country that did not believe
in equal rights for anyone.
It was totally anti-enlightenment.
It was a throwback to another era.
And so as a result
the Jews were unhappy.
I mean very unhappy.
And you see to this day
this ancestral hatred of Russia
among the Jews.
In the collapse of the Soviet Union
Paul Wolfowitz announces
we're going to put six divisions in Estonia.
Well wait a minute Paul.
What are we talking about here?
The war is over.
It is something that goes real deep.
This Jewish hatred of Russia.
And it began with this group of people
now isolated.
They're not citizens.
They are not going to be allowed
to have the rights of citizens.
They're isolated in these shtetl
in a group area called the Pale of Settlement.
And the crucial issue is
this is precisely the border with the west.
So the Jews now become involved in smuggling
revolutionary activity
all sorts of technological advances
like dynamite.
The first person who brought dynamite
into Russia was a Jew.
And he brought it into Russia
to blow up the railroad tracks
that the Tsar was traveling on.
And this is beginning at this point
Russia has a huge revolutionary problem
on its hands.
Which it could not solve.
It tried to solve in a humane fashion.
Solzhenitsyn brings this out in his book
200 Years Together
which has not been translated into English
because of Jewish veto.
A rabbi vetoed this.
So you cannot read this book in English.
This is a Nobel Prize winner
one of the greatest writers
of the 20th century.
And this book is not going to be translated into English
because Jews have veto power
over the publishing industry in the United States.
And in this book
Solzhenitsyn talks about
the problems from the beginning.
From the beginning.
The beginning of the partition of Russia
Russia had swallowed something
that it could not digest.
And so the Tsar hears
that there are reports of
starvation in the Ukraine.
Oh, wait a minute.
Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe.
How is it that people are starving?
What's the answer to that question?
The answer is the Jews.
The Jews had lent money
to the Ukrainian farmers.
And so the farmers couldn't pay it back.
And so they owned the grain harvest
and they were diverting all the grain
to alcohol rather than to bread.
And people were starving to death
in the richest agricultural area of Russia.
And so the Tsar,
well, we have to deal with this.
Well, let's turn the Jews into farmers.
Well, that failed
because the Jew is not going to work as a farmer
because farming is hard work.
And so you give the Jew a plow,
what's he going to do?
He'll sell it.
Any farm influence, he sells them.
And tries to then take that money
and parlay that into something else.
So that failed.
And so as a result
you have this increasing revolutionary firm
in the pale of the settlement
that leads to the assassination
of the Tsar in 1881.
I've been in St. Petersburg
where he fell on the ground.
They built this elaborate Russian Orthodox church,
the Church of the Sacred Blood,
Precious Blood.
And it's an anomaly
because it looks like the Disneyland version
of a Russian Orthodox church
in the middle of a city, St. Petersburg,
because there's nothing but Greek temples.
So it's like this resurgence of Russian nationalism
as the response to Jewish aggression
right there in the heart of St. Petersburg.
But it didn't work.
It didn't work.
There was something that...
The Tsar, the Romanovs,
could not come to grips
with Jewish revolutionary behavior.
And so the Tsar went to the church
from St. Petersburg.
And he did that very early on.
And the Tsar went to the church
from St. Petersburg.
And they said,
this is how it will look like.
And they said,
these are the people
that will follow a Jewish town
to the capital of the city.
And so they did.
And they finished it.
And then they left.
And they went to the church.
The Tsar went there.
He'sAdditional.
© transcript Emily Beynon
essentially and that was part of the zeitgeist at the time so when Freud you
know talked about sex as the fundamental basis of all things neurotic it had a
certain surface plausibility it wasn't ridiculous I suppose it wasn't based on
science but it was based I think on a sort of attractive paradigm this gives
you some indication of the predatory attitude that Freud had toward his
patients he had a cartoon that he used to keep in his office a lion and under
the lion it says Sean self or Mittock on kind of nigger it's already noon and no
Negroes in other words I'm hungry I need a Negro to come in here I need to eat
the Negro well who was the Negro well that's the patient and so the best
example would be a Horace Frank
this doctor from America he wants to be a psychoanalyst so he shows up with
Freud and during the course of his psychoanalysis with Freud he says I have
the sexual attraction toward my patients isn't this bad I mean isn't it bad if
you screw one of your patients isn't that unethical not to say even beyond
the fact that you're married to someone else well what does Freud say well no he
didn't think it was bad ideas a matter of fact he urged Frank
you know what I'm saying you know what I'm saying you know what I'm saying you know
to dump his wife and marry this woman because she had a lot of money and then
give a significant contribution to the psychoanalytic Society this is an
outrageous conflict of interest and outrageous abuse
of the whole idea of medicine and certainly an abuse of what psychiatry is
and Freud himself was involved in it this isn't an abuse this is the heart of
the matter because psychoanalysis is a form of sexual liberation
as political control. It's portrayed as medicine because of the influence that the people who
want to promote this have over modern culture. And so you have all sorts of people now disciples
of the new psychology. One of them is a man by the name of Jastrow at the University of
Wisconsin. This is Heinz's description of what Jastrow was doing at the University of
Wisconsin. Jastrow targeted Christianity in a way that Pierce did not. He also used
the biblical and rabbinical phraseology of the remnant of Israel when he referred to
the dissident few who fight in all times and places for freedom of thought. There will
always be a saving remnant, he wrote, who are willing to give up dogma.
As the prime example of the forcible imposition
of thought on a community of people. In his course at Wisconsin on the psychology of belief
and in his popular writings, he spoke of, quote, the sad page of history that records
the church's techniques of censorship and suppression of thought. What you're seeing
here is that deviance has been redefined. It will be redefined over the course of the
century. And what used to be a sin is now a sin. And what you're seeing here is that
deviance has been redefined over the course of the century. And what you're seeing here
is that deviance has been redefined over the course of the century. And what you're seeing
here is that deviance has been redefined over the course of the century. And what you're
seeing here is now a virtue. For example, homosexuality. What used to be an aberration
is now normal. And what used to be normal, namely, let's say, the revulsion at homosexuality,
is now a thought crime under the regime of political correctness. So, a student at Temple
University, my alma mater, who objects to the production of Corpus Christi by the University,
was dragged out and taken to the psychiatric clinic at Temple University in Wisconsin.
