|Is Lipstadt a Covert Counter-Mossad Truther?—and Other Puzzles | Five More Excavations From the Rabbit Hole SOON | Three More Excavations From the Rabbit Hole | Was Early Christianity Hijacked by Jews? | Jewish Nuclear Exit Strategy | Jo Cox, Jews, Invasion, Housing | 'Migrant Crisis' | Donald Trump vs Jews | Jeremy Corbyn | Simpleton Jews, Worthless Whites, Parasites and Prey | BBC, Syria, one Jewish source | When the Gentiles Awake | Real Flynn Effect | Money in the Bank. Nothing in the Head | Flat Earth Promotion; Why? & 'Jew Shock' | New View of Suffragettes & Blaming Women | Tell the Truth about Jews | 62 People Rule the World?|
|Two Tiers of Money: Understanding Money, Banks, Jews, and Varieties of Capitalism | Kevin B. MacDonald | What Shall We Do With Synagogues? | Parasitism | Scientific Nationalism | Nuclear Scepticism and Revisionism | Jewish Murders & Mass Murders | Jew Process | Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys? | Luke O'Farrell - One Man's Journey to 'Anti-Semitism' | Holohoax - Evil of Lying | Napoleon and the 19th Century | Eugenics | Campaign Against Arms Trade | Some Notes on Population | Jewish Plans for White Genocide | Taboos about Jews | 'Facism', 'Rascism', the 'Borjois', and the Need to Understand the Jewish 'Single Standard' | RamZPaul on 'White Privilege' | Irving on Himmler | NEW WHITE REFORMATION & Modern Techniques of Image Fakery, Event Fakery, Crisis Actors | Jewish Control of Money. And Deliberately Missing Economic Theory. Two tiers of money. | Paper Money: Incentive for Harm, and Warrant for Genocide | Straws in the Wind & Mental Drag | How Jews Use Blacks | Protocols of Zion and the Case of the Absent Genre | Inappropriate Politeness | How White Is White Violence? | Reparations to Whites | Jews 1: Jewish Liars, Trolls, Nudgers, Reputation Managers | Jews 2: Jews and Unions | Jews 3: Jews and Fake Information | Jews 4: Jews and Wars Considered as Jewish-Run Cock Fights | Jews 5: Jewish Hate for Whites - Examples|
|Jewish Lies and Deceptions. | evolutionary theory of Jews.|
• ‘Nuclear Bombs’ Exit Strategy: Watch Jews Continue Lying!Written by Rerevisionist 1 July 2016
• 'Jo Cox', Jews in Britain, 'Brexit', Middle East Wars & Making Money from Invader HousingWritten by Rerevisionist 19 June 2016
'Jo Cox' and her supposed murder gives a good opportunity to survey the connections between political parties, false flags, Jewish money, Jewish wars, and the 'European Union'.
Here are a couple of good shortish pieces on 'Jo Cox': The Occidental Observer and New Observer Online. The first looks at 'Jo Cox' as an MP: her disgusting indifference to rapes of white girls in her constituency, perhaps to keep Moslem votes; and her careerist opportunism, apparently expecting a lifetime career in light oratory, and air travel to places needing platitudes. That's between promoting bombing of innocent people. The second points out that there are many murders: none get the slightest sympathy unless they appeal to the 'New World Order' mob. Examples include the two Greek 'Golden Dawn' candidates who were apparently murdered by a motorcycle killer, Kriss Donald, and whites in South Africa. And may include George Galloway, attacked by a Jew, though of course this may have been a calculated fake.
It's impossible to trust the media: there are amusing Youtubes about Cox—bogus 'police' turning up aimlessly at some street scene, inconsistent witnesses, and family members reading from scripts (as everyone does after murders). The fact is she was just a whore of Jews, a puppet spouting slogans, a paid ignoramus. This relatively highly-paid 'work' is competitive: there are vast numbers of such people, more or less indistinguishable and untalented—no wonder they fight like rats in a sack. Nobody expects women to be technically competent, and women MPs exploit this psychological fact. I can find no evidence Cox had plans for helping third world countries: what sort of society can low-IQ countries be expected to aim for? What technologies are appropriate? Are there resources enough? Can exploitation be ended? Can they be supplied with water? Can arms suppliers be fended off? Can their populations survive?—simple questions the social justice warrior ignores. Men can do all that.
Some observers compare these people with Mrs Jellaby, from Dickens, and her small group. Or an earlier fictional character, Lady Bountiful. I thought perhaps a better comparison was missionaries: modern American missionaries seem to be the worst, considering their work done if they hand out a gift and get some sort of apparent verbal consent to their nonsense. But another comparison occurred to me: gipsies, who have a similar evolutionary path to Jews. Along comes the Romany, offering a sprig of herb, or a lucky charm, or mass invasion as a terrific benefit. With a back-up technique of snarling imprecations at anyone spurning her generous offer.
People who take an interest in the world must know by now that Jews controlled mass murder in the USSR, mass financial frauds in the USA, and mass post-1945 frauds and wars around the world. (When I refer to 'Jews', to save time I don't always put the word in quotation marks). An obvious question is: did 'Jo Cox' think she was a Jew? I'm agnostic on this question; some Internet burrowers might like to try to find out; Certainly plenty of 'Jews' have popped up in support of her, and apparently used her as a money-making vehicle. The figures seem doubtful to me; approaching a million pounds?—I'd guess this is a polite way of referring to Jews 'donating' paper money to sundry fraudulent charities. However, her policies are all directly Jewish. Well; there was some suggestion she supported Palestine, though, if she suggested the Palestinians should get their land back, I may have missed it.
Agnostics may like to be reminded that the Royal Family is Jewish; the Archibishop of Canterbury is Jewish; the BBC is laced with Jews, including Dimbleby, and is often directed by a Jew; Parliament is full of Jews, in both Houses; the Speaker is a Jew; of Party leaders, Cameron is a Jew; Corbyn is a Jew, as were both Milibands; the printed media, such as they are, are Jew-owned; the 'Holocaust' fraud is a Jewish scam; both world wars were Jewish; all major companies are Jewish; the Attorney-General is Jewish; women leading the campaigns against men and the family are Jewish. Even 'Intelligence' heads have been Jewish. And this is nothing new; people who think the BBC, press, etc are less trustworthy than before, are wrong; it's just that the observers have woken up to their surroundings. These things are all traceable to finance; the obvious source is the Federal Reserve of 1913, always controlled by Jews, but of course there are similar Jewish outfits in Europe.
False Flag Theories. From a few years ago: Political Murders: Moro, Palme, Lindh, Gaitskell, Kelly is a survey of some political murders (Europe only; Jews in Africa and other countries are a far more horrific story). The point is: what motives are there? Fakeologists can do some careful analysis here: to weaken nationalists? Reduce opposition to Jewish central banks? Stir up hatred? Disarm populations, with fake gun atrocities? Remove non-Jews? Just remove difficult people? Remove opponents of puppets? Remove political leaders and replace them with pliant puppets? Instal entire organisations, such as Freemasons? – I think the 'Cox' false flag is the first I've seen claimed to be intended to stop an election, or change its result. There's some evidence this happened in the past, for example to remove Gaitskell and John Smith from the so-called 'Labour' Party in Britain.
'Brexit'. This appears to be a serious issue; certainly a lot of money is involved, and a lot of fraud, and continuations of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan to mongrelise Europe. But, given that Britain is dominated by Jews, and that Jews all seem to favour invasion of white countries by low-IQ nonwhites, it's possible that on leaving the EU, Britain might be invaded by millions of Turks, sub-Saharan Africans, Middle East victims of Jewish wars. In other words, it may be worse. Or invasion may continue as before. Since London is an important financial centre, there seems to be nothing to stop Jewish policies from continuing. This is very sad, since obviously Europe ought to discuss problems and issues that affect the continent, just as other geographical groups should. Naturally the Jewish media say nothing on this issue. Personally, I'd vote to leave. But it's a difficult decision.
Jewish 'Money', Barracks and Hotels, and Payments to Invaders. One motive for encouraging invaders is to try to vacate the areas near Israel. Another is to mongrelise white countries. But another issue is the use of housing as a money-making scheme, at least while the system lasts. If invaders can be packed into cheap housing, or for that matter in unwanted hotels, they can be milked of rent, but only if the system hands out rent to them. With the paper money system, this is easy. Jews have practised this policy in the USA for at least 70 years with blacks, who are expected to spend their lives working for Jews. These rents and other expenses cannot be paid from current expenditure: the taxation would be impossibly high. Hence inflation, and rising debt. Probably the plan is—when the system collapses—that Jews will leave, pretending they've been persecuted. Anywhere; here are a few extracts from quotations illustrating some of the points.
Detail (below) from a 2015 site for 'Jews' in Britain promoting immigration into Britain, and all other white countries, but not into Palestine.
www.supportrefugees.org is (or was) the 'Jewish' site pushing immigration of fake 'refugees' (that site may of course disappear).
Sept 2015: copy of 'Jews' uniting to force immigration
'MIGRANT CRISIS' AS CONTINUED JEWISH SOCIAL INTERFERENCE USING NONWHITE INVADERSWritten by Rerevisionist 22 Nov 2015
« Jewish site promoting immigration into Britain
Jewish site promoting immigration into the USA
Jewish site promoting immigration into France
Just one of many Jewish sites promoting immigration anywhere... but not Israel
Remember: bombing of north Africa and the Middle East is supported mainly by Jews.
Here's a long-term overview:
 Why does it matter? It is important because facts about 'Jews' have been suppressed. You have been lied to; so have your parents; and your parents' parents, back for centuries. It's time to stop this secrecy.
 So-called 'Jews' distinctive feature is a collection of old writings. The 'Talmud' is one such. it's about the size of a few volumes of the old paper 'Encyclopedia Britannica'. Click the link to find out more. It is very long, and very disgusting.
 Modern so-called 'Jews' probably have nothing to do with ancient Jews by blood. A tribe was made to follow the Talmud belief system. Either way, the instructions on beliefs made them genetically fanatical, and tribal—they follow what's sometimes called 'ethnic nepotism', supporting each other at the expense of everyone else, with violence, cunning, theft, lies, often setting other groups against each other. They have inbred for at least a thousand years.
 Their total numbers are of course not certain; perhaps about the same as the number of Irish plus the number of Danes. Even if they were normal they could have had influence, in the way other nations have. Their hateful activities have made European countries expel them, many times.
 Historical examples of Jewish influence include Cromwell's war which installed Jews in Britain; the impoverishment of Britons in the 18th century; Napoleon's wars of theft, funded by Jews; Opium Wars against China; the US Civil War, fought over the issue of 'greenbacks'; the Boer wars; the 1905 war between Russia and Japan, because Jews hated the Russians; the 'Great War' where information in both Germany and Britain was controlled by Jews; undisclosed agreements to fund the coup by Jews in Russia, misnamed the 'Russian Revolution'; and secret funding of Churchill to start the Second World War by terror bombing of Germany.
 At present, paper money is the root of their power (since the Federal Reserve in 1913). It is not coincidence that World War was started in 1914. Control of money allows governments to be at the mercy of lenders. And allows Jews to buy up, own and control news sources, education, propaganda, lawyers; and weapons factories, and other profit-making industries.
 European readers, east Asian (largely Chinese and Japanese), and blacks need to understand that Jews hate them in a visceral, instinctive, inbred, but hidden way, just as some animals wish to harm others by stealth.
 Arabs and Semites have long experience of Jews: Islam is based on Jewish attitudes, while allowing conversion, so this is not surprising. Spain and Portugal, and parts of eastern Europe, have been invaded by Jews and Muslims. They have a tradition of co-operating where there seems to be loot. And a tradition of hatred where there is no loot.
 'Jews' are inbred to have a visceral hatred of whites and any other races they perceive as different from themselves. It's not true they are motivated only by money: the fake money they control at present is used to exploit and exterminate rivals, so far as this proves possible. The mass slaughter of whites in Ukraine and Russia, and the debasement of the survivors to near-animal levels, is one clear example. There are many other examples of their obsessions, false-flags, corruption, murders, propaganda campaigns, and warmongering. Plus their pretence of victimhood of which the most pervasive example in our times has been the 'Holocaust' fraud. This has given rise to the myth of 'pathological altruism'—ask the Germans and French in their occupied countries, and Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Russians how altruistic whites are. 'Pathological altruism' is a mis-diagnosis, perhaps for something along the lines of carrying out orders for what are (or seem to be) authority figures.
 It's claim the situation now is new: previously, invader were not presented with housing, food, medicine, money. In fact, it's the same pattern: Jews either looted other people themselves, or, for preference, did it through third parties—thugs, armies, or detachments of some sort, for example in the opium wars. Now, Jews are legally permitted to steal from countries—and they hand loot to invaders. It's indirect theft, in place of direct theft.
 'Immivasions', 'undocumented migrants', Africans in Europe, nonwhite invaders, South Americans in the USA, wars and atrocities to generate, or to be beneficiaries of, refugees. So-called 'Jews' hate whites so much they seek to ruin any white country; so far they have been successful, mainly due to bribery of collaborators. Slowly, truths are emerging—often through Internet. Official media such as the BBC have clearly suppressed information on boat and flight routes, people traffickers, advice given to 'migrants'—which destinations to go for (not getting out at e.g. Cyprus with no benefits; not registering in any other country than Germany, so the supposed first country in Europe is Germany; being shepherded for miles in large groups). And how much they paid—or who, for example Soros, paid worthless paper money as funding to traffickers. Other information suppressed is: what the 'migrants' have been offered: Houses? Cars? Sex? Chain migration? Non-reporting of crime? Another media suppression is the obvious fact that Syria is right next to Israel—and Israel offers no refuge for Syrian refugees!
In 2007, a British Ministry of Defence thinktank identified 70 alien groups, and predicted war between whites and invaders. Here is Nick Griffin in 2008 discussing a collapse-of-Rome scenario.
 As regards the Anglosphere, mostly USA, UK, ANZ, Jewish policy appears to be to first corrupt what elites there were or are; second, to mix whites with low IQ invaders to produce low level masses.
'Lord Dubs', of the 'Labour Party', in the 'child refugee' fraud, welcomes so-called 'child immigrant' invaders to Britain. Dubs thinks he's a Jew, and is part of the propagandist anti-German and anti-white Jewish thrust. Unfortunately the House of Lords has many so-called Jews and collaborators. The 'Labour Party' is one of many organisations which are largely Jew-controlled, just like the 'Conservative' Party, The Democrats, the Republicans, the United Nations, the 'Church of England', the 'Bank of England'.
Here are a few relevant videos:
Barbara Spectre, a simpleton who thinks she's a Jew, probably a puppet of other Jews, in Sweden. Short extract
Account on this site of Coudenhove-Kalergi to show how long this policy has been followed; since the 1920s or earlier.
Jews claim the Islamization of Europe is a good thing. This is an Occidental Observer article of Nov 2015, with comments.
How Jewish advertising agencies put their race messages across. Here's a composite selection of anti-white messages which US whites put up with.
A few things taken from Internet:–
A south African retraces his steps to learning about Jews
It's important for revisionists to get a feel for mass movements of people, not only deaths, which provide a simple guide to suffering: the Roman Empire, for example, is supposed to have imported absurd numbers of slaves. Just as deaths in (e.g.) the Indian famine are not reported by Jewish-dominated officialdom, nor are many population movements. An example from my notes is Sir Robert Thompson, who devised the hamlet idea of moving 5 million people at gunpoint in he late 1950s/ early 1960s in Vietnam - the largest forced movement of people outside the Communist world. Presumably the Queen knighted this person, no doubt following orders without the faintest idea of what was involved.
[ Start of This Articles Page | New Articles 2016 - 2017 | Articles 2012-2015 | Detailed Article Index at End | Guide for Politically Perplexed | Truths About Jews | Jew Curriculum Ideas | Main Site ]
• Donald Trump vs Jewsby Rerevisionist 25 December 2015
Internet hosts Youtubes from US TV. Thirteen (at present) Republican Party Presidential candidates for November 2016's election are online, on their own and with various interviewers. I've highlit, in yellow marker, Jewish issues (below) which seem unrecognised by Trump. Of course, he has to handle these issues with very great care.
[ Start of This Articles Page | New Articles 2016 - 2017 | Articles 2012-2015 | Detailed Article Index at End | Guide for Politically Perplexed | Truths About Jews | Jew Curriculum Ideas | Main Site ]
• Jeremy Corbyn: Just Another Jewish member of the Criminal Conspiracy.Written by Rerevisionist 15 Dec 2015
ConclusionsTaken from my longer article on Jeremy Corbyn
• Corbyn is just another simple-minded tribalist, putting what he's been told are 'Jewish' interests above those of all others. In this summary, the items in red are my interpretation of Corbyn's imagery, presumably intended to update the 'Jewish' lies of the last few centuries—from as far back as the time of Cromwell, or even earlier.