So, this is exactly what Jastrow did. Why? Because it was a crime against humanity,
clinic at temple university hospital for objecting to a blasphemous homosexual propaganda play
five days later we see little albert after his conditioning his fear of the rat is readily
apparent well this is the essence of political correctness as the essence of what happened
during the course of the 20th century deviance was redefined as its opposite deviance is binary
deviance is prohibition there is never going to be a world without deviance what you have here
is the um the transvaluation of values where what was good is now bad and what was good is
now wicked this happens in the realm of psychology largely through the efforts of people like freud
so you see this as a way of cultural subversion freud became the vehicle
for cultural subversion and was interested in those particular terms
jews and catholics
both arrived on the scene at around the same time largely as a result of the huge amount of
migration that took place over the last part of the 19th century in the first part of the 20th
century they both arrived at the time when the protestant ruling class had simply lost its nerve
it had lost its ability to determine culture you can see something like an artifact like
the great gatsby as an example
buchanan is talking about you know those people are taken over you got to read stoddard's book
about race and this type of stuff and you have the gatsby the jew and the narrator or fitzgerald
himself as the catholic both looking to the wasp as the kind of paradigm to emulate at a time when
the wasp himself is not really sure of this anymore a lot of what i'm saying here is taken from a book
andrew r heinze jews and the american super-supreme
soul human nature in the 20th century princeton university press heinze says in his book that
psychology provided a perfect focal point for a culture clash between jews and catholics
as they move from the periphery toward the center of a society traditionally dominated by protestants
for many jews psychology and freud represented a path toward a more sophisticated
cosmopolitan america for many catholics freud signified a heretical departure
from fundamental religious values in his book the culmination of this conflict comes with
archbishop sheen and claire booth luce after world war ii archbishop sheen was a huge
presence in 1950s america he had a show a television show where he went toe-to-toe with
milton burl and beat him in the ratings all the time he was having a huge effect on the culture
large numbers of americans were converting to catholicism at this point it was a huge
cultural battle and by the 50s the mid-50s it focused on sigmund freud sheen gave a sermon at
saint patrick's at which he talked about freud and the confessional and basically talked about
psychoanalysis as a secularized version of the confessional it caused a huge stir there was a
an article in the american scholar which accused both fulton sheen and claire booth luce of being
anti-semites because they don't like freud and they don't like the church they don't like the church
sigmund freud now this is a state-of-the-art uh battle here that's going on here what we're
talking about here is a takeover a redefinite just as fish and derrida decades later would engage in
a redefinition of discourse the jews at this point were engaging largely by the youth through the use
of sigmund freud in a redefinition of the soul we're talking about psuche the greek word for soul
and so therefore we're talking about psychology
which is the science of the soul now this is classic psychology okay this is greek and it
greek it goes all the way back to people like euripides and plato the classic definition of
the soul or the image of the soul was the rider on a horse the rider was reason the horse was
passion and in many ways the bridle was the will and so you had the tripartite soul reason will
be passion logos ethos pathos and that was the odd that was the right rule reason ruled passion
the way the rider rode a horse what happened over the course of the 20th century is that that was
inverted in other words we had a revolution in psychology that paralleled the later revolution
in in the hermeneutical thought what you had to do was in effect
to be a Christian and in fact that's what we call a hermeneutical thought
when the hermeneutical thought came about it was to be a Christian soul so that it did it lost all
of its Christian characteristics even though this is it's only Christian in the minds of the jews
that wanted to subvert it this is not Christian this is not a Christian soul it's the Greek soul
it was adopted by aquinas and by the catholic church but it's basically a Greek idea heinz says
about this period of time g stanley hall
in 1904. According to Heinze, Paul's work was, quote, saturated in Christian reference.
At this point, what happened was a war, a war like the literary critical wars, but this
became a psychological, a war over who was going to determine what the soul was. The
leader in this war at this particular time was an anthropologist by the name of Franz
Boas, a Jew, whose assistant was going to be sort of the leading soldier, sort of the
frontal assault on Hall's book, and her name was Margaret Mead.
Franz Boas was an intellectual of Jewish extraction. He came from Germany. He became very important
in the early 20th century, and the reason he was important was because he was the father
of a school of anthropology that essentially said that race was not important.
It wasn't about explaining any differences between any groups of people. His descendants
have been people who have pathologized any reference to any concept of race, racial differences
and so on. This was sort of the pillar of the intellectual left in the 20th century,
and he's important because he founded the school. They became the heads of the departments
of very important universities. So that by the mid-1920s, his students basically dominated
the American Anthropological Association. They had a very clear ethnic and religious
relationship.
political agenda, at least for the Jews among them. In other words, Franz Boas was not just
a sort of intellectual pursuing truth or something like that. He well recognized that he had
a very strong Jewish identity. One of his main goals in life, one of his main purposes
was to promote this intellectual perspective, which he thought would be important for combating
anti-Semitism. He had the sort of rise of racial anti-Semitism culminating in the National
Socialist Movement in Germany. He viewed his ideology as combating that. He was also associated
with far-left political organizations. And that's been typical, I think, of his disciples
as you go down. He died in the late 1930s, but then his disciples effectively dominated
anthropology down in the present. It's classically portrayed as the nature versus nurture battle.
In other words, the issue was,
was environment or race at this point? And Boas and these people had decided that the
important thing was environment, and they had to defeat the racist.
One of his big ideas was that he couldn't make generalizations about culture. He couldn't
develop a theory, a universal theory of culture, because each culture was, you know, incredibly
unique and sort of beyond the pale of scientific generalizations. And prior to him, there was
a sort of robust evolutionary theory of culture that, where you had these various grades of
culture.
You know, culture, beginning with hunter-gatherers, chiefdoms, you know, nation-state societies
and so on. And the problem he had with that was that the people who were doing this viewed
European culture as a pinnacle. And that, to him, was anathema. He was a strong-identified
Jew. He viewed the Prussian culture of his childhood as very dangerous. Just, he had
very negative, you know, memories of that, very negative attitudes about that culture.
And I think that's what, you know, that's sort of the common denominator, I think, of
all these Jewish intellectual movements that we'll talk about, is this underlying, you
know, hostility, distrust, this deep historical memory of the negative things that have happened
to Jews in European culture. So when he thinks of the Prussian culture of Germany, he doesn't
think of cathedrals and kings and leaders. He thinks that there were elements of antisemitism
there.
Yeah.