'Criminal Conspiracy' because the 'Labour Party' does not in fact take into account the views of whites. From a Jewish viewpoint, the British 'Labour Party' (founded in about 1900) was vaguely similar to the NAACP in the United States; neither organisation was ever intended to perform their claimed tasks.
• Corbyn maintains the pretence that '9/11' was not a Jewish action within New York. There seems to have been a collective Jewish decision to keep lying about 9/11: Google 'ADL 9/11 denial' for an absurd online document. (Version saved on this site)
9/11 was obviously planned to make new wars in the Middle East. Corbyn allows doubts about Afghanistan. But is happy that Iraq should be ruined, because it could damage 'Jews' and their oil interests and land grab in Palestine. Presumably he wants Iran destroyed, but as yet neo-cons have failed. It's difficult to judge Iran, because of the supposed nuclear issue.
• Corbyn maintains the fraud of the 'Holocaust'.
This of course is a major source of money, but primarily of censorship. Whether this will continue remains to be seen. Corbyn wants to deform education with lies if he thinks 'Jews' benefit.
• Corbyn maintains the fraud of nuclear weapons.
This is a new issue to most members of the public. Briefly, Corbyn has to pretend to abolish nuclear weapons; his CND background is useful here. If you're new to the revisionist nuclear issue, try nukelies.org
• Corbyn wants immigration from Africa, both north and sub-Saharan, and maintains the fiction that these hordes are Syrians. he does not mention Israel's wars in the Middle East.
'Jews' have a policy of race replacement in white countries. (See e.g. Coudenhove-Kalergi the Barcelona Accord, Birdwood's Longest Hatred). Corbyn follows this policy on auto-pilot. HOWEVER there's evidence now that Europeans are beginning to fight back. Probably Corbyn will modify his position, perhaps under the pretence he's a 'reformer'.
• Corbyn claims to be opposed to the death penalty. The 'Jewish' purpose is obviously to damage white countries (by releasing violent criminals; 'Jews' did the same thing in the Jewish coup in the USSR). And it's to allow third-world dictatorships, and attacks from the First World.
Obviously Corbyn says nothing about 'Jews' invading Palestine, and the mass murders there; the object is to retain stolen land, which he presumably, in his superstitious stupidity, imagines is 'Jewish'. He has a minimum of mock sympathy for Palestinians, to pretend he has a policy. On 'Jews' campaigning against the death penalty, except for themselves, see e.g. my book review of a 1960s book.
• Corbyn says nothing about paper money (controlled mainly by the Federal Reserve, which prints unlimited amounts). He implies the scam can continue forever, despite the inevitable inflation in years to come.
Corbyn does not mention 'National Debt' which is selectively a sort of 'Jewish' tax. Most people don't realise that 'Jews' make money from loans to central government; they get interest on their junk paper! Jews WANT more debt. Corbyn is either too stupid or too dishonest to mention this important issue.
• Corbyn, as a parasitic 'Jew', has no idea of the realities of such things as buildings, medical education and equipment, manufacture and transport and disposal of things. This explains his ridiculous faith that unlimited immigration can automatically be housed, fed, and so on.
All his life he's had paper money, and does not have the intellect to understand real costs of anything. As the expression goes, he's never done an honest day's work in his life.
• Corbyn, as far as I could tell, says nothing about 'private funding', a euphemism for 'Jews' buying public assets with worthless paper.
He doesn't mention, or says little, about Common Purpose, the secretive 'post-democratic' group that arranges corrupt secret deals.
• Corbyn's view of 'socialism' is that of almost all 'Jews': they think the USSR was 'socialist'. When he says 'socialism works!' he means a clique of 'Jews' in an undeveloped country, supported with Jewish money from outside, can be turned into a huge investment slave-camp.
Corbyn may have been pushed in the hope the truth of the USSR has been forgotten. He can wave his red flag, hoping people will forget 'Jews' organising mass murder, with the support of the 'west'. Whether this will work, now that Internet provides some freedom of discussion, remains to be seen, but it certainly looks as though it was part of the push behind him.
• Corbyn's 'Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer', John McDonnell, may not be a Jew; who knows.
However, he says nothing about debt, currency reform, processing the huge debt, the costs of militarism, and the related massive frauds.
• Simpleton Jews, Worthless Whites, Parasites and PreyWritten by Rerevisionist 16 June 2016
Jews as Simpletons
The seed of this article was a series of comments (appended to my Amazon reviews) by 'Marco Buendia', probably a Jew with a fake name, something habitual enough with Jews. 'Marco Buena' is a troll of the most tedious type. What grew the seed were comments on my reviews of books by Bertrand Russell. It was obvious 'Marco Buena' had no knowledge of Russell. So why would he make soothing noises about Russell, plus hostile remarks, so far as 'Marco Buena' was capable of making focussed statements, on my reviews of Bertrand Russell?
The clue came to me, very indirectly, from Ludovici's Woman: A Vindication of 1923. Ludovici was Rodin's secretary; this is Rodin of 'The Kiss', and of course other sculptures. Ludovici noticed that, before Rodin became famous, Rodin's studio was empty of female visitors. But as his fame spread, their numbers increased. Ludovici's explanation was that women have an earthy nature: money, power, yes; but discernment, taste—no. Detection of power is evolutionarily useful; taste, intellect, new perceptions, less so. None of these women could detect, from their own resources, whether Rodin was an artist, or not.
And the same must apply to the sayanim, hasbarat, or whatever the genetically-programmed liars call themselves. They're not interested in creativity, or intellect, or finely-argued explorations. That would be like a cuckoo interesting itself in principles of nest architecture. What Jews want is something like an Index Librorum Prohibitorum in reverse—titles and authors which are Jew-approved. To take a few examples more or less at random: what is the enlightened person to think of Arthur Koestler, a once-popular author? Well, he was a 'Hungarian Jew' [good], but he wrote on the Khazars [bad]. So the Jewish verdict is: bad. What about Benny Hill, part of a TV team making infantile smut? Well, he thought he was a 'Jew'—so, good. How about Colin Firth? He was in an infantile film about an ineffectual monarch—but it supported Jews. So: good. What about J M Keynes, the famous economist? Keynes knew about Jews and the money system, but said little if anything about it, even though the 'Fed' immediately preceded the 'Great War'. So the Jewish verdict: good. What about Tarantino, who is, or is said to be, the director of an insulting disgusting film related to the Second World War? Well, he conforms to what almost all Jews think is in their interest. So: good. The process is so simple! My initial puzzle is solved. Bertrand Russell was for most of his life a useful idiot, entirely unaware of Jewish malevolence. So: good. It's true that towards the end of his life he trod on a few toes—JFK murder, 'nuclear weapons', Vietnam War—but these were controlled by 'friends'. 'Marco Buena' was simply working from his script. Similar principle to Jews' opinions on Boas, Freud, and Adorno as explained by Kevin MacDonald.
An advantage of the Jewish mindset is that it's so very, very, simple. Others may agonise over justice, truth, equality, fairness and so on, but Jews ignore all that nonsense—they just grab what seems to benefit Jews. Should Jew actors support the 9/11 fraud?—Of course. Should Jews support Holocaust liars?—There's money in it. Of course! Should Jews keep Jewish sex offenders in Israel? Of course! Jews see the academic world as desirable, but large numbers of them are stupid; should they shout about each other, fake genuine work, write absurd books?—Of course! They manufacture ridiculous views on many subjects, as a disguise for their hatred for whites. Good teaching is difficult—so they pretend. A practical example is laws on secrecy: is there some way to balance legitimate information against legitimate secrecy? Most people would agree some privacy is important, for example; but secrecy opens various possibilities for covert violence and secret powers over others. Anyone who watches Jews 'debate' such issues will notice that their sole concern is getting more information out of non-Jews. Fake expertise by Jews is a serious problem: mimicry and forgery have led to astonishing events, from water fluoridation and faked disease, and media campaigns of lies lasting for generations, TV campaigns with faked events, to unqualified people in the US Supreme Court and Presidency.
The genetic micro-evolution of whites has not, yet, as far as I know, received anything like the attention it deserves. Europe is unique among continents in having geographical barriers—seas, islands, mountains, snow, rivers—which to this day influence the entire area, on the principle that 'good fences make good neighbours'. And Europe has abundant life, to be exploited, without enormous effort and risk. Dangerous areas need caution—Borneo's 'long houses' were needed in areas of wild jungle life. Whites have evolved specialist groups in farming, building, clothing, water navigation and so on. Such people must concentrate, and exclude other activities from their minds. Watching a video of men supervising hard disk drives in a Google installation, showed me how similar they are to shepherds, vigilant for hours on end. Perhaps this type of evolution helped steer whites away from the Jewish and Muslim monomania for single 'holy' books. But these Europeans must implicitly assume that other groups have the same interest in working together on the great jigsaw of life. And genetic inheritance and selection must bring gene pools into a rough balance with their environment. Note that traditional economic theory in Europe tended to believe that smallish specialised groups would work together—though the mechanism, for example the 'invisible hand', was vague.
How fixed is behaviour? Looking at garden birds or insects or for that matter plants, their behaviours remain the same over fantastically large numbers of generations. The problem is that it's invisible: you can't the biology that operates them. And yet, time after time, it stays constant. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes perfect sense: the structural mechanisms have to work, but what the device does is equally important to keep it alive. There must be some co-evolution between new developments and their control. It's perfectly possible that psychopathy is as fixed as the mechanisms which keep lungs and heart operating. The brain and its operation is not understood; maybe its effects are as much predetermined as autonomic reactions.
Whites Have Genes Too
Jews arguably have inherited parasitic genes—refer to this, then return: Jew parasite evolution. Personally, I'm a determinist: repeatability seems part of nature. Whether this is true or not, genetic causes must apply more or less to other races. Whites tend to be fixated on local problems, and need to be good at obeying orders—essential where many people take part in complicated activity which they don't fully understand. But here they are vulnerable to mimics posing as leaders. But Jews seem to operate on a simple instinct of greed and manipulation. If so, they can subvert and steal and harm. And head the world to disaster.
Specialisation and its Discontents
Other specialisations must have included reading and writing, and drawing, sculpture and ceramics; these are identifiable in ancient Egypt and Greece, in mediaeval guilds, to today. And military and police skills: wrestling, boxing, archery practice, sword fencing, firearms practice. Any type of specialisation may, presumably, be perverted away from its fairly natural uses: at the present day for example, visual skills are often used in misleading advertising, false flag creation, technological faked claims. All this, as is fairly well-known, opens up the possibility of an entire culture being parasitised, though many members may not be aware of what's happening. Even a group with an aristocracy, evolved to optimising all the component groups, necessarily dealing with the many and varied groups which a complicated society must have, is vulnerable. Some sort of hierarchy, of 'obeying orders', is likely to develop, especially in complicated projects, and can be subverted. Jewish history proves that a fiercely-fanatical network, sharing same genetic type, can be a serious or fatal menace to a society of specialists. This might be deduced from military, engineering, and business models in which concentrated attacks, thin ends of wedges, can lead to victory, demolition, market share, and what not. The Kevin MacDonald idea (whites as liable to pathological altruism) clearly does not apply to some white groups. Read true information on white war crimes under Jewish direction if you seriously think whites are 'pathologically altruistic'.
I suggest Jews used controlled violence on an ever-larger scale, possibly driven by instinct. At the city, small-scale level, the cases of Leo Frank (USA) and Jack the Ripper (UK) and of course many examples throughout Europe show how Jews established de facto immunity for Jewish violence, probably by application of propaganda, bribery, and thuggery. It's curious to see the BBC (run by Jews) fascinated to this day by the Jewish Kray thugs (they are reported to have paid £30,000 for a deathbed interview), and by the Jewish 'Jack the Ripper'. On a large scale, in the world since about 1600, Jews fomented civil wars in England, France, and the USA. Possibly Jews in the USA, for example 48ers after 1848 (deplored by Hitler as pretending to be German) were behind the so-called Civil War in the USA. The 'Great War', the Jewish war in the USSR, and the Second World War, and many other wars—Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia; Africa; Iraq, north Africa, Middle East—showed similar patterns. In each case, vast numbers of whites and others were sucked in, so the allocation of blame (or praise, if you like war) isn't simple. It's an important question as to whether aggression is genetic and inherent in whites, or men, or all people, or all animals for that matter; or whether the genes for specialist activity in whites were exploited. To this day, many US veterans have raped, murdered, butchered, and burnt alive people about whom they knew nothing, and still know nothing, as an outcome of unremitting lies. Americans have ruined and wasted countries around the world.
I'd suggest there's an equivalent, among whites, of the relentless fierce narrow-mindedness of 'Sayanim', is groupings which are themselves specialist and parasitic. A perfect example is the Church of England in the 1800s. Until about 1850, half the entire output of Oxbridge graduates went into the C of E. Their net contribution to intellectual life was, if anything, negative; and their net economic contribution was negative. While the Victorian world developed, in both good and bad ways, archbishops, bishops, and vicars stayed much the same. They were the BBC broadcasters of the time, issuing their official messages on Sundays. Arguably, a modern equivalent is the Professoriat, with the odd combination of strutting self-confidence, built on the shifting sands of imposed Jewish opinions. So far Professoriats have been buttressed by the power to weed out underlings bringing disagreeable truths.
All this is obvious enough to anyone who has witnessed the post-1945 expansion of universities. But (and I may be wrong here) some of the Professoriat are feeling restless, in the way vicars who (one example) led to women's deaths in childbirth by opposing contraception. In a world in which war deaths must total at least 100 million per century, and false flags and other hoaxes, such as the 'Holocaust', are obvious enough to any researcher, and democracy is mostly a sham—shouldn't these people perhaps do a bit? Make a bit of effort? I think I do detect signs that some professors are starting to rise above the New York Times viciousness. This may only be a result of the Jewish anti-white attitudes; but at least it's something when whites, who have been brainwashed by Jews for at least a century, show signs of stirring. Some are aware that their ivory towers are built on fragments of hell for which they were not responsible, but which they ignored. Another seed for this piece was a set of comments by 'David Ashton' in the Occidental Observer. I was unable to find out who 'David Ashton' is, though he seems to live in Britain. He was unable to understand that 'Comrade Corbyn', 'Phony Tony Blair' and Harold Wilson were all following Jewish policies. However, if he works at it he'll perhaps understand why (for example) Corbyn worries over 'nuclear weapons', and over the Jewish policy of supporting mass invasion by Moslems. Other typical issues are Jewish funding for barracks-style housing for invaders, rents to be paid by the state—i.e. 'paid' by Jewish debt. If the debt it used to support health or pensions or education, if Jews decide to leave they will leave a mess of huge unpayable bills. Even economists may be starting to understand this sort of thing. Typical comment: I used to believe all this BS about the bugaboos being a big economic benefit to Europe because these reports came from PhDs in institutes, think tanks or from the government. I couldn't understand it but because a PhD said it I believed it. And then Thilo Sarrazin came along and made it plain: Migrants make Germany dumb". ... 70 percent of the Turkish and 90 percent of the Arabic population of Berlin live off the state and are were not fit for much other than 'fruit and vegetable selling'.
Parasites and Prey Over Many Generations
Let's try to consider some long-term consequences of this clash, which ultimately derives from the characteristics of populations in Europe, and those of populations in Asia, their larger neighbour, where they reacted over many centuries of city life. Many people are aware, from nature, of predator-prey relationships. Birds may eat worms, and if worms become rare, bird populations fall, allowing worms to become more common. Parasitism is more mysterious: liver flukes, mistletoe, and tapeworms illustrate a few types. Careful observers may notice these things, because animal lives are so much shorter than human lives. Though impossible to observe by individuals, there is every reason to suppose similar oscillations will occur over hundreds of generations—however long genetics take to operate. We could be set for thousands of years of attacks by, from the white point of view, united psychopathic obsessives. And the process might be transmitted technologically: it is likely Talmudic writings were transmitted to Khazaria, starting the present 1,000-year part of the cycle. Who can say whether (say) Japan, or Russia, or Turkey might convert to some variety of Judaism, and start a new variant of parasitism?
Matthew Gould. Alleged to be 'Director of cyber security and information assurance at the Cabinet Office' (of David Levita Cameron's 'British' regime).
I doubt this race-based tosser in his silly hat has any competence in computers. Probably his role is to enforce censorship of Jewish crimes.
WHEN THE GENTILE AWAKESWritten by Rerevisionist 23 Nov 2015
Let's survey the 500-year war by Jews. The dynamic has been: Jews in a small area squeeze money from locals, get a reputation for shrewdness, and intermingle with a different elite close by. When their general theft, dishonesty and incompetence becomes clear, the same trick is repeated. The two most recent huge successes were (1) the coup in Russia in 1917, after which Jews used Russians and their raw materials ruthlessly, leaving a hollowed shell and a devastated and degraded population. And (2) the coup in the USA, with the Federal Reserve (1913) and 50 years later the murder of Kennedy, buoyed up by the myths of the Holohoax and of (in my view) nuclear weapons.
The internal stresses of parasitism are immense: vast fortunes are wasted on Jewish propaganda in all the media, in the education systems, in misplaced and harmful projects. Huge numbers of what in effect are collaborators work in TV networks, movies, 'news' sources, pseudo-sciences such as NASA, the 'AIDS' fraud, nuclear frauds, drug frauds, vast military campaigns of cruelty unprecedented in world history, secret military operations in Africa and south America, and endless legal and police waste. The fantastic nonsense of Jew-promoted migrations (but not into Israel) is another huge burden. It's not at all clear that survival is possible.
But Jew-awareness is not as unusual as many observers think: there have always been critics, many of them shrewd, though Jewish mopping-up operations have dimmed their work and their voices. Britain during and after Cromwell had critics; both the French and British were aware Napoleon was funded by Jews, as was Wellington; in each case, amid the wreckage, intensive propaganda was used to silence such people, and to ally with and fund their opponents. The disaster of the 'Great War' was largely the product of the funded simpleton Balfour; the next world war was largely arranged by Churchill, with the Jew-funded Stalin, and Jew-funded American and 'American' politicians. There must be a wealth, if that's the word, of personal, family, business, military, and state involvements with Jews. I've been told that, today, 35% of British voters say they would not knowingly vote for a Jew.
Now let's try to survey the world as it is now:
• The population issue seems likely to result in population crashes on a colossal scale: I doubt whether Africa's huge population, plus its future likely increase, can ever be brought to any level of wealth.
• Jewish greed, and the Jewish desire to control money in all countries, and their permanent need for violence and hate and repression of intelligence and education, show no signs of abating.
• Thus far, Jewish lies have had an almost monopolistic field. Nothing has countered them. It is possible this will change, with Internet; one has to hope so, and indeed Internet is new to human life, just as television was new about sixty years ago. This must have a weakening effect on collaborators who previously operated with almost no risk. For example, Lyndon Johnson in the USA and, earlier, Clement Attlee, would have had their policies exposed in a way impossible at the time, had Internet existed.
• It is to be expected that Jews will continue to identify, fund, bribe, and blackmail, as usual. The question is: can the process continue, now that the world is running out of wealthy states to parasitise? There seem to be signs of reaction: Hungary, Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, the USA, for example, even occupied Germany, although largely inert, do have well-informed clusters and groups. Military and 'intelligence' groups have had a long run of secret, almost unchallenged, cruelty and viciousness; it is impossible to sample their opinions, but there must be some change there, pending the takeover of Jewish money. The huge increase in false-flag mercenaries suggests a sea-change in the way force is applied.
• Years of criticism of the obvious fraud of the 'Holocaust' will force more people to reconsider their attitude to their assets and their countries' assets. Why should be fleeced by Jewish liars? And why should they not get their assets back? Why should they continue to pay out for unbacked money? Why should 9/11 criminals, war criminals, thieves of Palestinian lands, Liberty perpetrators, remain out of jail?
• The common-sense dynamics by which organisations grow may reverse; as one Jewish lie or contemptible piece of cruelty falls, a momentum must build up, in the way discredited groups fail.
• Jewish supremacy brings a number of lessons: (1) Secrecy and shameless lies work. (2) Groups of people working together are more effective than lone heroes or advertised figures. (3) Co-operation across nations is highly effective. (4) Violence as practised by Jews works. (5) Spying as practised by Jews works. (6) It is essential to keep Jews out of public posts.
• Technological changes include: (1) DNA work. Israel is claimed to use DNA tests to identify Jews. Perhaps these will have to be introduced in countries facing Jewish immigration. (2) Nuclear work. It seems likely nuclear weapons were a fraud all along. This will no doubt be kept secret until some opportune moment. (3) Weapons now have hugely enhanced flying capabilities, navigation capabilities, intercommunication (as in the 9/11 controlled explosions), though I doubt that explosives in terms of energy release are as great as nuclear propaganda has implied. Though it will be good to keep out of their way. (4) Communications seem obviously better, including machine translation, though it's hard to judge the use of ciphers and encoding.
It's tempting to try to summarise the effects of Jews so far, and their vast cohorts of fellow-travellers. Do the latter expect their lectureships in nothing, their listless propaganda, their election-rigging, their shrieking on-line trolling, their pretence that fake doctors with photocopied diplomas are competent, their ignoring of immigrant crime, their unquestioned access to funding, to last forever? Some clues must be provided by an honest examination of past wars, disasters, and ruins. Perhaps someone might face this daunting and unpleasant task.
• THE REAL FLYNN EFFECTWritten by Rerevisionist 9 Nov 2015
The 'Flynn Effect', named for James R. Flynn, is an exotic oddity, found in some hothouses in academic woodland glades. The general idea is that people are 'getting smarter', as evidenced by increasing scores on 'IQ' tests, ever since they were invented in 1900-ish—a splash of colour in a world in which intellectual decline seems clear enough. The official binomial nomenclature of 'the Flynn effect' dates from 1994, when The Bell Curve was published; or so Flynn said himself in 2006, in Scientific American. Flynn states that Reed Tuddenham was the first to present convincing evidence, 'using a nation-wide sample', of IQ gains over time. And that the label "Flynn Effect" was not coined by Flynn, although he noted the possibility in 1981.
Flynn says he's a moral philosopher; he has never administered IQ tests, or if you prefer, 'IQ tests'. Flynn's notes or comments were appropriated; if this was unfair, he doesn't (as far as I know) say so. It seems Tuddenham asserted in 1948 that 'US soldiers' had made a 14-point gain between the First and Second World Wars—the 'nation-wide sample' being north American. Similar observations have been made elsewhere, subsequently. Flynn in effect says since that time, there's been another 15 points or so added.
(But there is a rather obvious possibility that pencil-and-paper tests, slack administration and desire for results, the whole ambience of IQ tests, and their status—intellect vs simple mass soldiers—explains the whole shift.)
Flynn now proposes, in a video dated February 2013, 'an interpretation that eliminates paradoxes.' During the 20th century, 'our minds altered dramatically'. In about 1900, people faced a concrete world; they avoided abstractions. If we take three categories—1 classification; 2 use of logic on abstractions and universals; 3 taking the hypothetical seriously, plus 12 years of formal education—we see that only 3% in 1900 worked in 'cognitively demanding professions'. They were not on the verge of retardation. (This may be a counter to the idea that sub-Saharan Africans and other blacks measure IQs of about 70, regarded as mentally retarded).
Flynn was partly borrowing from written quotations from earlier people reacting to what they saw as 'dumb' questions: What do a crow and a fish have in common? How would you feel, if you woke up black? The same sort of reaction that blacks gave when they saw maps: what about variations in terrain? (My wording). Flynn seems entirely assured that, for example, farming is simple, without abstractions. And that modern education deals in abstractions; he quotes exam questions (not answers) from, I think, Ohio. I doubt whether this is true: American history for example has endless dubious examples and hardly any generalisations—such as, who gained from this?
Flynn correctly enough sees no political progress up to our time: he gives four examples of lies which influenced people: the Maine false flag, the Lusitania war bait, the supposed attack by Vietnam on the US 7th Fleet, and Saddam Hussein who 'hated Al Qaeda'. Flynn omits, or doesn't know about, Jews and slavery, Jews and the Opium Wars, the Boer Wars, Jews and their hatred for Russia, Jews and mass killings in the USSR, the fake 'Holocaust', Jews and 9/11—but of course even moral philosophers have to eat.
The real Flynn Effect will occur when large numbers of people finally grasp the part played by so-called 'Jews' and their collective tribal viciousness. When that happens, people will look back and marvel at the present lack of intelligence. Was there ever such a world?
• MUCH MONEY IN THE BANK; NOT MUCH IN THE HEADWritten by Rerevisionist 13 Nov 2015
Caught in a long traffic jam, we scanned the radio spectrum for information, and found local BBC radio; three car pile-up, plus Rod Stewart, who appeared to have been interviewed by the BBC disc jockey, or whatever they call them these days. I doubt Stewart actually called into some office falsely labelled 'Your BBC'; both sides must use more audio equipment than almost anybody. He's appearing live for a celebration of the Second World War; 2015 = 1945+70. Stewart has no time for critics of the supposed heroes of yesterday. Presumably he imagines Churchill was a hero of Britain. I vaguely wondered if technology is now at the stage where singing voices can be synthesised: one of the oddities of the 9/11 fraud was reportedly a mimicked voice of a mimicked victim, flying in a mimicked plane.
The number of stars who speak out on issues such as peace and war, and in particular Jewish-related lies, is tiny: I can only think of three offhand—Robert Vaughan on the Vietnam War, Brigitte Bardot on Muslims, and Eric Clapton on immigration, and I doubt any of those mentioned the Jewish connection. Perhaps some media-aware person might look at other times and places, and include the opposite phenomenon of support for wars and crimes and frauds: I doubt if it's a coincidence that Kipling, the anti-German grubby writer, was given a Nobel Prize for literature, just as Nobel Peace prizes for Kissinger and Obama, a century or so later, raised a few laughs. Hollywood awards, and Pulitzers, and Time 'persons of the year', of course point the same way.
Later: a comment in The Occidental Observer on Eric Hobsbawm, a phoney I think supported for life at the LSE (here's a recording of Hobsbawm on 'The Russian [read: Jewish] Revolution. Here's a review of one of his books). The 'extreme leftist' left something—an estate of about £2 million, I'd guess largely made up of one or more houses in north London. The serious and genuine historian, David Irving, has of course no such accolades, except in the sense that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Keith Richard is reported to have a personal fortune of a couple of hundred million US dollars. Maybe he has a private drug farm.
'Property porn' is a category of TV programming riding on the back of 'the property ladder'—I wonder how these things will show up in, say, a century. Possibly, by then, house ownership will have dwindled to nothing, after owners will be fleeced by taxes in the way English aristocrats lost heavily after the Great War. Possibly, as in Germany, vast numbers of people will rent for life. One porn show has a chap living in an engineered shipping container, made to float, moored for £5,000 a year, with his living space big enough for a table with four chairs. Another has an oversized imitation bathing machine which may, or may not, float. Others have what I've seen described as 'architectural masterpieces in places no-one wants to live'—apparently influenced by modern public buildings with vast internal spaces, like the British Library. These are sometimes enlivened by implausible PC 'couples'. None of these people seem to have any possessions to fill their spaces—how nice it would be to see a banqueting hall, or music studio, or library, or lab, or debating room, in these 'award-winning' spaces. None of the figures for costs seem remotely plausible. An aim of these shows is I think to raise no questions as to whether permanent inflation, or Jewish-pushed permanent immigration of unemployables, can continue. (It occurs to me a variant is the Antiques Roadshow with numerous dim people interested only in auction valuations, and pretending to be pleased with small valuations, and Fiona Bruce, a reader of other peoples' scripts, like an old whore trying to entice doubtful clients into her hidden world of lies and blackmail).
Watching a Youtube of Andrew Brons, ex-BNP member, who was elected to the European Union for 4 or 5 years: I was moved to make an irritated comment—he lectured in politics or public administration or something at the level of modern universities; and now has first-hand experience of the EU, and a pension of what might be a hundred or two hundred thousand a year. Yet he seems to know nothing of how the EU is funded (clue: paper money), or how it formulates and pushes its secret and hugely expensive, and unaudited, policies.
“£100 million pounds a year of your money”—Jonathan Bowden I noticed a report that Cohen, head of the BBC (or something), has been moved out, or left. Who knows the truth of these items? He was reported to have earned, or at least been paid, £300K a year for the lie factory.
Could it be that whites are genetically over-specialised, any specialisation being an activity which needs continual practice? Leaving openings for parasitical tightly-organised groups to discover weaknesses, and get to work in society's interstices exploiting them?
Bill Gates is supposedly the richest man in the world, and supposedly has decided to embark on charitable giving—possibly therefore the biggest private charity in the world. I wonder if there's a single person who will claim he has well-thought out schemes, for example to think out, design and implement schemes to bring improvements to the vastly-increasing population of Africans?
Is Donald Trump any good, or just another false dawn? Kevin MacDonald hopes so. But many people point out there's a continual outflow of money to Jewish 'think tanks', pressure groups, things like AIPAC and the 'Southern Poverty Law Center'. And there is no outflow to TheOccidentalObserver. Or to David Irving. Bradley Smith of CODOH is puzzled that whites with private money do not fund serious Holohoax work, since (he claims) whites collectively have more money than Jews. A more impressive instance is Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' mostly from oil, 'forecast to be worth $1 trillion' soon. Nobody can doubt the impressive ability of large groups of people to waste vast amounts of money; but there are surely enough interesting possibilities to be explored—Harold Hillman's work comes to my mind, obscure though he is.
I'm told BHT Billiton is the world's largest mining company. Based in Australia, it has been accused on several occasions of transferring assets to European royal families, at far below their worth. I hadn't previously thought of royal families as tax dodging schemes, though it makes perfect sense—secrecy, lingering traces of respect, entourages of money handlers. And probably more secure than obscure islands.
The Charity frauds and hoaxes are an interesting part of post-1945 life. They need detailed analysis; probably they are a way to (i) offset nominal tax rates for corporations (as in tax-deductible charity organisations), and (ii) provide money for propaganda, mostly anti-white. Compared with the trillions of paper money printed, so-called charities are minor, though the totals appear huge. I'll believe they are serious when people of the Bill Gates type fund serious science (Harold Hillman being an example known personally to me), or serious social science (of the David Duke, David Irving, Green of Migration Watch type), or practical stuff (such as aid to whites, recompense for victims of 'American'—read 'Jewish'—wars, genuine help for Africans), or consideration of massive Jewish evils such as mass killings in eastern Europe and mass killings in Vietnam, the Holohoax and 9/11. Until then everyone intelligent will know they are just another part of the world of liars and phonies.
It's truly agonising to see such people as the historian David Irving desperate to fund his books; while superficial fakes such as 'Jew' Simon Schama get fortunes from the BBC. The money and borrowings from the future going to propaganda are astounding and disgusting. Many of the opponents still don't understand why this happens; something like fifteen years ago, activists in Britain were surprised that a woman called Stanko was given £3 million for a propagandist department about women. They have no idea of the determination of Jews to wreck their lives.
• Why is 'Flat Earthism' Being Pushed?