That it was a critical point on which they should be taking action in Europe.
christian culture that christians have oppressed jews over the centuries so for him these these
cultures were not the pinnacle of civilization they were not they weren't the pinnacle of
science or anything and so as an attempt to deconstruct culture this is the origin of the
sort of cultural relativist movement you know that all cultures are sort of equal there's no
way to grade them in terms of even other technical accomplishments or anything and we had
famous disciples Margaret Mead she was the person who under Boas's direction went to Samoa did a
study of the natives in Samoa and came back and said that basically storm went along a storm and
stress they got it from Schiller but since psychology was German they were using terms
like this storm and wrong during adolescence is only a cultural phenomenon
it's only in America it's all the result of Christianity if we eliminate all of these
Christian sexual prohibitions there will be no stress in society and as proof of that look at
the people in Samoa well the fact the matter is that it became a quite apparent after the
publication of a Derek Freeman's book Margaret Mead in Samoa an Australian anthropologist it
became apparent that Margaret Mead made it all up it was one of the biggest
instances of academic fraud in the 20th century she didn't speak Samoa and Freeman says she was
just put on by Samoan girls who would giggle and tell jokes and make fun of the round eye or
whatever they call these white people in Samoa and she overlooked a significant part of Samoan
culture it was made up it was what we would call the Blue Lagoon Anthropology it's like Lord the
plot of Lord of the Flies the plane is flying it crashes
on this tropical island in the Pacific and suddenly hey all bets are off because all that
stuff you believe was with the moral law that's all bourgeois morality there's no bourgeoisie here
so morality doesn't have any force anymore and we can all live like uh you know free and wonderful
people the French had this fantasy Rousseau was probably the main proponent of it with his idea
of the noble Savage and now it caught on in America as a way of undermining the whole idea
that there was a Christian morality that should be normative for this country so it was a mythology
but it was a very effective mythology Margaret Mead essentially created a mythical Anthropology
that was accepted as gospel again her writings aren't very important except for the fact that
they were promoted and became intellectual gospel to the point that even after she was debunked and
shown to be a myth it's going to be false shown to be either lies or misinformation that she is
still ionized and people were
horrified that she was her reputation would be called into question so it's it's a very powerful
thing that anybody who disagrees with all this is up against it it's got a huge inertia at this
point it's very hard to change these things take on a life of their own they're they're it's a matter
of promotion it's it's not a matter of truth or reality it's a matter of leading a movement that
has an influence and so the the influence comes not so much from the original person but from the
infrastructure the publishing houses the media the professors and universities who assign Margaret
Mead as part of their courses you know this is where it achieves a life of its own and it is seen
as true it is seen as science and is seen as inviolably correct I think the concept of race
is very respectable but still the concept of races is profoundly controversial so this is the legacy
of that and we still see that in the present because people like
Philippe Rushton at the University of Western Ontario in Canada Richard Lynn their analyses of
racial differences in intelligence and different peoples of the world is this exact sort of thing
that is anathema to the the Boasian school and that continues with us today because the writings
of people like Rushton and Lynn are marginalized they're not talked about if they're ever mentioned
in the newspapers they tend to be qualified you'll bring in all these other people who say that's
nonsense you can't even give
the concept of intelligence doesn't make any sense there is no such thing as race etc you know so it
remains problematic to this day the transformation of the universities in the United States in the
direction of political correctness a lot of that has to be laid at the foot of Franz Boas
the Frankfurt School started in 1920s in Germany it was composed entirely of a group of Jewish
intellectuals associated with the University of Frankfurt in Germany they were certainly part of
that and seen that way in Germany when Hitler came to power he dissolved them they came to the United
States most of them and they pursued their studies in the United States now when they came to the United
States they were confronted with a sort of empirical culture that was not so typical of
Germany Germany was more still in this sort of philosophical era the intellectual life would
have been dominated by people like Marx and Hegel and that sort of philosophical idealism or
materialism in the case of marks and those were the words of debates were because the the English
education you can see in American sociology was much more empirical you go on you get numbers so
when they came to America they really had a need to develop an empirical study and so they became
much more empirically oriented and so but their philosophical ideas were developed when they were
still in Germany they were very much informed by their political attitudes and these people as I
say were they were all Jews they were deeply identified strongly identified Jews and once again
they were
fundamentally concerned with anti-semitism as a problem and so they viewed their philosophy and
it really was a philosophy before it became an empirical study it was a philosophy of anti-semitism
and in that philosophy they really used fundamental psychoanalytic concepts so they had the idea that
anti-semitism fundamentally fundamentally comes from repressing nature I mean that's about as
psychoanalytic as you can get by repressing nature you develop hatred to the Jews and
they even use ideas like projection which is very much of a psychoanalytic idea in other words the
idea would be that a non-Jew would have a problem say in his economic livelihood or something like
that or he would want power for his own group well he would that is sort of morally questionable and
so he'd repress that and project that onto the Jews so the Jews would be seen as lusting after power
and as oppressing
Gentiles when in fact according to this theory it was the the Gentiles themselves who wanted power
and it was these you know wealthy Gentiles who would get these people to think that it was the
Jews who were the problem when really they were pressing the Jews and they were also pressing you
know the poor classes of non-Jews so this was a theory it was not based on any data once again
it was based on a sort of combination Marxism and psychoanalysis no empirical data for this
but when they came to America they they you know they couldn't just sell this as a philosophy
because in America you really had to get some data uh psychoanalysis managed to get by for
decades without this but I think the the Frankfurt School felt the need to sort of
get some kind of verification so what they did when they got to this country was they
started with the authoritarian personality studies and again they got at the very elite
universities they're associated with Columbia University the University of California at Berkeley
these questionnaires and so on uh essentially designed to to tap people's attitudes about Jews
uh and uh try to show that that these were a sign of pathology so essentially what they did
uh they they tried to show that people in the end with healthy family relationships people
who looked up to the mothers and fathers people had a strong religious orientation
um that these people tended to have negative views about Jews and that essentially these
these negative views about Jews were a result of repression within the family that they had
hostility towards their parents even though there's absolutely no evidence of this in any
of the records that they had foreign
foreign
they interpreted
positive feelings
about their parents as sort of sublimations of hostility because in the records the the people
who had strong family relationships to sort of fan strong attitudes about their in-group and their
family their nation their race these people tended to to think to have more negative views about Jews
because after all Jews were an out group um they also they they interpreted these positive attitudes
about their family as you know repressions
of hostility towards their parents and conversely when they found uh sort of surface feelings of