Written by Rerevisionist 16 Nov 2015 & 29 Feb 2016; Youtube note 18 July 2016
• A New View of the Suffragettes
Written by Rerevisionist 16 Nov 2015 & 29 Feb 2016
[Image from here]
Names given (from Wikipedia) are: Bella Abzug | Kathy Acker | Rachel Adler | Larisa Alexandrovna | Gloria Allred | Shulamit Aloni | Rebecca Alpert | Pauline Bebe | Mayim Bialik | Malke Bina | Hanne Blank | Lisa Bloom | Judy Blume | Daniel Boyarin | Susan Brownmiller | Judith Butler | Aviva Cantor | Naomi Chazan | Judy Chicago | Ruth Dreifuss | Hedwig Dohm | Andrea Dworkin | Eve Ensler | Amy Eilberg | Jane Evans | Sandy Eisenberg Sasso | Susan Estrich | Susan Faludi | Merle Feld | Shulamith Firestone | Betty Friedan | Sarah Michelle Gellar | Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Ilana Gliechbloom | Emma Goldman | Elyse Goldstein | Lynn Gottlieb | Blu Greenberg | Tina Grimberg | Charlotte Haldane | Nina Hartley | Tova Hartman | Judith Hauptman | Dorothy Ray Healey | Susannah Heschel | Anat Hoffman | Brenda Howard | Sara Hurwitz | Paula Hyman | Elfriede Jelinek | Erica Jong | Elana Kagan | Roberta Kalechofsky | Michael Kimmel | Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner | Naomi Klein | Gilah Kletenik | Edith Konecky | Barbara Kruger | Anna Kuliscioff | Michele Landsberg | Paulina Lebl-Albala | Lori Hope Lefkovitz | Gerda Lerner | Amy-Jill Levine | Ariel Levy | Fanny Lewald | Rosa Luxemburg | Frederica Sagor Maas | Shelby McCabe | Hana Meisel | Annie Nathan Meyer | Haviva Ner-David | Martha Nussbaum | Margit Oelsner-Baumatz | Tillie Olsen | Judith Plaskow | Letty Cottin Pogrebin | Rachel Pollack | Katha Pollitt | Virginia Postrel | Sally Priesand | Trude Weiss-Rosmarin | Tamar Ross | Muriel Rukeyser | Danya Ruttenberg | Sheryl Sandberg | Zalman Schachter-Shalomi | Rosika Schwimmer | Drorah Setel | Alice Shalvi | Mendel Shapiro | Sandy Eisenberg Sasso | Susan Sontag | Daniel Sperber | Annie Sprinkle | Gertrude Stein | Gloria Steinem | Sandra Steingraber | Elana Maryles Sztokman | Yona Wallach | Wendy Wasserstein | Trude Weiss-Rosmarin | Naomi Weisstein | Ruth Westheimer | Naomi Wolf | Elizabeth Wurtzel | Diana Yoel | Lauren Shay Kaufmann
• Tell the Truth about JewsWritten by Rerevisionist 3 Jan 2016
Autobiographical Notes. Details of my personal awakening to this influential but tiresome part of modern life. This sort of life experience must be fairly common, with widely divergent detail of such Jewish activities as showed through the scrim. But detailed biographies seem to be rare. In modern times, it's a genre pioneered at book-length by David Duke and John Tyndall. Others (Solzhenitsyn, George Lincoln Rockwell, Eustace Mullins ...) illuminate other facets of the truth
After the Second World War, of which I had no experience, my miscellaneous memories up to about 18 include three (or so) schools, the introduction of domestic TV (with BBC as higher status), queuing for my coloured coronation mug, a very snowy winter, coins from many different countries, a mysterious radio comment that anyone from the Empire could move to Britain, the Cuba crisis and several Aldermaston marches. And the Kennedy murder. And a war in Vietnam. I was taught, and told, virtually nothing about Jews. Israel had been established in 1948. My father, although quite a serious Methodist, had little idea of Jews, though he insisted the British public had been told the Nuremberg trials were conducted under the strictest legal procedures. I think I have a memory of 'Max', probably a Jew who fled Hungary in 1956. An incident (before "the eleven-plus" exam) that I remember was a black from Kingston, Jamaica, addressing a class, presumably as some race-awareness thing; I don't think anyone asked a question. From ten to seventeen, attending a magnificent Gothic Revival Victorian school building, still with something of the flavour of the classical tradition about it, my political awareness extended only to nuclear weapons.
1963? Aldermaston/ London CND march
I avoided history as a subject, partly because the textbooks were clearly unimpressive, and partly out of a feeling that sciences were important and ought to be understood. There was a definite male-female divide on school subjects ('arts' vs 'science'). At the time, immigration was noted as a minor topic: Pakistanis in Henley, others in Reading (where Mary-Ann Lenighan was raped and murdered years later). I recall being irritated that someone surnamed Rose was able to get out of 'assembly' - a daily religio-legal-bonding process of hymns and announcements, and Biblical readings on such odd subjects as giving one's body to be burned but nonetheless not having sufficient charity. I had no idea that exemptions for so-called Jews were common and could see no special reason why anyone should miss the meeting. Looking back, I suspect a Newman, a Pontin, and someone with surname beginning with S, were Jews. The teachers (including in religious instruction lessons - as I recall mostly Paul's journeys, with nothing in the way of evidence) probably knew nothing of the subject, and, even if they did, would say nothing. Naturally, the private beliefs of so-called Jews were secret and undiscussed. There were a few refugees, real or supposed, but naturally no background information was forthcoming. I remember a pupil, probably 17 or 18, called Saunders-Singer, standing for a local council; no doubt some Jewish arrangement. A local lecturer was a communist, in the technical sense, reading Engels and Marx, thinking 'primitive communism' was leading-edge anthropology, and having stood as a Communist party candidate. His son I think was a lifetime 'communist'. I have no idea if either knew the Jewish connections. The only horror stories I can recall were the supposed 'melting eyeballs' of Hiroshima, and a few accounts supposedly about Japan and Nanking, now known to be Jewish lies; all the wartime atrocities throughout Europe, Russia, the Far East, Africa were almost completely censored.
BBC TV 1969. Frost on Friday. Rigged audience.
Bertrand Russell had a great deal of intellectual influence on me: his 3-volume autobiography was published in consecutive years, and most of his older books were available easily enough. I thought he might have things to say on mathematics and logic, and followed on some of his leads on such varied topics as detective stories, philosophy, styles of writing, the Manchester Ship Canal, the New York Times, Augustus John, and China. I hadn't known, until vol 2 of his Autobiography, that anyone had had doubts about the First World War. It was more than forty years before I thought to question whether newspaper and newsreel reports of British mass enthusiasm to go to war were, in fact, reliable. This sort of thing of course is typical of any censored topic, notably the Second World War. Revisionist works existed, but were hard to find and easy to ignore, with observation, persecution and prosecution waiting to be deployed. Distribution was difficult: as far as I can remember, I didn't hear of Did Six Million Really Die? until Internet. About ten years later, the National Front was easily swept aside by the unified media.
The attempts at comment were progressively smothered legally; there must have been frantic activity by Jews behind the scenes, particularly in Parliament, notably to encourage immigration. Despite a few signs, like very many people, I had no idea that Jews had developed a policy of white race replacement: in my case, full realisation was after the year 2000. All the political material I was aware of was either traditionally socialist (H G Wells, for example) or what I would now recognise as Jewish, such as the 'New Left Review'. I had no idea about such issues as Jews in the east end of London, 'Jack the Ripper', and Cable Street.
Spoof 'Private Eye' cover, showing traditional Jewish activities
My interest in Russell led me eventually to his book of essays War Crimes in Vietnam and to follow (as far as I could) his War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam, which despite his name was mostly carried on by others, in view of Russell's great age. Ralph Schoenman, Noam Chomsky, and Isaac Deutscher were three of the big names; at the time I wondered vaguely why there were no British names, and why Kissinger, for example, was not probed; I but didn't carry the speculation further. (Deutscher wrote a flattering, i.e. Jewish, life of Stalin. I have sometimes met people who were influenced by Chomsky into studying 'linguistics', which now appears as just another Jewish pseudo-specialisation; I wonder if 'linguistics' worked for them?) My dislike of atrocities, and the BBC's persistent covering-up, left me with a lifetime's hate of the BBC and its zombie liars. But I had no grasp of why they should do this, or why some people like to insist that newspapers are a 'primary source'. I was left with a lifelong impatience of simple people who have no sense of media lies.
For something like 25 years, 1970-1995 (with interludes for writing books on the new exciting home computers) I followed up various lines which I'd now count as 'revisionist'. I briefly met David Adelstein, a supposed LSE radical in the 1960s, who contributed a chapter to Student Power, a Penguin book which had a couple of interesting essays, and appeared to be a serious selection of meta-essays on education and society, though of course with no Jewish content; and Elaine Unterhalter, from South Africa, daughter of a supposedly-Jewish lawyer, who seemed to seriously believe that nonwhite immigration into London had no effects and could continue indefinitely. At the time, though not naive, I simply was not aware of the Jewish habit of convincing straight-faced lying, or of the infiltration of Jews into academic 'centres of excellence', or the entrenched anti-white fantasy world of 'Jews'. At this time there were 'riots' in Soweto (=South West Township, near Johannesburg) and Unterhalter stated that blacks at the LSE (+London School of Economics; a Jewish outfit) would joke about being the Minister of Finance or whatever; no silly nonsense about democracy, by the presumably 'elite' blacks. I did start to sense the corruption of universities, however.
[ A bit of Googling, out of curiosity, found Unterhalter is or was at the Institute of Education, in London, now part of University College London, which was probably founded as a supposedly rationalist but in fact Jewish outfit in the 19th century. It has 11,00 staff and a 'combined income of over £1 bn'. It claims, I fervently hope without real basis, to be 'Number 1 for Education worldwide'.
As an example of the odd atmosphere of UCL, I recall a party/social event including an Italian young woman pregnant by a black, a male anthropologist who fathered a child in some victim group, a young woman whose parents (Storr) were both something like psychoanalysts, someone called Jakov Lind who'd had a novel published on post-war Europe opposing passports, a doctor skirting around the topic of Marx being a Jew, the editor of the Ham and Hi being a Jew, replaced by another Jew; a long TV evening called 'Shoah'; a locally-produced play supposedly based on the death of Verwoerd in South Africa; Maurice Papworth, author of Human Guinea Pigs, not allowed to claim to be a Consultant; an exhibition of menstrual cloths at the Serpentine Gallery; and assorted other things: at the time I couldn't identify the Jewish undercurrents.
This was the era in which Jewish money led to increased penetration of well-concealed Jewish absurdities: Steven Rose and his fake biology; subservient liars such as 'Professor' Evans, later Professor of Modern History at (I think) Cambridge; widespread frauds in physics and biology and economics; promotion of nonwhite invasion of white countries.
Evans with Lipstadt at the 'Oxford Union'. Lipstadt, a pathetic Sunday School type, a ridiculous gullible nonentity, clinging to her childish rubbish, isn't the problem, really. It's scum like 'Professor' Evans, the rented prostitute types, turning out lies, ruining scholarship and integrity, and turning their backs on victims of wars; these are part of the real evil filth.
It's worthwhile to examine and understand the 'methodology' here.
1. An important aspect is money: typically an organisation is fed with money from its secret central source, the spiders of filth hidden in their lairs. Everyone else, of course, has to work for it—the curious combination of supposed beneficence with extortion for others is generally part of the package.
2. Another aspect is slow growth and eventual takeover: in this example, the odd unscientific practices of the 'Institute' were only incorporated into UCL in 2013, presumably to suggest it shares whatever 'excellence' universities are believed to have. This of course is more or less part of the 'long march through the institutions'.
3. But it could never work without verbal propaganda—'wording technicians' constructing a list of phrases to avoid awkward facts.
4. 'Analysis' of the world is subdivided by subject to conceal Jewish activity. Any possible reform or desired outcome is elided away by verbal constructions. One of these of course is sheer output, the torrent of lies and drivel approach.
5. Note that, at any one time in the last few centuries, Jewish policies have switched and changed: at one point the facts of Jews and black slavery have to be hidden; at another, trumped-up charges against beef industry are being made; during the 1930s, anti-German propaganda was fed to the USA; at the present time, TV and film are full of mixed-race activity; Donald Trump is being attacked by Jews, and Europe is under deliberate attack. Jews' activities as the decisions are made need to be understood in this way.
6. At present there are many frauds, mostly fuelled by what I hope is exceptional money and administrative power: the 'Holocaust' fraud, 9/11, AIDS, NASA, charity frauds, insurance frauds, nuclear and medical frauds, concealment of facts on race and crime, people and organ trafficking, and so forth. Generally, Jewish groups must know about these things; probably things like the Jew York Times help orchestrate the Jewish line.
Anyone studying the modern world needs a grasp of all these processes, to understand (for example) peace treaties and their foundations for future wars, the purported and real functions of organisations such as the United Nations and World Bank, the motives behind legislation, and the operations of news collecting, censorship and distribution, and 'think-tanks' and their propagandist public relations. A good example is the way the Holocaust myth was invented, and made use of, and is obviously intended to replace truth—as a cuckoo does its best to eject eggs and offload its costs onto hosts. Another example is the assembly of 'neo-cons' by Jews in the USA.
I discovered Hilaire Belloc's book The Jews. I found that newsreaders (and IBM salesmen) were actors, in the technical sense of having been trained as actors. I saw a play in Hampstead on the murder of Verwoerd, though I had little information on Jews' influence in South Africa. I heard of a girl, made pregnant by a Jew, who then refused to have anything to do with her. I heard of someone who would never marry anyone not a Jew. I noticed Doris Lessing's books (and met one of her characters). I met a medico who seriously thought he was descended from the Naphthali tribe of 4,000 (or whatever) years before, and thought his medical textbook of the accumulated knowledge of a few centuries was overpriced. I spoke to 'Professor' Shula Marks, a lecturer in SOAS, the 'School of Oriental and African Studies', and wondered how such ordinary Jews get appointed to academic posts. I spoke with a 'Rabbi', who told me Judaism was 'the most logical religion'. I heard about a dynastic Jewish marriage in South Africa between the owners of Servus and Marks and Spencer. I spoke with someone called Nick Roditi, who was featured in a newspaper as controlling a vast number of investments from a heavily-locked office in Hampstead. The connections between gold, the Boer Wars, and Jews were partly revealed to me by Hilaire Belloc. So were such things as manufactured Jewish surnames, and the tendency of Jews to name-change. I remember a Professor Potter, at Sheffield, part of a Jewish family, who I think specialised in the Reformation; his accounts that I saw had no mention of Jews, and I think this is probably almost unconscious: as with law, Jews study history with their specific psychological impetus, and no doubt it is a motive for studying the subject in the first place. Just as they may study language with advertising and propaganda motives in mind.
Looking back, the failure to mention Jews' activities seems astonishing: even people treated as outspoken (the Mitfords, Shockley, Enoch Powell, H J Eysenck, Thatcher, J Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn) said nothing about the issue, and indeed tied themselves in knots discussing 'Nazis' and what have you. The absence of speculation on such people as Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell and Richard Desmond; and the Dimblebys; and the Labour Party's homosexual Australian 'politician' Peter Tatchell; and paedophiliac Harriet Harman; and Thatcher's connection with Jews in Finchley; and Jews in the family-harm industry;—all this is truly something remarkable.
And of course this aversion from truth applies to techies and scientists, disappointingly. A bit of luck led me to contact Ivor Catt, a fellow science sceptic, who was the first person I met to have amassed doubts about 'HIV/AIDS', which I now see as a 1984 fraud by Jews. Catt knew a number of dissidents, and I spent a lot of time on Harold Hillman's ideas (see my write-up) and Phil Holland's, and on people investigating legal and anti-family policies, though none of them as far as I know noticed the Jewish connections. Most of these people had reached their personal plateau, and, though keen to have their own material examined, had no interest in other peoples'. However, in my case, these things only came together after the first decade or so of the Internet era. I collected revisionist books where possible; later, Amazon made this process much easier. But I wasn't happy to leave speculations in limbo. I noticed the 'socialist' Tony Cliff's real name was Ygael Gluckstein, wonderfully described as a 'middle-class Jew'. With Harold Hillman's notes, I pieced together Steven Rose's story, a 'scientist' employed at the new Open University, who regurgitated all the fake discoveries of biological research; I found he was keen on killing off large numbers of people if a Jewish state - like the USSR - would result. I found much the same with the 'historian' Hobsbawm. I noticed that Susan Greenfield, a media 'star' of the time, responsible for dubious biological work, was married to a Professor of Chemistry who was furious about the supposed 'Holocaust', but never mentioned the involvement of science with weaponry.
There are plenty of analogous issues, many of them providing new insights, and opportunities almost for controlled experiments. Good examples are cases where vested special-interest groups stick firmly to some opinion, even when it's highly likely to be wrong: fluoride in water, the true Shakespeare, Margaret Mead's spurious 'research' in Samoa, Marco Polo, the common name of the Great Pyramid, the look-say teaching of reading, and NASA's hoaxes illustrate the sort of thing.
The Internet era dates from about 1995. Hardware since then has advanced at quite a phenomenal rate: hard disks, solid state storage, underwater cables, optical fibres, computer chips, memory, displays, software packages, online maps and photos, chatrooms, online stores and ordering and payments, and on-demand printing. There is a gap in software: computer models of the genetics of parasitism, family strategies, group secrecy, race mixing, and similar topics, barely exist. Nor do economic models explicitly include Jewish 'money' and Jews as an interest group, in a similar way to a nation or transnational corporation.
1997 was roughly the date I found the 'Holocaust' was a fraud, at age of 50 or so: my 1997 essay (plus a 15-years later update) is here. This does not suggest intellectual precocity and breakneck progress. Anyway, I contacted David Irving, and did my best to help out in early 2000 at his libel trial against 'Professor' Lipstadt. I contacted, but never heard from, Gerald Fleming, one of the heavily-promoted supposed Jewish Holocaust experts: I found he'd been working in the audio-visuals group at (I think) Surrey University, at Guildford. NASA's sceptics gathered momentum at about this time; I made some, but not a huge amount, of investigation into their frauds. The Jewish race agenda took me longer. I worked out from South Place Ethical Society the connection between 'rationalism', and Jews concerned, but only concerned, with anti-Christian propaganda. The Public Records Office, known chummily as 'Fort Ruskin', was headed by a Jew—with some influence over the entirety of irreplaceable historical records of Britain.
Only about ten years after the start of Internet I first heard the ideas of nuclear scepticism, notably as regards nuclear weapons, and as far as I know started by Roger Desjardins in Canada. The forum started by Jesse Waugh lasted a year, from March 2011, and attracted a small number of very highly competent people. I began to see through CND, Professor Rotblat (Bertrand Russell fawned over him; Rotblat must have laughed), Frank Barnaby, Jeremy Corbyn, and so on.
At about the same time, the BNP (British National Party) began to attract greater attention: it supported Churchill and a Spitfire in its campaigns; and suppressed all accounts of Jewish paper money, though this was not announced until years later. Although Griffin spoke well, his censorship or self-censorship could not produce a complete, balanced worldview. Some people then in the BNP were competent: I saw Jonathan Bowden coaching people on how to reply to questions of the "Are you a racist?" type, and regret not feeling empowered to video him. Arthur Kemp was an impressive speaker; in happier and more scientific times his March of the Titans might have become a white history rival to Wells's Outline of History.
Suppressed, rare, foreign, old, single-issue, magazines, and other reading material appeared online. Did Six Million Really Die?, Birdwood's Longest Hatred, a version of Russell's Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal, and Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years translated into English (in part?) turned up in websites. Jews and slave trades, Jews and the Opium Wars, Jews in US government, Jews as revealed by the Talmud, and Jews in history are also found in newly-uploaded material. Often a practical problem is simply not being aware that material is out there, waiting to be read or viewed.
Solzhenitsyn's description of Jews slaughtering 'bourgeois' Russians after 1917, and replacing them with Jews, is an example of the type of information available freely for the first time. And rational critiques of Jews are becoming available; I hesitate to say 'for the first time', but this is true for very many people. For example, as it becomes known that Jews ran the Soviet Union by occupying all the important posts apart from selected puppets, an obvious question is "What did they actually achieve?", and the obvious answer is almost nothing—all the technology was copied and stolen from white countries: electrification, railways, radio, hydro-electric power. They couldn't even invent battery chickens. The Jewish tradition of joint parasitism is not well adapted to modern conditions. It is reminiscent of faked qualifications in medicine sold for $10 in Pakistan or the Philippines. Competence and honesty seem incompatible with Talmudic attitudes. Another issue is fractional reserve banking: piecing together the net effects of unscrupulous money power, with costs of currencies and amplification by multiple loans, is a new topic to economists, and of course because it shows them up as very incompetent, can be expected to show defensive 'professional' denial, just as historians of the 'Professor Evans' type will probably spend the rest of their lives telling lies. Jewish-controlled publications are showing signs of adjustments: the Occidental Observer says that someone called Harold Meyerson was dropped by the Washington Post—possibly for writing about Jews as separate from whites, a faux pas in public discourse. This sort of thing is not new: Jews are anxious to avoid evidence of parasitism, and this must be the reason for fakery, mutual promotion, elbowing out of whites, and issuing prizes. Einstein, Freud, Maslow, Boas, Kissinger, Obama illustrate some aspects of this. People are beginning to feel Jews are represented by such 'thinkers' as Barbara Spectre and 'Professor' and 'Historian' Noel Ignatiev, and currency manipulator Soros who continues the long tradition of Jews from Hungary.
Vastly increased flows of information have allowed opportunities for serious research: Do Jews own the media? Do Jews run countries? What effect did Jews have on the World Wars? What is the real history of the US Civil War? How come ridiculous ideas such as 'same sex marriage' all appear within a short space of time? What's the story with Churchill College and Wolfson College of Cambridge? Do Jews run the European Union (EU)? What effects have Jews had on national legal systems? Why the legal penalties for historical enquiries? How much money do Jews make from wars?
Some of this effort, though probably vanishingly little, may come from Jews: Maurice Pappworth regarded himself as a Jew, and took a serious ethical line on medical experiments. I knew Cecil Helman, a doctor who took alternative medicine fairly seriously. I remember being told (by a woman, in Atlanta, Georgia) of a Jewish organisation continually propagandising for Jews: she said "No novelist could describe it". But the omens promise very little.
Another approach to Jews is theological, treating 'Judaism' as a religion. Roman Catholics and Moslems both have specific reasons to study Jews. Rationalists don't have those specific interests and often can't or won't understand the importance of the Jewish tradition and the way it is expressed by genes. At the start of the first Iraq war, I saw a banner 'Hampstead Communist Party' in a hall; I doubt whether many people at the time would have identified a Jewish link, or links with the media of the time. It's only in retrospect I see the significance of E J Hobsbawm, or the organophosphate insecticide issue, or John Pilger, or the truth about Churchill, or nuclear scepticism.
Genetic theories of Jewish behaviour (see discussion) are in their infancy. But the sociopathy, unblushing lies, thoughtless grabbing whatever the consequences, and the very tight and extreme group feeling, suggests a group micro-evolutionary history. Anyone who sees regularity and predictability in phenomena will find predestination (but not prediction) credible, and the persistent way Jews carry out their actions, seemingly forever, must lean thoughtful people to a genetic theory of behaviour. For example, I've just noted Cameron, Jewish Prime Minister, on being notified of floods in northern England caused by badly-maintained rivers, clearly cares nothing for this, and certainly looks like a genetically-programmed organism which cares nothing for 'goyim'. Similarly, nonwhite crimes against whites are ignored.
Genetic determinism must apply to 'Christians', or 'whites', too. It's entirely possible the long-term highly-specialised honing, and intense focussing of Jewish cuckoo-like behaviour, will overcome genetically more varied types, then collapse after the removal of creative types. In a similar way to fluctuations in predator-prey ratios, and with added systematic variations in genetics of survivors. I hope not; but it seem possible.
If I may present an analogy to the present time, may I suggest windows looking into a collected items of evidence, the windows being blocked with accumulated grime and filth. Droplets from one source and another fall on the windows: perhaps 'Holocaust' dismissal, 9/11 evidence, the Liberty, truths about the Federal Reserve, Talmudic material. More droplets fall; some join together; others penetrate to obscure corners. But eventually there's a downpour; streams run together with a unified cleansing effect. Our age is like the discovery of an internalised mental America, a new nation, but with the peculiarity that it has spread covertly across, and penetrated into, many nations. Rumours of mysterious landscapes, and strange behaviour, and unexpected buildings, will come, we may hope, into sharp illuminated focus.
It's my motive for encouraging free discussion of the Jewish problem. With the proviso that secrecy may be needed during the discovery processes, and the correction processes.
• Do 62 People Own Half the World?
How Many People Make a Controlling Elite? is often asked. Here are a few comments and a conclusion.
21 January 2016.
Two Tiers: Key to Understanding Money, Banks, Jews, and Varieties of CapitalismWritten by Rerevisionist 1 Dec 2012
I aim here to try to clearly distinguish between
 The printing of money,
 Printing money: Money was, traditionally, something genuinely scarce and valuable like gold, silver, copper and iron, with local variations such as shells, stones. There are debates on the meaning of 'value', for example that water is of infinite 'value' to life, which I won't discuss here, beyond noting that these debates of course occur. In Victorian times, gold sovereigns, silver florins and so on were in circulation. We now have money which is of little intrinsic value: coins made of common metals, plastic cards, paper. Security printing is specialised work and of course has to keep ahead of forgers. These new types of money have the backing of states or other powerful groups. If the state withdraws its support, they become worthless: for example, in Soviet Russia, Tsarist roubles became worthless after the Jewish coup. A less dramatic example is general inflation. All this is obvious enough and familiar to many people.
 Central Banks, and the Federal Reserve in the USA, are usually privately-owned; the actual owners may be impossible to ascertain, and their records kept secret indefinitely. The presumption here is that the owners are, or mostly are, Jews. This claim is based on historical evidence and various types of inference from behaviour. Traditionally, governments borrowed money at interest. This makes sense when the borrowings are of genuinely scarce assets. Paying interest on paper money is essentially a fraud: paper money costs almost nothing. This should be what is referred to as 'money as debt'. There is virtually no risk in central banking.
 Banking as a Business: It's important to try to distinguish what I'll call 'genuine' banking, banking as a business. If a Victorian worthy inherited a large sum, he might found his own bank. He would lend at interest, probably to a stream of characters of uneven reputation and skill. It would be his job to get repayments, decide whether people with large debts should get more, try to encourage depositors, and to establish trust in his cheques, and so on. There is absolutely no guarantee that such a business would thrive. If his cheques and book-keeping prove acceptable, and there are liberal legal limits on his lending, we have the 'fractional reserve' system. This is something like 'traditional capitalism' as it appears in economics textbooks. Small competitive banks are vulnerable to various types of attack, such as panics, and rumours, and clearly central banks have a huge advantage over them.
 Two Tier System: It's absolutely crucial to understand that we have here a two-tier system. The issuers of money have entirely different attitudes from normal banks, and normal people. From the central bank viewpoint, inflation is good, and wars are good, because they offer more large-scale opportunity. They then print more money, and get more interest, provided their currency is accepted. If governments waste money, that suits them. If they can exchange their paper or electronic entries for any real assets—houses, businesses, utilities, colleges, factories, newspapers—they benefit; they've got them for nothing. There are obvious hazards here: wars may be lost, for example. But usually it's not their problem.
The two-tier system means they have money in superabundance: any central bank therefore has huge power. If they choose to support any special group, that group will thrive. Historically, news suppliers and distributors (e.g. books, newspapers, Reuters, theatre, film, TV, advertising) have been points of attack by Jews against hosts, but control over education (primary, secondary, syllabuses, teachers, apprentices, universities), and control over law-making and law enforcement (parliaments, judges, police) have been and are important. As a simple example of the two-tier system, consider Google or Youtube. These needed large amounts of equipment and expertise to set up, mediated my money, ultimately in Jewish hands. The technical people are in their hands, though they have some power of fighting back. Modern credit card money is in a similar position, with huge electronic networks of machinery and buildings, dominated by central banks. Modern political parties are in a similar state, since central bank money can be used to swamp any opposition.
 Varieties of Capitalism: The Marxist view, for want of a better phrase, is that money power rules the workers, who have to sell their labour for as much as they can get, usually, according to Marx, not much. Normal businesses take risks, and may close. But here again the two-tier system is crucial. Anyone who is in favour with money issuers may get unlimited, easy funding, even if it is economically irrelevant or counter-productive to host communities. It may be deliberately damaging—harmful products may be produced, Freemasons and similar secret groups supported, absurd laws passed, murderers may be freed, child abusers protected, drugs deliberately allowed to circulate, education dumbed-down, whole populations planned to be wiped out The two-tier system extends internationally: if it's decided to close shipyards or coal fields for example, it's simple enough to fund people to damage them, even if there's no good reason for them to go. Thus the BBC praised 'red Robbo' at his death, presumably because he helped international shipbuilders to make more money by closing shipyards. Jews can easily control exchange rates between currencies they control. Money can be filtered down to the European secret Common Purpose group whose 'graduates' can collude in (for example) new demolition and building projects.
The two-tier system has to be understood. It isn't inevitably harmful: if Jews had amused themselves building country estates, collecting art, donating to good causes, or taking realistic interest rates, it wouldn't have mattered.
But, probably because of their fanatical tribal ideology, this has not happened: any number of wars, any amount of destruction, suits their blinkered outlook. I suspect the Vietnam War—more munitions used than the entire Second World War, millions of deaths—was purely a money-making opportunity.
Many people puzzle over Germany in the 1930s being 'capitalist': the point is of course the central bank or banks worked in the interests of Germans rather than taking from them, leaving 'capitalism' in its more genuine sense. Trade Union leaders in Britain must be puzzled that Miliband is their 'leader', since they don't understand the Two tier system which promotes, 'educates', supports by their media, such people. I put 'leader' in quotes because Miliband is no more a leader than Churchill was: they are puppets who have adopted a view secretly circulated between Jews.
It's one reason for their superficial self-confidence: normal people might strive to balance things, to think of the future, to value community spirit, and so on; they are mutually brainwashed. It's simply not credible that barely-sane old bats like Specter, Roche, Lipstadt, Berelowitz have a carefully-thought out view of societal optimisation and a detailed vision of the future: they are just fanatics, like the Board of Deputies of British Jews. There are, inevitably, complications: there's an intermediate layer, chosen for the ability to work hard, or self-deceive: politicians, people nominally in control of utilities, businesspeople who arrange buy-outs, media controllers, may end up with a few million. They are paupers in comparison with the concealed controllers, and often embittered by receiving 'only' the equivalent of a Jewish minimum wage, for their subservience.
Remember the 'two tier money system'. It's one key to the world as it is now.
Let me add the words of '77GSlinger' from Youtube: I have been saying this about the fed for years now. It is obvious they printed quadrillions of untold dollars and gave it to the members of their tribe, so now after 100 years of stealing from all of us through tax slavery, they own everything
And let me add typical detail taken from Internet. This is on 'dollar imperialism' (Read: jewish control, mainly over the USA) as applied here to South America and minerals, though not their money and other control:
Speyer and Co., the great Jewish banking house, in 1903, gave Mexico her first twelve and a half million-dollar loan. They acquired by this transaction all oil concessions in Mexico. Rockefeller, Morgan, Jacob Schiff and the other great Jewish financiers followed suit and thus almost all the natural resources of Mexico fell into Jewish hands. Bernard Mannes Baruch, the National City Bank under Jewish management, and Guggenheim, the Jewish copper magnate, became the real masters of Mexico.
In 1906, the same world conquerors obtained monopolies over Nicaragua's national income from customs and excise and also over her railways and shipping lines.
The banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. was one of the founders as well as chief financier of the Panama Canal Co.
The major part of Cuba's industry is controlled by the Guggenheims.
Bolivia was turned into a colony of 'dollar imperialism' by Speyer and Guggenheim, who exploited the zinc mines.
Since 1935, thirty-five percent of the potassium nitrate and ninety percent of the copper industry of Chile is in the hands of the Guggenheim and Morgan Trusts.
In Peru, the copper mines are in the hands of the Seligmans and Goldschmidts.
Lord Melchett, under his original name of Mond, controls the nickel industry of Canada. Out of a total of thirty billion dollars which constitute the national assets of Canada, a total of three billion is in the hands of the Jews.
Foreign trade with China was organised by the Morgans and also by the National City Bank and, of course, by Kuhn, Loeb. Later, the International Banking Corporation, led by Edward H. Harriman the railway king, and Isaac Guggenheimer, began the economic 'exploitation' of China. Schiff, Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, and Harriman made fortunes out of railway construction in that country.
The work of Kevin B. MacDonaldWritten by Rerevisionist 18 Dec 2012
May I suggest a new attack point for nationalists—and everyone concerned with the truth.
Most readers here will have heard of Kevin MacDonald, whose print-on-demand books are available e.g. on Amazon. The Culture of Critique (1998) is the best-known, as far as I know: it deals with Jewish activists in 20th century America, including psychoanalysis, 'leftists', the Frankfurt School, and 'the New York intellectuals'.
His other books include A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy(1994) on the real or perhaps mythical long-term history of Jews, including segregation from, and competition with, goyim and eugenics.
His 1998 book Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism discusses the way anti-Jewish feelings have been provoked in host communities, and then exploited by Jews; and the self-deception of Jews in their writings and behaviour.
I have no idea what his MacDonald's sales figures are, but there's no question he's been a great catalyst in the process of Americans becoming Jew-aware, something like a modern Martin Luther figure.
His books are cautious and belong to the opening phase of Internet publishing. MacDonald accepts for example the probably fictitious accounts of Jewish ancient history; he takes the fraudulent 'holocaust' seriously; and he doesn't like the Khazar theory. He doesn't cover a wide range of subjects, really, either. He mostly shies away from scientific and financial fraud. Much of the power of his books comes from the listings, page after page, of Jewish names, with their activities.
It doesn't say much for British nationalists that there is no equivalent book relating to Britain; and I'd guess the same is true in France, Italy, and Germany in particular, where post-Second World War influences are overpowering.
We need ideally a cheap single volume book dealing with new information on Jewish influence in finance (especially). This is crucially important, because the two-tier paper money system gives Jews overwhelming financial power, able to buy out and influence pretty much anything.