anxiety about their parents they interpreted those as signs of deep affection and so the people that
they were idealizing had sort of anxieties about whether their parents loved them they had
ambivalences about their sexual mate uh identity and so on um these are the people that the
Frankfurt school were were promulgating as the ideal
liberal personality
the major obstacle was the family the nuclear family with the father in the lead role was
extremely dangerous Frankfurt school saw it as a repressive structure so the nuclear family with
a certain amount of restraint that's necessary for a family to function what was the place that
people learned to be repressed
they they got conditioned to following orders and this made them into what uh a later writer
Al Adorno would spin into a book called the the authoritarian personality and the authoritarian
personality was very bad uh it conditioned us for a society where we would follow orders hence you
know patriotism so when the Kaiser called Germans rally to the cause where the president of the
United States called the prime minister of Britain or the president of France people because of the
family were conditioned to respond to the father figure anyway not all is really pretty simplistic
but that's what they said so it became very very important to undermine the family what I was a
student at Johns Hopkins I can recall in sociology and political science class they did nothing but
talk about this book published in 1950 the authoritarian personality but you know they
talked about it they analyzed it they criticized it they talked about the methodologies and this
we actually had there was a subject on my exams but you know the weird thing was they never assigned
the book for us to read and of course it's only much later you see uh when I was browsing a used
bookstore that I discovered the reason why they never assigned the book lo and behold right here
on the introductory page the authoritarian personality copyright 1950 by the American Jewish
Society this is ethnic politics this isn't science this is unbelievable and and so many of the
problems now facing white Gentiles which they may or may not may not feel yet arise out of this study
and the prejudices the bigoted positions that are set forth very candidly right in the introduction
to the study let me read you a short passage which will
illustrate the point the present inquiry into the nature of the potentially fascistic individual
began with anti-semitism in the focus of attention my what a surprise that given who's sponsoring the
study the authors in common with most social scientists hold the view that anti-semitism
is based largely upon factors in the subject that is to say in the anti-semite
and in his total situation whatever that means then upon actual characteristics behavior or power of
Jews now that's really interesting that is to say the study of anti-semitism is isolated in this
project to characteristics of individuals they identify as authoritarian personalities it never
examines the relationship
between that individuals interests in the practical and enormous exercise of Jewish power you see within
the political system it never examines the consequences and impact of Jewish power upon that
individual and his reaction to it you see because then the whole subject becomes much more nuanced
and frankly far less prejudiced and far less bigoted uh and and and here's another classic
statement in the introduction of the authoritarian personality where they are discussing the methodology
of all the studies in this thick tone and they say here groups in which there was a preponderance of
minority group members were avoided in the study and when minority group members happen to belong
to an organization which participated pardon me which cooperated
in the study their questionnaires were excluded from the calculations
what they're saying there is that you see prejudice and racism are uniquely white
characteristics this isn't science at all it's simply ethnic warfare and it is such blatant and
obvious ethnic warfare this book and everything that spawned the authoritarian personality did
become very influential
it certainly does have uh some data and it's not you know they they were successful you know in um
impressing I think a lot of people but even even early on when it first came out there were there
were critics who looked at it and said look there's some some weird stuff going on here the the reality
was that they used psychoanalysis as a way of basically getting any anything they wanted out of
this so there was some deception going on I tried to you know I took special pains to show how how
counterintuitive these interpretations are how lacking in scientific rigor they have
uh in embarked upon the promotion of a policy that is to deconstruct or that is to tear down the major
uh foundations of Western Society the loyalty to the nuclear family loyalty to religion to God and
uh and loyalty to country and in pursuit of doing that they play fast and loose with the facts it's
both for them that's the thought or the ideology that counts not the empiric uh just justification
for for conclusions the Frankfurt School as base developed the ideology that you had to sort of
reject your family by rejecting your family you would then be more likely to accept or you would
be less likely to be anti-jewish and so you know it's a remarkable thing because they never supposed
that Jewish children should reject their parents we're going to promulgate Judaism to the next
generation you have to have children who identify with their parents but in the authoritarian
personality identifying with your parents who were Christian especially was the epitome of pathology
this had to be eradicated make us worthy of thy love and we ask thee to bless the work of our hands
and the people of this community you see with the with the authoritarian personality is
holding out individuals radical individualism as a cultural ideal now of course individualism is a
long roots in in European society but what you're talking about with radical individualism is giving
up all your allegiances you just become the isolated individual this is not a prescription
that Jews have ever adopted I mean if there's anything that is characteristic of Judaism is
a strong sense of identification with a group so essentially this is a prescription for the
behavior of Gentiles that would uh
essentially make them less likely to have allegiances with other groups because what from
the standpoint of Jews what is the the most terrifying thing is a group of non-Jews United
by an ideology where they have a strong sense of group membership and which Jews are viewed
negatively I mean the paradigm and that would be of course National Socialism in Germany from 1933
to 1945. fundamentally what Nazism was about was having a strong sense of being a member of a nation
in group and these other people are not you know you're not on their page Jews especially and so one
way to get rid of that basically is to advocate individuals for everybody get rid of your
allegiances don't have any really any allegiance to religion country race even family and again one
of the points I keep making there is that this is completely hypocritical because to be a strong
identified Jew means that you are highly connected to a group that you have a strong sense of
group membership that you think of outgroups as potentially threatening as enemies and so on in
other words the psychological process of a group membership tend to make us view negatively the
people in other groups and and that applies to Jews as well as anybody else so strongly identified
Jews tend to have strongly positive views that are in group strongly negative views of the outsiders
and you know that's part of the culture of critique of these Jewish intellectuals have very
negative views about the culture and peoples of the
outside there one of the questions about the spread of the Frankfurt School of ideology in
the United States and especially in universities is how they jumped so quickly from being a handful
of people in key universities to dominating the university system it was their presence
throughout the system while Boasian anthropology was spread by a
very careful careful process of the development of cadres and placing them in key positions over
the course of a generation the Frankfurt School very quickly came to ascendancy all across American
higher education and this has always remained kind of a mystery but I think part of the mystery
is explained by the role of the new school for social research and its agenda which was
to credential Jewish refugees from Europe before during and after World War II these
were credentialed in a very pro forma manner very few of them did any anything like what we would
consider coursework they were simply given advanced degrees they turned out torrents of
PhDs and moreover this was part of a broader stream of European Jews many with phony credentials