Media control is essential to keep up this system; and of course it's international, so Jews can carefully watch events in multiple countries, and provoke wars or at least aggressive behaviour, and control systems such as the EU, which is clearly modelled on the Jewish-controlled USSR, still well within living memory. Jewish frauds, which are many, should be identified, not discreetly hidden, as at present.
Other important subjects include:
There are many examples of Jews and 'goyim' collaborating, often without the latter necessarily understanding what's being done. The NUS, NUT, and other unions illustrate the sort of thing. The deliberate dumbing-down of education may be another.
This may seem 'irrelevant' to many people, conscious that time is passing and possible disasters are unfolding; but I'd argue it's clear that there are huge numbers of ordinary people who need, whether they know it yet or not, such information in a clear and accurate form. Such a book or books should ideally be entirely factual and properly referenced, whilst being readable.
MacDonald's books are not online, though there are some sample chapters. This is the usual pattern; David Irving puts his books online, on the theory that people who like them prefer to physically own and handle their copies. Kindles and Nooks and other devices are new, and already influential; new books have to take them into account. Very long books may be easier on Kindle than on paper. It's not yet clear whether pictures will be displayable cheaply and effectively, but probably printed books and displays will resemble each other. Indexes may become less important—computer searching may replace them.
Note that print-on-demand publishing does away with the warehousing problem of books. It also allows more frequent updating—new editions could be produced almost daily. Mistakes can be corrected without having to pulp books or stick erratum slips in them. I don't think it's particularly cheap—Amazon's discount must be huge, and mass market books will I suppose still be printed and bound in the usual way.
Individuals who like truth therefore have new prospects for publishing. I hope a new genre of serious Jewish research will flourish.
Notes added in 2015: MacDonald's reasoning is largely based on evolutionary selection pressures. But interpreting human development in this way has difficulties: after all, all creatures face huge range of problems and challenges food, warmth, injuries, illness, shelter, aggression, whatever. For example, some people are puzzled by the idea that northern Europeans are 'reputation-based': a person who is heroic, skilled, or honest may be preferred above another person who is simply part of the same clan or group or family. If this is true, how come dishonest crooked Jews have been allowed power? One point to be made here is that control of the media allows almost unlimited power to control perceptions: Jewish pornographers, billionaires, war criminals and so on have their images shaped by media and, from a longer viewpoint, teaching. Many people are simply not aware how deeply their views on Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Eisenhower, Nero, Jesus, Ho Chi Minh... are a result of deliberate propaganda.
Probably genetics affects, and is affected by, 'lifestyle'. Theoreticians think of work, and the distribution of types of people needed; and they think of climate and general geographical conditions, and try to identify population characteristics that match—plump and fatty people in frozen areas, other type able to combat heat in hot areas, still others who live in high altitudes with thin air. Probably the resulting lifestyles leave a genetic effect: 'Jews' seem now to favour 'shtetl' type lives, cramped together in groups, interior dwellers liking lecture rooms, unable to understand other groups who like freedom, an outdoor life, and adventure. Black looting may be a form of 'race consciousness' or 'racial memory'. Mongols seem to be most happy living in vast spacious areas, rather than tower block buildings.
What Should We Do With Synagogues?Written by Rerevisionist 1 Dec 2012
I note the general lacklustre eye turned upon mosques in this country by Britons. The question of synagogues hasn't had much attention. May I suggest a few pointers--
ParasitismWritten by Rerevisionist 3 Jan 2013 | Expanded 3 March 2016
[Note added June 2013: Eustace Mullins' short 1967 book The Biological Jew is one of many booklets/ books on this censored topic. It's worth noting that the EU-related Coudenhove-Kalergi's father wrote against 'anti-Semitism', and that in 1933 the son jointly wrote Gegen die Phrase vom jüdischen Schädling (Against the Phrase 'Jewish Parasite').]
Link to new 2016 article on Jewish evolution out of the development of cities - a convincing overview of evolution of a sub-race. Note that the written word, when forced upon populations, can affect their evolution; very probably this is what happened to the Khazars, and for that matter Moslems and others.
Let's try to examine the idea of 'parasitism'. Every organism needs nutrition, and in well-evolved life many organisms feed on other organisms. Most (e.g. human beings eating cattle) are not usually regarded as 'parasitic'. In nature, it's usually easy enough to identify what's labelled a 'parasite'; it's some creature (or perhaps fungus etc) which lives at the expense of another creature. It may be fatal, eventually; ichneumon flies and wasps inject eggs into caterpillars, and their larvae eat the caterpillars until ready to pupate. (This is often seen in cabbage white caterpillars, which—if they aren't killed by insecticides—die, with little yellow fly/wasp cocoons festooned outside them).
'Parasitism' involves damage to the 'host' which is disproportionate: fleas, for example, which can only eat blood, need methods to penetrate skin and delay blood clotting, just for tiny quantities of blood: the damage they do is analogous in human terms to thieves, lawyers, or what have you who may inflict a lot of damage in exchange for their smaller gains. A spectacular example is the Rafflesia flower, the biggest flower that exists, which draws nourishment from other plants' roots. When damage doesn't happen, the forms of life aren't usually counted as parasitic: bacteria in the gut often have little net effect.
Some parasites, such as tapeworms, and liver flukes, aren't generally fatal; they feed from the host, and breed, in effect, using properties of their hosts' excretions. Occasionally we have symbiosis, where what might otherwise be a parasite helps its host: lichens are joint organisms; the large blue butterfly's larva is fed, by certain ants, with their own pupae, in exchange for a sugary excretion; greenfly may help plants get protein in exchange for the glucose they synthesise; nitrogen-fixing bacteria in some plant roots, for example.
Parasitism of course resembles predator and prey relations, except that predators kill and eat their prey. There is another resemblance with parasites: in neither case is the prey usually wiped out. If this happened, the predators or parasites themselves would die out. Cuckoos for example in birds, or malaria parasites, don't manage complete parasitism, no doubt more by luck than anything else.
Some interesting examples occur—or allegedly occur; biologists need sensational stuff to live, as much as journalists—amongst social insects, such as ants and some bees. To repeat Dawkins, repeating other writers, a rival species of ant has individuals that make the same sounds as ants in a nest, seek out the queen, saw her head off, and take the place of the queen; the invading species' eggs are cared for by the ants and displace them. This at least is the version I gathered: 'phorid flies' which make ants feed their females by threatening the queen in some way—several species seem to have been introduced into the USA against fire ants, an earlier introduction.
The idea of 'mimicry' is important in parasites where they are not carried internally. (In that case, what they look like doesn't matter). Often mimicry is protective: a harmless fly may look like a wasp, with bold colours, and presumably on balance survives better. Cuckoos lay eggs which mimic those of host birds.
If we extend this idea to human beings, there are points of comparison, but also of course differences. No other animal has anything like the learning capacities of human beings, though in my view these are easy to exaggerate. And, as it turns out, technology enables communications, and moving around of matter, to be enhanced incalculably more than the simple biological basis of a creature responding to close-up, direct stimuli—speech, commands, observation, effects of light and sound—and moving physical objects—food, useful objects etc.
Parasitism in people is therefore much more complicated than in the rest of nature. For one thing there is a time element largely missing in nature. Human beings remain powerless for many years; nobody in unviolent times would call a normal child a parasite (apart from the Jewish Freudian, Erich Fromm; and Anthony Ludovici on 'the beloved parasite') though if a normal child dies young, in effect, it is. There must be powerful mechanisms to prevent infanticide in human beings; if there were even a 1 in 10 chance of a child being killed in a year by a parent, few children would arrive at adulthood. In fact, it's possible human beings are weaker than, for example, chimps, by a factor (it seems) of 3 to 6, because very strong adults might be too dangerous for children over the long period of their growth. I'm told a man on steroids can have the strength of (say) four men, and possibly this is within evolutionary range; maybe there were genetic advantages in being less strong than chimps? If these mechanisms can be exploited, other groups may be able to parasitise human communities, and it seems likely that any mechanism in any group could in principle be exploited. A productive old person's total life is not in total parasitic. At present, Londoners are parasitic on the work of Irish labourers who built their sewage system in the nineteenth century, and Indians parasitic on British engineers who designed their cities.
Because of human creativity, it may be difficult to confidently detect a parasite, since someone may be an ancestor of someone who later turns out to be a creative type.
The ideas/beliefs issue is probably the most important as regards human beings. This is because people are physically somewhat similar: the difference between an extremely strong man and a feeble woman is large; but it is nothing compared with the difference between an informed person and someone entirely uneducated. And groups of people can have mutually-reinforcing effects, which is why in-groups can exist, and secrecy, lies, deception and so on can be hugely important. This is out of the reach of modern science: the brain is not understood, nor is learning, except as it is observed empirically. This is why advertisers may be as good or better at prediction than psychologists.
Since it's not possible to be scientifically precise, the following comments and comparisons aren't to be regarded as established; they may change with circumstances, though it's impossible to be sure.
There are interesting possibilities here. Jewish groups rely on mimicry of their hosts: changes of name to resemble their hosts, imitations of other languages, keeping quiet about hostile beliefs, temporary alliances on a belief basis, pretence of caring about matters of some host groups, adopting conventions on clothes—all these are entirely typical.
Here's an extract from Hilaire Belloc on the 'marvellous ability' of Jews to mimic other groups. ('Mimicry' is not his word).
Lower-class people often feel they must mimic upper castes, probably throughout the world. I'm told Indians sometimes get adopted as Brahmins, by imitating their manners, eating vegetarian food, and so on. I wondered if The Midwich Cuckoos (science fiction, soon after 1945) was a science fiction attempt to work through the concept of an intruded group of like-minded aliens. There is some comment on The Hobbit (film) in The Occidental Observer site: the baddies are obviously and clearly hostile: they threaten, attack, look, feel, sound, dangerous.
A German group wondered about Jews in Europe and speculated that they had evolved to look harmless, like teddy bears: who would imagine that Henry Kissinger is more of a mass murderer than Hitler, or that Cameron and his half-witted cabinet want white British people to disappear? Here's a link to the piece on Jews as parasites evolved from generations of town-dwellers. (Highly recommended: well-written. Opens in a new page).
'Secondary' or 'opportunistic' parasitism is an interesting possibility (mentioned in an Occidental Observer piece). Once a caterpillar is paralysed, or a tree parasitised by mistletoe, or cattle parasitised by larvae growing under the skin, or a creature made sick by some biological attack, there are opportunities for other parasites to feed in their turn, if they can find some way to do this.
Symbiosis between parasites and subsets of hosts are rare in nature: all ant workers and drones obey a parasitic new queen, but this occurs because the control mechanisms are fairly simple and inescapably compelling—maverick ants which fight back seem never to exist. However, the hugely increased learning capacities of people allow many variants of this process: Janissaries, forced labour, captured populations, unwilling allies, and forced impregnation, are possibilities. And undeniably such mechanisms are exploited by Jews, possibly in a genetically-determined way.
I've read (I have no idea if it's true) that some species of chameleons have status depending on stink glands: the smellier, the higher status. And that other species of chameleons, which pay no attention to smells, achieve high status simply by their ordinary behaviour. This may be analogous to Jewish behaviour in seeking out rich, high-status females, who inspire caution and fear in their own groups.
This is easier with foreigners; there are lots of examples of foreigners becoming (or being made into) leaders (Napoleon wasn't French; Stalin wasn't Russian; many, if not all, British monarchs were foreign; many inhabitants of India preferred Britons to other Indians) partly because the locals couldn't combine, partly because the foreigners had some superiority, but partly because they ignored the local pecking order behaviours. The USA is largely controlled by Jews, and this is certainly in part because their behaviour looks like leadership.
This in my view partly explains the success of fanaticism. Nineteenth century theorists regarded fanaticism as self-defeating in the long run; and this may be true. But in the short run fanaticism has advantages. It leads to unified behaviour: groups of Jews, groups of Muslims, gullible UAF types, fundamentalists, soldiers who have no real idea what they're doing, MPs who follow their party orders, have simple-minded views, but they can be very effective in a group, just as packs of animals all following the same impulse may work better than packs which in effect debate and dispute.There must be situations where the best style of behaviour is simply not clear; genetic variation perhaps contains a record of the range of decisions by earlier generations. These may not work in future: if 'aliens' visited earth, who could know the best reaction?
There's a case for studying law or medicine or history or oratory to benefit a community (or the world), but people whose only interest is (for example) law, in the hope of benefiting their group or making money, has a more powerful motive to study. In contrast, people with a wider view have a much more difficult job of trying to understand and balance different groups and issues.
When you see some hideous Jewish woman blithely saying that white girls deserve all they get, or a Jewish political party leader saying things completely the opposite of their party's supposed stance, or a BBC Jewish hack scribbler saying every country should welcome criminals; don't imagine there must be a process of thought behind it. It may simply be an innate genetic reaction to the external stimulus.
I can't think of any analogy of such 'escalation' in the animal world; I'm not sure there's anything comparable in nature, though possibly spores and bacteria, which can settle on and eat food substrate, might be seen as similar. I wonder if bee drones, which fly around between hives of worker bees with their queen, are a product of a long evolutionary process, and might be regarded as a small superior caste keeping the others under surveillance.
But in the human world, another type of extended parasitism occurs where parasitism is extended over large numbers of people. The paper money aspect of Judaism is a good illustration. These cases involve large numbers of allies of Jews, 'useful idiots', people who are bribed or threatened or prevented from knowing relevant truths.
I don't know if there's an official expression, among people such as Dawkins, for the sort of thing I have in mind. Because of extended communication between minds, parasites can multiply and extend, and may indeed need to do this to survive.
An obvious example, which would certainly be censored by Dawkins and most official geneticists, is Jewish behaviour in such things as the 'Holocaust' fraud. In order to keep their money flowing in, they have, or act as though they have, no option but to buy up media, influence 'historians', hire thugs, control people high up in political parties, make up their own parties, and so on.
It's easy to see how this sort of behaviour could become genetically implanted, over many generations, until it is a fixed characteristic of such a group, so that the members feel an overriding moral imperative to parasitic behaviour. The possibilities of language and oratory and mythologies, the invention of writing and methods of duplication such as printing on paper, the formation of specialist castes preaching the same thing ad nauseam, all suggest genetic reinforcement as critics and skeptics are killed off, successful parasitism rewarded, and opponents killed off.
As we've seen, because of the possibilities of learning, variation within human groups gives possibilities which don't occur in most species, unless you count social insects, whose roles are however claimed to be firmly determined.
Kevin MacDonald is the de facto leading theoretician here, though there are quite a few sociobiologists of the sort quoted by Dawkins. These latter however are usually optimists, speculating on the spread and decline of 'altruism' for example.
Kevin MacDonald in my view isn't completely accurate on whites. It certainly appears true that whites have been infinitely more inventive than any other group, and clearly this may be related to physical conditions: in Europe we have winter, and any group not planning for winter is liable to starve, unless it can successfully parasitise other group(s). And per contra, groups without natural defences must have banded together for group defence, and for group raiding, without time for luxuries such as civilised behaviour. If medieval London had been planted in the American plains, or Asian steppes, or in Africa, presumably it would have been picked clean by migrating hordes.
However it seems just as true that planning, agriculture, storage etc. needs people who are plodding, dull, and able to tolerate long periods of boredom, possibly just follow orders.
There are plenty of whites with little intellect. It wouldn't surprise me if this is sex-linked; certainly it's impressive how few women are able to understand or test hypotheses. MacDonald seems to overstate the benevolence of whites as a result. His website censors discussion of the Vietnam War: gum-chewing low IQ whites hardly able to speak their language raping Vietnamese women, technicians dropping bombs on defenceless villagers, don't figure in his world-view. And of course they are helped to ignore these things by the Jewish media, which never mentions them until an anti-white cause presents itself.
Jews, gipsies, thugs, may have evolved as groups of specialists. A largely city or state which is stable is likely to have castes or groups which inbreed; one such group may be fighters or security enforcers. But a far smaller specialist group could evolve, perhaps directed by the written word: their expertise may allow them to dominate a far larger group, many of whom are weak in those specific skills.
We have an analogy of a functioning complex creature with an animal which can be attacked by far smaller creatures: specialist microbes, blood suckers, worms, attackers of vulnerable parts—the head, heart, nerves, spine.
Perhaps some mathematical treatment on the lines of input-output analyses might be applied to the natural world. For example, invasive competition may be summarisable in a relation between levels of fighting and aggression and distribution of species and subspecies. There may be lessons from invasive species—flatworms, crayfish, giant snails, knotweed.
And perhaps some proofs might be found of necessary actions to retain and improve civilisation against threats.
Baker's book on race (reprinted recently by Arthur Kemp) examines reproductive strategies around the world, quoting anthropologists, and I think concluded these strategies were sound, tending to replicate the spread of qualities in these tribes and groups, usually by ensuring mating between all the different types except those considered undesirable or those who genetically were too weak.
My guess is that sexual reproduction itself is an evolutionary device to allow incorrectly-copied DNA to be removed.
Medically-Caused Parasitism ought to be mentioned here, the result of medical discoveries feeding back into the genetic structures of races and groups.
A good example is the discovery of the structure of insulin, and the discovery of techniques for extracting it from animals, or synthesising it chemically, or by genetically-modifying simple organisms. The result has been a steady increase in numbers of diabetics. There has also been an increase in deliberate confusion over the issue—inventing 'type 1' and 'type 2' to muffle the fact that non-production of insulin is lethal. It's imaginable there might be societies with (say) 20% of the population unable to make insulin, and a whole support network of industries and distribution and treatments, and careers and propaganda structures, with accompanying shortages in every other part of that society.
A more general example is population explosions, where medical and technical knowledge—cleaner water, more food— combine to enlarge populations in ways which the populations themselves were unable to invent for themselves. The result appears to be a mismatch between the genetics of the population and their abilities.
Added December 2014. Youtube Comment by 'blackacidlizzard':–
Denial of an objective reality is a survival strategy which works only for a parasitic organism.
The hunter must learn how projectiles fly and blades cut, he can not tell the universe to change gravity or shearing resistance to suit his needs. The farmer must learn what causes his crops and livestock to grow or to die, he can not demand of their cells that they replicate by historical necessity. The steelworker must learn how metals are joined securely, he can not demand they hold together to satisfy the proper narrative.
Only the useless, the taker, the unproductive, can flourish in denial of reality, for he does not demand that the arrow hit the deer, he demands that he be fed by one who did heed reality, and struck his target. He does not demand that manna fall from heaven, he demands his manna from the hands of those who know best where it comes from. He does not demand the steel stay together, he simply demands to be paid even when it collapses.
Reality is a necessity for the productive, lest nature give fatal consequence, and falsehood is a necessity for the parasite, lest the productive cease to sustain his life with their labor.
Denial of limits to growth is an effect of the Jewish parasitic mind-set. Their emphasis on money shows the same mind-set. Parasites unconsciously expect things to be available to them:- their only skill is to remove assets, by whatever means. They can't create. Expecting them to solve problems about population growth and quality, and resource limits and supplies, is like expecting rats to carefully plan their food suppliers, or tapeworms to ponder the activities of their hosts.
Added 3 March 2016. Examining 'Wars' Between Differing Genetic Mixes and Races of People
General Levels of Aggression As I've tried to suggest, there may be useful things to say about propensities to argue and dispute. Maybe whites do too much of this between themselves, for example.
Threats as a Distinctive Human Perception Because language allows transmission of any comprehensible idea between people, human beings must be almost unique in feeling threats from other people and other situations. No doubt birds in huge flocks, and fish in shoals, and animals within sight of each other, can transmit fear signals. But human beings being told (for example) that nuclear bombs from Communists can kill all life on earth—this sort of thing must be part of being human.
The Division Between Controlling People and Controlling Nature ... ... Is another example of natural behaviour that has been neglected by geneticists and ethologists. There is simple enough material on 'pecking order' in animals, and on long-term observations, but there doesn't seem to be much to explain how the evolution of enhanced mental capacity of human beings. It seems clear enough that 'learning', however it works, involves specialisation; and one such specialisation may be evolved tricks in controlling other people, the distinction between manual work and crafts and technical skills, and between controlling people. And it seems clear that sociopathy, and confidence tricks, and indifference to cruelty could be enhanced in some groups, just as dog breeds vary, as a result of artificial selection.
Language and Books as Part of Human Artificial Selection My own belief is that books, notably religious books where there is intense reinforcement of messages and widespread teaching and preaching from them, have an effect over time on populations. Probably the effect has been ignored, or just understated. After all, without trying to interpret such figures, only a 5% change in any characteristic per generation, for 10 generations (perhaps 200-250 years), yields a 60% change. This process may be relevant to the Khazar theory (Arthur Koestler's version is conversion around 740 A.D.) and to the genetics of Moslems (Quran composed earlier).
Even people who dislike the Khazar hypothesis might find this a convincing argument:
David Duke: Isn't the genetic record pretty clear that if you look at the core genetic similarity they have a lot in common with Semites yet at the same time they definitely have a different genetic signature than Semites and that's because they've been separate from the other Semites for thousands of years and they've had a very endogamous [i.e. breeding inside] breeding pattern.. accentuating the Jewish stereotype?
Kevin MacDonald '.. in all the data ... hard to find any psychological trait that's not influenced by genetics ... personality.. intelligence.. ethnocentrism..'
Genetic Variations in Populations & Selective Attacks by Parasites More examples of this line of thought. Apologies for the repetition; I'm trying to get the ideas across.
I do hope a significant proportion of American whites wake up to the sheer evil of the Jewish parasites, liars, and warmongers. In my view, whites have evolved to be diverse in their occupations, and many of these need technical skill, patience, endurance, childrearing, and so on. They are not adapted to oppose a tight extremist corps of liars and parasites, of the sort indicated in your article, experts in deception and concealment. Please, please wake up to the threat from Jews.
I think Jews are inbred, and their instinct is simply to cunningly attack and kill anyone they see as rivals. I don't think it's intellectual; they are like some races of dogs which are dangerously violent. Time and time again you see the same spitting violent filth from them; Jewish academics, soldiers, thugs, 'businessmen', lawyers all follow this model. It may be that multiple generations exposed to Talmudic filth has had that effect, with continued selection for aggression, secrecy, violence, parasitism: they are analogous to a group of people who has been exposed for many generations only to pornography and violence – would you honestly expect such a group to be well-balanced and normal? . . . The results of their behaviour are simply not within their mental framework, any more than a bull-baiting dog or chick-killing cuckoo can plan its future.
Parasitism can be seen in Jews who are supposed to be policy-makers, but seem to just follow their genetics of hate and attack. Cameron in the UK, Merkel in Germany, Soetoro ('Obama') in the USA, for example, all seem unable to understand that 'medical treatment' needs trained, skilled, and educated personnel. They seem to think medical skill is simply waiting out there. Africans seem to think electricity and food supply themselves. These are the attitudes of parasites, assuming hosts will supply it. It's a similar idea to Moslems saying "Allah will supply".
Scientific NationalismWritten by Rerevisionist 8 Jan 2013
I'd like to suggest a catchphrase: 'scientific nationalism'. As we all know, there's a divide. Some people, who are Jew aware, want to provide evidence for Jewish maleficence, and spread it and invite more research into it. Others, who are also Jew aware, consider the best policy is stealth: the public would be too shocked at the truth. I prefer the former, but there's no doubt that many people, after a century of propaganda, will be unable to analyse Jews sensibly.
Let's just look at the idea of imitating Jews. This seems unlikely to be a workable policy. Consider Jewish activity over the last 60 years: pro rata, putting the British population at (say) four times the 'Jewish', Jew mimicry would need four different 'holocaust' frauds, one twin towers insurance fraud every fifteen years, one major financial fraud each year, bombing a defenceless country (say) every five years, assassinations as regular events, entire control of every information medium, science frauds in every field of weaponry, health, and so on. That seems simply not feasible.
Smaller scale frauds include NASA, AIDS, fluoridation, many computer schemes, and much of biological science. It's my hope technologists may recover some self-respect; for years they simply accepted the situation with rather childish credulity. My website big-lies.org has material on all these issues; and I'd draw attention to Ivor Catt, the computer chip designer, quoted on my site with permission, who wrote on technicians and weapons frauds and Weinstock, mostly 1960s-1970s. Anyway—it's perfectly obvious scientific nationalism ought to get involved.
Nuclear Scepticism and RevisionismWritten by Rerevisionist 17 Feb 2013
Robert Oppenheimer, Jewish fraud. And simple soldier Groves, who signed the checks for the 'Manhattan Project'. Posing around what is obviously not the aftermath of an atom bomb blast.
"Without commenting on the truth or otherwise, have you heard the idea that nuclear weapons are a fraud?" – is a question I've put to assorted people: bookshop owners, market stall people, waiters, 'socialist' stall holder useful idiots, people in theatres, etc. (Click Youtube, right). So far, I haven't met a single person who has heard that idea.
"Have you heard...?"
Nor had I, until 2008, when I happened across a facebook comment, that someone in Youtube claimed nuclear bombs were a fraud. I had studied when young (among other things) physics, and was aware of 'splitting the atom', fission, fusion, H bombs, cobalt bombs, strontium 90, and all the rest. So the claim seemed absurd. On the other hand I was aware of mass lying: among other events the Vietnam War and the 'Holocaust' which by then I knew was a fraud. At that time Youtube videos had a maximum length of ten minutes; so I decided to take a few minutes out of my not-very-busy schedule to look.
In fact the video, by JW, is good, but not remarkably good—it's about twenty clips of 'nuclear explosions', probably from Youtube, run consecutively with a voiceover. JW shows one of the clips contains a reversed (negative) colour image in just one frame, which can only have been inserted by intentional fakery. The video's importance was as a seed—it was a seminal thing as far as I was concerned. I poked around on Internet and found forum comments on the topic; the earliest were from a Canadian, Roger Desjardins, who so far as I know is, as he himself claims, the 'father of nuclear skepticism'.
And I found that
 Films of nuclear tests (pretty much as 'released' to the unfortunate US public) were available on DVD.
 Some birth-year greetings cards typically for the 1950s had newsreels from the time including nuclear material.
 There are cheap DVDs of the Second World War, which of course near the end have material on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 I had, and no doubt many others have, VHS material, some including nuclear designers, people like Penney, 'the father of Britain's H Bomb' and so on.
 And of course there are books and magazines from the time, which of course can be destroyed, but can't be retrospectively edited.
 Worth adding fictional stuff: there's a junk film by Spielberg, the notorious Jewish liar, including Harrison Ford at a supposed nuclear test; and a BBC computer-graphic version of what was supposed to have happened at Hiroshima.
Anyway, I put up videos of my own, from January 2009 (see Rerevisionist Youtube channel), two based on old newsreels, others edited from films available on DVD. And in the course of time JW started his own forum, NUKE LIES, with himself as head moderator. This (and it's hard to believe) was early 2011; these things move slowly. That forum attracted some very good contributors, including NUKELIES himself, me as rerevisionist, FirstClassSkeptic from middle USA, voerioc from France, mooninquirer who started as a NASA skeptic, exorcist late in the year who also started as a moon inquirer, Sorensen731 from Spain, and many more; plus of course trolls. JW's website details included his home address in New York, and I suspect he may have been threatened. At any rate the forum disappeared completely one day after almost exactly one year. However I'd site-grabbed it, and restored it; which, believe me, took some work. It's now in a static version on nukelies.org pretty much unaltered, including the fatuities of trolls, frozen in their lies and stupidities. I've added more material on other subjects; big-lies.org is my umbrella site.
I don't want to go into detail here. Try
 Hiroshima as a myth; you have no idea how tedious it is when someone says "Har har tell that to the Japanese" as though we wouldn't have thought of that. This is a bunch of articles on supposed blasts, radiation, bomb aiming, propaganda, Japanese accounts, films, the 'mushroom cloud' etc which show the traditional story is wrong.
 Material on back pedalling—a lot of events now are people trying to slip out of the story, without admitting it was a fraud. Ward Wilson is an example of the most ridiculous garbage being presented as reasons why nukes in the hyped sense aren't usable.
 Material on the actual supposed test sites, though there isn't much—it's amazing how obvious things can be missed.
 Do it yourself—buy DVDs showing supposed tests and go through them, ideally with software that does single frames.
 Look at the material on Lookout Mountain labs where they made US propaganda films—their output was larger than Hollywood's. Another video is Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier a film faking corporation.
 Possibly most important is material on the 'Manhattan Project' and the politics; readers of this site will understand that Jews did not want Stalin's USSR to be challenged, so the claim it had 'H bombs' was important to Jews. Just one example of reconstructing what must really have happened.
 Mordechai Vanunu is especially important here as a part of the nuclear hoax: the idea being to 'reveal' that Israel had nukes, but also not to officially announce it, because this might have led to problems with USA official policy.
 This youtube Lords of the Nukes is 3 and a half hours, in high definition. It's in talk show audio format, with many clips, drawings, site grabs and stills which cover nuclear weapons and nuclear power as hoaxes, science frauds, politics, and the methods of disinformation. Recommended if you want a long revisionist session. Best downloaded as it's a long file.
Jewish Murders and Mass MurdersWritten by Rerevisionist 17 Feb 2013
Here's a small sample of deaths attributable to Jews, though not as yet by many official historians. Or by Jews and accomplices. This list, linked with typical comment in this site, is intended for people new to the topic; I'd encourage people to do their own research, and also try to balance that with murders by non-Jews:
Before Modern TimesMurders prompted by Jewish attitudes were certainly widely believed to have happened, though this thread in mass beliefs has been censored over the last few centuries. The 'Black Death', expulsions of Jews from cities and principalities and kingdoms, deaths such as Marlowe's, were linked to Jews. As revisionism picks up speed, such events and cases will (I hope) be re-examined. There must have been related events, such as Jew-promoted royal pretenders, no doubt with associated murders. And the larger-scale deaths caused by wars promoted by Jews, I think mainly through frauds related to money funding various groups of thugs, adventurers and so on, which reached an apex from 1913 and is still continuing.
Ritual murdersIn modern times, Arnold Spencer Leese, of Lancashire, was as far as I know the main author (and reviver of old books) on this topic.
Murders of Eminent IndividualsSpencer Perceval 1812 (Prime Minister)
Abraham Lincoln 1865
Alexander II 1881
I haven't attempted to assess Jewish murderers claiming to be 'anarchists'. But note (e.g.) 1894, Sadi Carnot's murder in France; 1897, Empress Elizabeth of Austria; 1897, Antonio Canovas in Spain; 1900 King Umberto, in Italy.
President McKinley 1901 assassinated by Leon Czolgosz in New York, described as an 'anarchist'.
1903-1913 33 murders (or 'assassinations') of political figures including 1907 Nikola1 Petkov of Bulgaria, 1909 Fehmi Effendi of Albania
1913 King George of Greece.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand (June 1914) & Jean Jaurès (July 1914)
Rasputin 1916 ('British' secret service claimed to have murdered Rasputin, of peasant background, and who didn't want war. He had the ear of the Tsar and Tsaritsa)
T E Lawrence 1935 ('Lawrence of Arabia')
Lord Moyne 1944
Franklin D Roosevelt 1945
General Patton 1945 [Note added May 2103: Patton's assassin supposedly identified posthumously 'new book' reviewed in Daily Telegraph]
Louis Slotin 1946 (nuclear physicist)
John Maynard Keynes 1946 (economist)
Bernadotte 1948 (in Palestine)
Forrestal, 1949 (United States Secretary for the Navy)
Povle Bang-Jensen of the U.N. in relation to evidence about Hungary in 1956
J F Kennedy 1963 ('the most risky organised Jewish action to that date' to get L B Johnson in power)
Pope John Paul I (died September 1978, about a month after his election). Entirely possible this was part of the long war of Jews against Christianity. There must presumably be revisionist examinations of this event, no doubt plus assorted spoilers, timewasters, liars to muddy the water.