coming into the United States at the very moment of the largest expansion of the American University
system in its history which was during the GI Bill after World War II suddenly there was a need for
thousands of new professors and these could not be conservatives because they were still politically
risky after World War II but Jews were considered to be morally pure because of their terrible
suffering and their credentials were never looked at too closely suddenly there were thousands tens
of thousands of new professors and they all held this ideology which was an ideology that was based
on advancing their own interests it was very influential in the academic community and it
spawned a whole lot of secondary literature
you might say again the authoritarian personality was funded by the American Jewish committee and
you there was a whole spate of books funded by the American Jewish committee or the anti-defamation
League the whole point of these books was pretty much the same as the authoritarian personality the
idea is that majorities must tolerate minorities they should not be concerned about their own Eclipse
that if they are concerned if you are any kind of psychological anxiety that a majority might feel
that they are
going to become a minority and what that might mean for a majority is viewed as you know just
a psychopathology it's a medical health problem we have to try to get rid of it white Americans
basically should accept this and and if they don't then there's something wrong with you one
place Boazian ideology in the Frankfurt School come together is in their agreement that majorities can
have no rights this arises from the notion that there are no true majorities so for example while
Jews may form a cohesive solid and long-lasting minority group the ideas of cultural relativism
and of the Frankfurt School act to disintegrate majorities so for example there is no 65 white
majority in the United States there may be a few percent of Irish a few percent of German a few
percent of this a few percent of that the kinds of differences that are created among the majority
disintegrated in both of these ideologies
so while they are immune from these kinds of atomization ideologies and practices they impose
these on the majorities so it's meaningful to speak of the French people and exclude the French
it's meaningful to speak of the British people while excluding the Scots Irish Welsh and English
we see this at every institutional level so for example in law schools there are interest groups
in student organizations for every imaginable ethnicity except for the majority majority
students simply don't exist now a white man can be gay he can be a transsexual and then he becomes
a minority he is higher quality as a result of being made into a minority a white woman can become
a feminist and so she can be a member of a minority so piece by piece the majority is simply dismantled
cannot exist if a majority exists in the thinking of the Frankfurt School and in the thinking of
the boazians it is simply not dismantled yet and yet minority groups by definition are supposed to
be immune from this although in practice only one minority is immune from this process of
disintegration this is never uh thought about as an ideology say in Israel where you have a very
clear ideology this is a Jewish State it's going to remain a Jewish State
state. It has a moral right to remain a Jewish state and so on. But the rights of white Americans
to keep America as a white country with a white majority, you know, where white ethnic
interests would be safeguarded is completely rejected in this literature. I think that
is the fundamental premise of political correctness. Basically, the idea that white people as a
majority have no moral legitimacy to any political power, that they don't have any moral authority
to maintain a majority, to advance their ethnic interests, to think of a certain piece of
land as their land, essentially, that they would be able to control that and so on. Again,
this is an ideology that you see throughout history, that all peoples have, you know,
they've basically gotten a hunker.
They've gotten a hunker of land and they've defended it. This has been the major, you
know, story, obviously, in human history and certainly the case with Zionists in Israel.
So it's a normal human undertaking. And yet, with this literature, the whole thrust of
it is to call that into question, to say that there is no moral legitimacy, that white Americans
should simply accept.
They're coming minority status. And anything else is, there's something wrong if you think
otherwise. There's something wrong with you. And, of course, the implicit idea here is
that white people have nothing to fear about a future in which they are a minority, that
their political interests, their ethnic interests are met by allowing tens of millions of people
to come into the land that they're going to vote.
They're going to have their own ideas about what is a proper foreign policy. They're going
to have allegiances to the people that they left behind, as Jewish Americans certainly
have allegiances to Israel.
So it's a very frightening thing. I think that one of the things about the Frankfurt
School is it was always presented as fundamentally a moral issue and a psychiatric issue. And
fundamentally it's about white guilt. I think the big story, the 20th century, as you start
out in the 20th century, European people, they were being bullied and they were being
The European peoples have divided up the world, they basically run the world.
They're far the most powerful, the most economically advanced, the most scientifically advanced.
They run the world.
And by the end of the 20th century, there is no moral legitimacy for having any sovereignty anywhere.
In other words, European peoples have no moral right to sovereignty over any piece of land anywhere,
even Europe, traditional Europe.
Because you see, the same people who are promoting massive immigration and so on into this country
are promoting immigration to Europe and other areas.
And increasingly, in Europe, you're getting these ideas that there's no such thing as a nation
based on a certain ethnic group that is defending their interests and their territory.
Instead, there's a sort of, the idea of a nation is simply a proposition,
a certain moral statement.
A set of values and rights and so on.
And that's fundamentally what the Frankfurt School is promulgating,
especially in the wake of the Frankfurt School.
People like Lipset and Rad were basically strongly identified Jewish activists.
They're associated with the ADL and so on.
They are writing and basically saying white Americans have no moral right
to have a set of ethnic interests that they are defending.
It was clear that there was a deeper grammar to this discussion.
A deeper grammar that needed to be explicated.
Thank you.
He has been totally demonized.
Hilaire Belloc has been totally demonized.
Not only can you not mention the Jews,
as anti-Semitic.
Now, it's obligatory, in Catholic circles even,
to say he was an anti-Semite.
He was not an anti-Semite.
What Catholics believe is antithetical to anti-Semitism.
This is all purely a function
of the Jewish control of the Catholic mind right now.
Somebody like Joe Pierce could write a biography of Belloc
and say he was an anti-Semite.
It's preposterous.
This was an awful book.
Why is that?
Well, he feels he has to accept the canons of discourse
that have been established by polite people in this world,
and that means adopting Jewish categories
and dealing with one of your own people.
¶¶
I mean, where is this going to stop?
This is what I keep asking.
Is St. John Chrysostom an anti-Semite?
He wrote a book called Adversos Judeos,
in which he says all sorts of awful things about Jews.
Okay, is he an anti-Semite?
That means he's a bad person.
That means he's not a saint.
He can't be a bad person and a saint, right?
So that means the Catholic Church got this wrong.
It is fundamentally unreliable
when it tells you this is a good person.
Okay, what about St. John?
He wrote one of the Gospels,
which is the basis of the faith we believe.
Is he an anti-Semite?
Yes, of course he is, according to certain Jews.
I've quoted them in the book.
Where is this going to stop?
This is preposterous.
People now realize they no longer have to maintain
an untenable position,
and now they are allowed to talk about something
that is on everybody's mind.
We now have a way of talking about this
that is legitimate,
theologically legitimate,
based on the 2,000 year tradition of the Catholic Church,
because you don't want to incur the anger of the Jewish Commissar.
So we've internalized the Jewish Commissar.
To use Sigmund Freud's terms,
who was a Jewish Commissar, if there ever was one,
we have this Jewish superego now.
But each Jewish Commissar,
each man must live as an end in himself,
and follow his own rational self-interest.
We need to liberate ourselves from the Jewish superego.
And I'm saying the best,
the only really effective way to do this
is through Christianity.
And in specific, the Catholic Church.
Because the Catholic Church has a history
of dealing with the Jews
that has been proven over time.
An effective way of dealing with the Jews.
A modus vivendi,
sicut iudeus non.
The trouble is, over the past 60 years or so,
50 years or so,
we have been pretending there are no problems.
Well, we can't go on pretending anymore.
We have been pretending that Jews are our friends.
That's preposterous.
We can't pretend this anymore.
Those days are over.
And you'll find it,
one person after another will tell you
when this happened.
When did I realize
that the Jews were no longer our friends?
In my case,
the instance that got me started on this book
was Daniel Goldhagen's Attack on Pius XII.
A totally dishonest piece of anti-scholarship.
Twisting phrases,
thinking that maybe the Goyim,
they can't read Italian, can they?
I mean, that twisting of
Eugenio Pacella's
statement about what he saw
in the Wittelsbacher Palace,
all that type of stuff,
that was dishonest.
And I think,
I think Goldhagen's reputation has suffered as a result.
I think everybody knows
that was a specious piece of scholarship.
But what it did,
the positive effect,
and it's not only,
I am not the only person who has said this.
There are other people I know who have written books
who have said to me,
it was Goldhagen that got me started on this thing.
You realize,
is this the fruit of all these years of dialogue?
With the Jews?
That you're going to have this guy being promoted
by every Jewish organization
as some type of scholar,
a scholar at Harvard University,
to come up with this type of specious drivel?
And suddenly something snapped,
and I realized, no.
There's got to be a better explanation.
And this book is my attempt
to free discourse from that type of hegemony.
We have internalized the commands of our oppressors.
And there are Jews who say this.
Yuri Slezkine has written a book
called The Jewish Century,
in which he says on the very first paragraph,
we're all Jews now.
Well, what he means is
that we all have imposed Jewish categories on our minds.
And as a result, we cannot think,
we cannot think properly.
It's that simple.
Because the crux of the book that I wrote here
is that the essence of Jewish identity
is rebellion against logos.
The Jews,
for the most part,
rejected Jesus Christ,
called for his death,
and had him executed
by the Roman authorities.
That is an act of such magnitude
that it will, in fact,
affect all of history afterwards.
Simply because of the person or who it was,
but by what you're doing here
is you are rejecting logos.
If you reject that order,
you are rejecting the moral order,
you are rejecting the political order,
you are rejecting the economic order,
you are rejecting every order
and what you're establishing
is a revolutionary compulsion in its place
that will wreck society.
That's why it's important.
That's why this is important.
That's why it's important to break through
basically the Jewish control of our minds.
It took place when we all went to college
and we studied people like Sigmund Freud,
to break through that to the logos of reality,
reason, the order of the universe,
and then start dealing with reality.
Rather than fiction.
She was a Russian Jew who came over
and got a job in Hollywood
and was just totally enamored of America.
But what you see in her books
is kind of like the Jewish version of America.
And so it's money.
It's capitalism.
Her favorite pin was like a dollar sign
that she used to have.
She thought Gary Cooper was the quintessential American
and so she created these kind of myths
that became powerful for a certain group of people
who were kind of leaning in that way anyway.
It was kind of like a simplification,
a stripping down of American life and religious life.
His highest moral purpose
is the achievement of his own happiness.
And so there would be people who would be
caught up in objectivism who were Catholic.
My oldest son's generation,
when they were in college,
they were sick of all the liberal stuff
and so this seemed to be like an alternative
to the liberal stuff.
And they go to these objectivist meetings
and then they realize,
wait a minute, this is a Jewish operation.
And the goyim are kind of second-class citizens
who just kind of go along with something
that is basically not in their interest.
I mean, if there were ever a classic instance
of internalizing the commands of your oppressors,
it is Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy.
I'm challenging the moral code of altruism,
the precept that man's moral code
is to live for others.
I'm challenging the moral code of altruism.
Roth became famous in 1969
with the publication of Portnoy's Complaint.
And it basically had a huge effect
on subsequent literature.
Erica John's Fear of Flying
is basically the female version of Philip Roth.
And Woody Allen's Annie Hall
is basically Philip Roth.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why? I was just expressing a healthy sexual curiosity.
Six-year-old boys don't have girls on their minds.
I did.
It's Portnoy's Complaint, you know,
transposed into Woody Allen's life.
So the warning that Henry Ford made,
the battle that the Catholics fought
to keep all this stuff out of Hollywood films,
Hollywood films and television,
was lost in 65.
And once the battle was lost,
the Jews pursued their advantage
by promoting pornography
and then promoting writers
who were clearly influenced
by this pornographic culture.
And Philip Roth was one of them.
What comes out in the book
is basically the Jewish animus
against the goyim, expressed sexually.
There's something at least human,
about Portnoy's Complaint.
But what you see is, as the books go on,
the animus becomes more and more overt
and more and more strident,
and the humor just starts to disappear.
Whatever humor there was in Portnoy's Complaint
is gone by the time you get to the later books.
It's all just pure aggression.
If you promote sexual liberation,
your group is going to succumb
to sexual liberation.
And the net result of sexual liberation
is you die out.
It's the lack of offspring.
That's the net result of sexual liberation.
And so why wouldn't they succumb?
The same thing happened to the WASP ruling class.
I dealt with this in my book
Libido Dominandi.
Arthur Packard, who was head
of the Rockefeller Foundation,
wrote a memo in which he said,
I do not like Planned Parenthood
because Planned Parenthood is promoting
across-the-board contraception.
We do not believe in across-the-board contraception.
We believe that certain people
should limit their families
and that other people, namely we,
should not limit our families.
We are being destroyed by Planned Parenthood
because our offspring are the first people
that march into the Planned Parenthood office.
Same thing applies to Jews.
The same thing applies to the Jews
with Jews and pornography
as it applied to WASPs and contraception.
Marx clearly did not think of himself as a Jew.
And I think you will find this among leftists
across the board.
Trotsky is the classic example.
He did not identify as a Jew at all.
And he thought that the Jews
were on the other side
and that Jewish capitalism was the enemy
and that he was going to be in a sense
an anti-Jewish Jew.
But I am saying that
the only reason he felt that
was because of the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
That he internalized the spirit
and so it becomes complicated
by the 19th century.
Because you have both sides
being dominated by Jews
who were fighting.
Now you have got the same thing.
You have got Norman Finkelstein
who was in that tradition,
the Marxist tradition,
fighting against the Jews
in the Zionist tradition.
So you have this intra-Jewish battle going on again.
I remember being at a conference in Washington
and they had this guy Tyndall
who was head of the BNP,
British National Party in the 70s.
And he gave a speech in which he said,
we should all be proud to be white guys.
And then as an example of white culture
he mentioned Elizabethan England.
That is when the Catholics
were being drawn and quartered.
So in other words it is not going to fly.
Are the Irish white?
And Tyndall says,
of course they are white.
My mother is Irish.
Are Jews white?
And Tyndall says,
I don't know.
It got to the heart of this ridiculous ideology
of white guys.
I don't believe in white guys.
There was a time in America
if you lived in the South
you were a Protestant
and there was a large ferment going on
called the Civil Rights Movement
that polarized both sides.
If you lived in the North
you were Irish and you were Catholic
and you were Polish and all that other type of stuff.
That is real.
And so what you have now
is a guy like Pat Buchanan
who just sent me his latest book
with a nice flattering inscription on the front of it
saying that we white guys
have to stick together.
Pat, you are not a white guy.
You are a Catholic.
Catholics are not white guys.
I don't know what I have to say.
And I think that there is an element
of Jewish misdirection
leading people into this trap.
You know what I mean?
Because they can manage that.
Whereas they cannot manage
a resurrection of Catholic identity.
They can't manage that.
Nazism was itself a false identity.
I mean,
Germany, you were Protestant
or you were Catholic.
And that is the unfortunate situation
of the Reformation
and the Thirty Years War.
And so what he tried to do
was come up with some type of confection
that was based on Wagner.
It was a pre-Christian identity.
It doesn't work.
It fails.
And I am saying this white guy stuff
is going to fail.
I am not part of it.
Whether you think it is right
or not, it is preposterous.
I think somebody like Madison Grant
Madison Grant didn't believe in white guys.
I feel like if Kevin were in the room here
I would try and bring this to his attention.
When I was growing up
America was 90% white.
I had a sense of
white Anglo-Saxon culture
as being sort of our culture.
Even though I wasn't really
Anglo-Saxon, I identified with it
and believed in it.
But now it is completely gone.
If you read Madison Grant's book
he says Europe is composed of
three races.
The Teutonic, the Mediterranean
and the Alpine.
And only the Teutonic race
should be allowed into America.
Well he doesn't believe in white guys.
It has no roots.
It has no basis in anything.
And then you get,
well what are white guy values?
I once ran a cover of Fidelity Magazine.
The title was
White People and Their Values.
And I put a picture of Mother Teresa
and Stalin
side by side on the cover.
It becomes an empty category
that you can then fill with
whatever you want to
for purposes of political manipulation.
Whereas that is not true
of Catholic, Protestant and Jew.
These are real ethnic identities
in America.
And I think that's what we have to get back to.
I'm saying white is like Goy.
What is white? It's not black.
Read the thing I did
on Slaughter of Cities.
In Chicago
in 1910 referred to Protestants
as white people.
These people didn't know they were white.
This was the interesting thing about that conflict
when Martin Luther King shows up in Chicago in 1966.
Why are they white?
Because Martin Luther King is here.
That's why they're white.
Otherwise they were Lithuanians.
It was the Lithuanians who threw rocks at them.
You know when he got out of the car
and got hit in the head with a rock.
They were Lithuanians. But they were being portrayed as white people.
It's not an identity.
It's going nowhere.
You're not white, Pat.
It's not an identity.
Identity in America
is religious identity.
Religious identity is ethnic identity
in America.
This is not my idea. It's called the triple melting pot.
It says that after three generations
country of origin ceases to be
your source of identity
and religion becomes your source of identity.
And so America is Protestant, Catholic, Jew.
That's what I'm saying.
That's what you are in America.
And that's the source of your identity.
And if you're not that
then you're prey
to pseudo-identity.
And pseudo-identity are
NASCAR dads
which are consumer groups.
They used to be called blue collar workers.
Now they're a consumer group called NASCAR dads.
Harley Davidson riders
are another pseudo-group
that used to be blue collar workers.
And I'm saying white guy is a pseudo-identity
that is created to keep people
enslaved.
What I mean is,
I go back to my childhood
and I still remember
the times I used to be a pseudo-identity.
One of my friends
I'm living with
was talking about
the price you had to pay
to get a job.
The price you would have to pay
to get a job.
He bought a car
and he's like
in a little car
There's never been a revolutionary movement that was all Jews.
But the Jews invariably assumed a leadership role in this revolutionary movement.
The Bolshevik leaders here,
most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles,
care little for Russia or any other country,
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.
David R. Francis, U.S. Ambassador in Russia,
dispatched to Washington January 1918.
Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds.
Let them be thousands. Let them drown themselves in their own blood.
For the blood of Lenin and Yuritsky and Volodarsky.
Let there be floods, the blood of the bourgeois, more blood, as much as possible.
Zinoviev, Krasnaya Gazeta, September 1, 1918.
You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians.
They hated Russians. They hated Christians.
Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians
without a shred of human remorse.
The October Revolution was not what you call in America the Russian Revolution.
It was an invasion and conquest over the world.
It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people.
More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their blood-stained hands
than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.
It cannot be understated.
Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time.
The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality
is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.
Alexander Zolzhenitsyn.
Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately,
it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world
as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality
and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.
William Udendyk, Netherlands Ambassador to Russia, February 1918.
In Ukraine,
in Ukraine,
Jews made up nearly 80% of the rank-and-file Cheka agents.
W. Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism
and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution
by these international and, for the most part, atheistical Jews.
It is certainly a very great one.
It probably outweighs all others.
With the notable exception of Lenin,
the majority of the leading figures are Jews.
Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
Thus, Chiturin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinov,
and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski
cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or Zinoviev,
the dictator of the Red Citadel, Petrograd,
or of Krasin or Wodak, all Jews.
In the Soviet institutions, the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing,
and the prominent, if not indeed the principal part in the system of terrorism
applied by the extraordinary commissions for combating counter-revolution, the Cheka,
has been taken by Jews.
Winston Churchill, London Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
Most Bolshevik leaders who were not Jewish had Jewish wives.
For example, Bulganin, Bukharin, Rykov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov,
Zhushinsky, Lunacharski.
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed
with the stamp of alien invasion,
the murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov,
who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany,
and carried out by the Jews Goloshekin, Simolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yurovsky,
is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.
British journalist Robert Wilton in his 1920 book.
. . .
What made this enterprise, this international campaign?
Jacob Schiff swore to destroy Russia.
Paul M. Warburg was his brother-in-law.
Felix Warburg was his son-in-law.
Max Warburg of Hamburg, banker of the Bolsheviks,
was thus brother-in-law to Jacob Schiff's wife and daughter.
Henry Ford, Dearborn Independent, July 9, 1921.
There's never been a revolutionary movement that was all Jews, but the Jews invariably
assumed a leadership role in this revolutionary movement.
Thank you.
The Jews invariably assumed a leadership role in this revolutionary movement.
Because they were taught to be ruthless, vis-a-vis the Goyim.
It was a virtue to be ruthless to the Goyim.
I mean, you can say, okay, it's just cheating them economically, but I mean, that's a form
of aggression.
And you were taught that if you cheated the Goyim, you didn't have to feel guilty.
And so it's only a step there from taking that to the, you know, to executing the Goyim.
Okay.
And so Salo Barone, after the revolution, talked about the Cheka, which was the secret
police, and Lenin staffed it with Jews, because he knew the Jews would be merciless.
There would be, a Russian might have qualms about torturing another Russian, but a Jew
wouldn't have any qualms about torturing a Russian.
Because those people treated my grandparents badly.
You find this throughout Jewish history.
It's always the rationalization for whether it's usury, whether it's on.
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, shorting the stocks that they just sold to somebody, to
the Greeks, for example.
Or whether it's the Cheka torturing, you know, Russians, the Jews and the Cheka torturing
Russians.
It's always this rationalization.
Well, your people treated my people badly.
It's in Philip Roth, where he's stooping the shiksa, because he's getting back at the way
they treated my grandfather in Russia.
It's this type of rationalization.
It's this type of asocial behavior that creates this animosity.
It is something that goes real deep, this Jewish hatred of Russia.
If you think that the Russian Revolution was a unique phenomenon in all of history, then
you can't see any connection between that and neoconservatism, for example.
And so you're totally befuddled.
When it comes to contemporary manifestations of the same spirit, the link has to be the
Jews, people like Irving Kristol, who was a Trotskyite when he was a student at City
College of New York, and then became the father of neoconservatism.
So you don't understand where it came from, you don't understand where it went, and you're
just, you don't understand.
It's that simple.
If you think that the Russian Revolution was a unique phenomenon in all of history, then
you can't see any connection between that and neoconservatism, for example.
And so you're totally befuddled when it comes to contemporary manifestations of the same
spirit, the link has to be the Jews.
.
© transcript Emily Beynon
As the usury started to strangle the world economy,
same thing happens.
© transcript Emily Beynon
Governments have to print more money
to keep the banks liquid,
to keep the banks from going under.
But the more money they print,
the more they devalue their own currency.
And once that happens,
people look for something that's an alternative store of value.
And gold is the best store of value.
And if you have a currency that is based on gold,
it's going to be a better store of value
than the one that's based on confidence.
And I think the world banking system understood
that Libya was a threat.
© transcript Emily Beynon
No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power and we won't leave Gaddafi in power.
There's never been a revolutionary movement that was all Jews.
But the Jews invariably assumed a leadership role in this revolution.
The infamous Project for a New American Century and its 9-11 insiders were the driving force
for the U.S. war on Iraq and Israel's other perceived enemies.
By 2009, the PNAC morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative.
By 2011, with a few Shabbos Goyim, they were the key instigators for the destruction of
Libya.
And the signatories read like an invitation to a Bar Mitzvah.
This time, a very bloody one indeed.
There was close coordination, as you mentioned, between NATO air and people on the ground,
which weren't always Libyans.
My recommendation to NATO and the administration is to cut the head of the snake off.
Go to Tripoli.
Start bombing.
We need to stop this terrible bombing.
To me, we can't stand by and watch a government massacre its people.
And we don't want this place to develop into another Somalia, where al-Qaeda will take
users.
We need to stop it.
We need to stop this.
The 9-11 attacks were carried out by something other than the hijackers, and there's a whole
alternative universe in which the attacks occurred in a completely different way.
Yeah, if we lived in a parallel universe, that would be a very different universe.
There's, in our view, not a lot of evidence that that universe is actually connected to this one.
To give you a historical example, the Spaniards discovered all kinds of gold and silver in the New World.
The English did not have any gold and silver mines, but they had great ships, and they had pirates,
like Sir Francis Drake, and they stole huge amounts of gold.
Huge amounts of money from the Spaniards.
By comparison, Hillary Clinton, in the looting operation in Libya, froze 30 billion dollars in assets.
And now that they've conquered them, has anyone heard where the gold has gone?
CNN is not telling you about, you know, the trucks pulling up and the gold.
Evidently, the gold is gone. Don't know where it is.
And now that they've conquered them,
So, I mean, that is the land of unconfirmed...
Yes, we came, we saw, he died.
Gaddafi's convoy was flying a white flag, and Hillary Clinton ordered the drones in to attack a convoy flying a white flag.
No, it did not surprise me.
Yes, we came, we saw, he died.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Did it have anything to do with your visit?
No, I'm sure it did.
What we have here is a criminal, criminal state. Criminal state.
Saint Augustine said, if the state does not follow the moral law, the eternal law of God,
then it becomes a conspiracy of criminals, and I think that's becoming more and more apparent.
No, we cannot leave Qaddafi in power, and we won't leave Qaddafi in power.
The Libya intervention has been quite controversial, but we are where we are.
Let's put aside whether we were right to get here, whether we did it in the best of all possible ways.
Going forward...
Well, we've got a great opportunity. A great opportunity.
We'll be right back.
But on that Sunday morn, Peter and John were both reborn
When they saw the empty tomb, they saw the land
Mary Magdalene remained at the graveside
Wondered what she'd done
What had happened in the night
They had taken my Lord away
Mary Magdalene did say
When she saw the empty tomb, she saw the light
Oh, that Sunday was a day to remember
When the angels rolled that stone away
Thursday evening Christ was tried
Friday afternoon he died
But he rose from the tomb on the third day
On the evening of that Sunday to remember
Christ's disciples out of fear all hid high
Praises wiped away their tears
And he calmed all of their fears
When they showed him his hands and his side
He'll do it again tomorrow, he'll do it again tomorrow
The Jews as Pilate for Barabbas
And they mocked Jesus Christ on the cross
Christ's disciples feared the Jews
Until they heard the good news
And love drove all their fears away
The Jews as Pilate for Barabbas