John Lennon and others 1980
Hugh Gaitskell 1963, Aldo Moro 1978, Olof Palme 1986, David Kelly 2003, Anna Lindh 2003
John Smith 1994 (British leader of the 'Labour Party')
Diana Spencer 1997
Robin Cook 2005 (British Foreign Secretary)
Danny Jowenko 2011 (Controlled Demolition Expert)
Some Ship Sinkings-Related to JewsUSS Maine [1899. Excuse for US interests in Cuba, Philippines etc] [Note: Good piece on the Spanish-American War of 1898 here http://www.tomatobubble.com/span_am_war.html (Tomatobubble; date December 2014]
RMS Titanic [15 April 1912. May have been dual-purpose: insurance fraud claim on crippled 'Olympic' which would need preparation to make it sink. Plus another plot: removal of several rich males opposed to the Federal Reserve] (Added 2014-06-23)
RMS Lusitania [7 May 1915. Bait to get USA into First World War]
HMS Hampshire [5 June 1916; killed Kitchener]
SS Arandora Star [2 July 1940. Italian and other prisoners of war]
French Fleet [20 July, 1940. Churchill's order]
Bismarck [May 1941. Sunk while attempting to surrender]
MV Wilhelm Gustloff [30 Jan 1945. 9,000 drowned] (Added 2014-06-23)
Cap Ancona [3 May 1945. German ship bound for Sweden]
USS Indianapolis [30 July 1945. Left unprotected from Japanese torpedoes. Probably related to Hiroshima and Nagasaki frauds]
USS Liberty [June 8, 1967. Attacked in the Mediterranean by Jews]
Jewish False-Flag Atrocities to Start Wars, Gain Money, Disarm Populations, Promote Anti-White Racism etcJust a sample:
Jews in Poland provoking Germans
Churchill terror-bombings begin in Germany
Liberty attacked by Israel in the hope of US war with Egypt
Two UK mass shootings 1987 (Michael Ryan in Hungerford) and 1996 (Thomas Hamilton, Dunblane)
1996 Port Arthur in Tasmania resulted in Australians being disarmed
2001: 9/11 demolitions used to provoke gullible Americans into wars with Muslim countries
2012 'Batman' cinema shootings
Late 2012 Sandy Hook faked to try to disarm Americans
2013 Switzerland shooting
Jewish Mass MurdersHere's a sample of mass deaths attributable to Jews, or Jews and other groups. Again, I encourage people to do their own research. My best estimate is that deaths per head by Jews outnumber all other groups:
General anti-white and anti-black Organised crime | Drugs, blacks | Eddie Bernays and fluoridation | Holohoax fraud
Yad Vashem, Palestine
Jew ProcessWritten by Rerevisionist 10 April 2013
Green Arrow commented recently about the need for 'due process' before the future termination of the politicians and others who are deliberately wrecking our country, which prompted me to write this brief overview, because many so-called nationalists (for example on the BNP site), are either unaware of, or wish to conceal, the parts played by Jews.
Hence 'Jew process' as a homophone, which, like quite a few similar-sounding pairs, means its opposite.
Without repeating evidence in detail, let us survey Jewish influence in the twentieth century. The Boer War and the British alliance with Japan, which led to the defeat of Russia by Japan, are both connected with Jewish finance, as of course was the start of the First World War in 1914.
Many people are by now well aware that the USSR was established in 1917 and then run and controlled by Jews, relying on money from the 'west', on slave labour lines, under the strictest secrecy, to strengthen the USSR militarily, needless to say using the inventiveness of western companies.
Note that, without Jews, it is unlikely that such a system could ever have started: no other countries, after the disaster of the First World War, developed such a system, and therefore it seems likely that, without Jews, the mass murder of Russians and outlying nationalities would never have happened.
Another essential 1930s component was the increasing influence of Jews in the USA. Most people know now, that the 1913 Act establishing the Federal Reserve allowed Jews in effect to print unlimited money.
The effect was muted until 1916, when the British decided to crush Germany. The Balfour Declaration gave so-called 'Jews' a homeland in someone else's territory. After the US entry into the War, against President Wilson's avowed policy, the US economy was virtually controlled by Bernard Baruch and other Jews. Without Jews, and the influence of the USA, Europe would not have been devastated further after 1916; some arrangement would have to have been made.
Here is a final word from Mary Thomas at the Occidental Observer:
White Americans fought their German brothers during the world wars, and then GAVE the Jews a country of their own, and to thank us they give us the genocide of the white race. The evil I'm talking about here, the betrayal of the good will of decent whites here in America who NEVER MEANT ANY HARM WHATSOEVER TO THE JEWS—the evil is beyond my imagination. As we head into the cannibal's pot, you can BET that we're going to take the Jews down with us. Trust me, when whites figure out what has happened, there is going to be hell to pay. The irony is that we loved and admired the Jews.
I can't imagine that ANY of our major problems could have gained any traction whatsoever if not for Jewish influence. Abortion, feminism, porn, affirmative action, massive immigration - you can rattle off the things that are tearing us down and behind each and every one of those issues you will find malevolent Jewish interests.
But it takes a bit of intelligence and research to be able to put it together in your mind. I had NEVER had anything but admiration for Jews my entire life. At one time I had totally accepted that the Jews WERE a superior group and that they DESERVED to be the new mandarin class. I was a liberal for most of my adult life. Then came the bailouts of 08, and I started digging and reading, and I was shaken to the core when I realized that the entire thieving elite was above the law.
I sincerely wish that I did not know the things I know now, because the information causes me great emotional pain. But it is what it is, and the truth cannot be denied.
Mary Thomas considers domestic American issues, ignoring overseas adventurism of the USA, and the influence of Jews on American wars. She also doesn't mention Palestine. All of which strengthen her case. And note that races vary; some may well be more violent than others—it's a matter of evidence. Perhaps someone would care to statistically compute external deaths per head of racial groups.
Enoch Powell: a cowardly figure. He never spoke about Jews in the world, and their policy for immigration into white countries. So he was a safe surrogate target for Jews.
Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys? Self-Flattery, Anti-White Insults, JewsWritten by Rerevisionist 25 April 2013
I like to use chatrooms now and then, to test the views of ordinary people. I was struck by the phrase 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' for the French. Many people believe the Germans are cruel; some believe they are cowards—I remember seeing a group of drunk British in a pub saying the Germans were 'wankers', for losing a war; they probably had no idea of the opposition forces. The Belgians are often regarded as boring—for example by BBC dimwits who've never heard of the Belgian Congo atrocities. The Spanish are regarded as cruel; they have a phrase, translated as 'black legend', for this view of them. The Germans, according to H J Eysenck soon after the Second World War, regard the British as deceitful and infinitely cunning and untrustworthy—'perfidious Albion'. George Galloway said English food was rubbish and England grey and dull—and he said this just after the Second World War, a life and death struggle, which Galloway himself professes to believe was worthwhile; after all, Britain doesn't now speak German. (No country conquered by Germany ended speaking German).
There are related self-flattering opinions which don't bear close scrutiny: Napoleon's achievements were those of a single Great Man; Our descendants fought, suffered and died for freedom; How unthinkable that the French could save Europe; 1968 was a disaster (many people still have no idea about genocide in Vietnam); The Gold Standard and Sterling were British triumphs; The Western USA was settled by adventurous, independent types.
Obviously, all groups are likely to have views of other groups that they know exist. To try to be analytic, whole groups may meet whole groups, as in migrations, or at borders during population growth, or wars, or kidnappings and slavery. Or small groups, including single people, may go into other groups: the result may be friendship or attacks or rapes, or exploitation. Some feuding groups behave better to strangers, than to people known to them. Arabs seems to have specialised in kidnaps and slavery, in particular taking males of a youngish age so much of the upbringing is done for them, and using them as janissaries. Nobody seems to point out Jews, in recent centuries, had a similar money-based policy of bribing useful idiots—think President Wilson, many American puppets, Nixon, Clinton et al; Heath, Livingstone, Benn, Thatcher, Blair are British examples.
I've sometimes wondered if English is unique in its large vocabulary of dismissive, insulting, and divisive expressions, often mutated from previously objective descriptions—blackguard, villain, vandal, idiot, worker, bugger, fool, clown for example—of which only 'blackguard' seems vague in its origin. Thus for example 'bugger' seems to be derived from 'Bogomil'—Christian heretics who were accused of sodomy to encourage others to make war on them. But probably this verbal thing is fairly universal. Bertrand Russell wrote '.. Such organizations [i.e. large ones] always involve... sentiments of aversion: fear, hatred, contempt and so on.'
Many of the denigratory expressions seem to have been used to promote wars, by divide-and-rule, or for increased unity, and must therefore have been imposed top-down. At a more cerebral level, some plays attributed to Shakespeare, at the time of war with Spain, are highly nationalistic; Chauvin wrote to try to unify France; Hegel and other Germans wrote to do the same for what became Germany when the small states unified.
At the present time, Jews control the media and are in an exceptional position to insult any group, and manufacture their own versions of truth: Schindler's List illustrates their obvious anti-Germanism, but the same sort of thing applies everywhere: the Japanese were switched some time after 1945 to hard-working allies; the Vietnamese, having allowed Jewish weapons firms to make a fortune, go virtually unmentioned—trash films such as Stallone as 'Rambo', 'Apocalypse Now' based on Conrad on central Africa, 'The Deerhunter'—have no mention of Vietnam's history, customs etc. Russians barely appear, and of course Jewish atrocities are never mentioned—'Doctor Zhivago' is a painful series of lies. Italians are shown as violent crooks. These are films: in Britain, we are somewhat spared Jewish American TV, where even unpromising material, like Chechnya, gets bogus Jewish TV low-budget trash.
Similarly, the British are often shown as decadent poofs or white spongers, ordinary Americans as violent small-town hicks, eastern Europeans as Tarantino-esque scum...
My impression, taken from for example Brewer's Phrase and Fable, and Roget's Thesaurus, is that, relatively, this is something new: Roget says 'Dutch' was at one time the British expression for anything outlandish and foreign; and mentions the French word meaning 'frog'. However, it is generally agreed that newspapers, fake photographs, radio, films and TV are unequalled for arousing dislikes and hate.
I'm writing this piece to try to get people to snap out of this frame of mind. Or at least pause and question. What do you know, realistically, about the Chinese, the Iranians, the Brazilians, the Hindus, Americans of the Adirondacks, Cossacks, north Koreans? Are judgments of the French, Germans etc, and Iraqis, Iranians etc, often based on wartime propaganda, likely to be true?
And to consider people who have, so far, been given a free pass; obviously I mean Jews, who have subverted legal systems to try to make criticism of them impossible. The fragmented laws against the Holohoax are one illustration; the fact that the Talmud's evil is almost unknown is another. We are offered the claim that things are 'the same': Gordon Brown said 'all religions are the same', which is preposterous nonsense. A pitiful John Cleese Youtube implies that to be anti-Jew is like being against Dagoes or Belgians. Obviously some sort of true, objective judgement of Jews must replace these parrot-cries.
Some years ago, the Oxford English Dictionary was legally attacked, for using the verb 'to Jew', meaning 'extortionate usurer, driver of hard bargains' among other things, though of course this is a pale shadow of the truths of mass murder, slave trading, and thefts. The OED weathered this attack, perhaps surprisingly. I'd like to suggest a reintroduction of true Jewish facts into general discourse. How about 'as evil as Jews'? 'As worthless as a Jewish Nobel Prize?' 'As racist as a Rabbi'? Münchhausen Syndrome replaced by 'Jewish syndrome' to describe the absurd inflation of their modest abilities. 'What do you call a paedophile Jew?'—'An MP!'
Luke O'Farrell: One Man's Journey to ‘Anti-Semitism’(Here's O'Farrell's piece on his 'awakening' to the Jewish problem in 2005)
Written by Rerevisionist 27 April 2013
Browsing heretical.com, the website of Simon Sheppard, who was jailed among other things for trying to expose the Anne Frank fraud in his local public library, I noticed a statement that Luke O'Farrell, Sheppard's fellow-prisoner, had taken time off after one hundred articles. I'd read Luke before (though never met him, as far as I know); a site-grabbed version of heretical.com of 2001 has no mention of O'Farrell; this and other evidence suggests O'Farrell became Jew-aware between about 2001 to 2005. O'Farrell's last piece is dated 2008, so the 'time off' message is five years old. His pieces were uploaded usually at 7- or 14-day intervals, I think in the USA too, judging by the spelling. NB the email address on the site, ofarrell at heretical.com, didn't work when I tried it.
He's an interesting writer; his sources are credited—usually so-called 'quality' journalism, including Jewish newspapers, plus Internet material, and online photos. He looks for Jewish money and racial influence and politics, in the Blair/ Brown era of 'Labour' politics and Cameron's 'leadership'. He is good on biological science, and on 'liberal' mass media criticisms. And he's good on coining metaphors and making comparisons:- 'corruption follows Jews the way flies follow an elephant with diarrhea'.
It interested me to see his changing views, for example as he reinterpreted Ken Livingstone and Private Eye and George Galloway. And, as with most people, there are points he hadn't yet picked up on; in my opinion—which may be wrong—he doesn't seem to know the Khazar theory of 'Jews' as descendants of nomadic predators; he hasn't realised 9/11 and 7/7 and many other events were false flags; he understates intervention in (for example) Africa, where Jews unquestionably prompted military action to get control of minerals at least since 1900; he doesn't smell a rat—or another three-letter word—about Ireland; he thinks Jews have gold, not realising the legalistic use of paper money and e-money is the modern substitute; he hasn't traced the fortunes spent on 'defence'; he's unaware of science frauds, such as 'AIDS' and nukes, and the corresponding 'dumbing down' of education. And no doubt there are many other, as yet secret, frauds of Jews and their collaborators awaiting exposure. A good example is Idi Amin, who may have been activated by Jewish frauds, and who may have been attacked in the press as a result.
Rather than attempt an overview, I'll link to some of his articles here (they open in a new window; and I'm assuming the site heretical.org will remain online) to illustrate his voyage of discovery:-
• 17 Feb 2005 Dr Strangeloathing—How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews [Awakening, he says, after noticing the hypocrisy of 'Rabbi' Neuberger—supporting race mixing, but worried about Jews marrying 'gentiles'. Then extending into corruption, politics, journalism, crooks, and the movie about Christ by Mel Gibson. Neuburger also appears in 7 Oct 2005 Freedom of Screech: Non-white Cuckoos in the White Nest on statistics warped as regards foreigners in the NHS and other aspects of Jewish anti-whiteness]
• 24 March 2007 Vulture Culture — Fool 'Em to Rule 'Em [Article on 'Holocaustianity' as a new, imposed Jew-invented religion.]
• 17 Feb 2008 Joyim for Goyim [Jewish permanent attack on free speech. The new Jew at the Foreign Office, David Miliband on 'supporting democracy abroad'. Includes Stephen Lawrence and phonies: Richard Stone, Ken Livingstone, Lee Jasper, black hate criminals.]
• 28 March 2005 Letter from Japan [Short article in effect of Japanese revisionism of World War 2 and the US occupation, and increasing race pressure on Japan. Note: www.jiyuushikan.org is the relevant Japanese revisionist website]
• 25 June 2006 Olly's Folly [Oliver Cromwell and the readmission to Jews into Britain. As revisionism spreads, knowledge of the part played by Jews will extend back in time and more deeply across the world. Britain became important as the New World was opened up. The Great Fire and Bank of England followed...]
• 29 Dec 2005 Jews as Dull [Dullness of Jews and their uncreativity]
JEWS AS ANTI-WHITE RACISTS:--
• 19 Dec 2005 A Louse in Wonderland: "White" Rabbis and non-white Savages [Account of 'Cyril Harris' and Jewish Marxists in South Africa—Suzman, Slovo, Kasrils; and Jews in Australia promoting Muslim thugs and violence]
• 19 March 2006 Divided We Stand - Jew-Blighted We Fall [Charlene Downes murder contrasted with [alleged] suicide bomber. John Prescott Nigerian employee Housing Association fraud, and Nigerian NHS fraud, both 2006. ... controversy about NuLiebour selling honours for cash. If you look at the donors—"Sir" Ronald Cohen, Andrew Rosenfeld, "Sir" David Garrard, "financier" Barry Townsley, "Sir" Gulam Noon, Chai Patel—and the man who arranged the donations, "Lord" Levy, you'll see a very obvious but completely undiscussed pattern. A Jew is selling knighthoods and peerages to Jews and Asians in a White-majority nation. And [alleged] nuclear secrets to Israel. Interesting claim that emphasis is on Palestinian non-whites to pretend Jews are white as parasitic camouflage]
• 9 April 2006 The Joy of Genocide - World-Wide White-Out! [Aaronovitch]
• 24 Sep 2006 Free to Obey - Our Days of Whine and Noses [Just a few of anti-white attacks, including at schools. Plus Menachim Begin and the King David Hotel]
"RACE DOES NOT EXIST":--
•10 Apr 2005 Masters of Unreality [television as medium for spreading lies through medium of deceitful language]
• 26 Sep 2005 Twilight of the Goulds - Jewish Lies about Race are Crumbling [Gould, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Diamond]
• 10 Dec 2006 Enoching on Heaven's Door [Black violence - white lawyer killed. Trevor Phillips. Idi Amin. Black African one party dictator Hastings Banda]
• 4 Nov 2007 Brain of Terror. [Ingenious parallel between human races and human languages. There is only one language—the human language. Vile linguistic bigots may try to pretend that English, Chinese and Navajo are somehow separate "languages", but they merely reveal their own ignorance and stupidity. Far more unites these three meaning-delivery systems than divides them. They all use vowels and consonants, they all have ways of referring to the past, present and future, of expressing negation and hypothesis, of capturing the world and its complexities. The differences between meaning-delivery systems are so small, the similarities so vast, that we can reach only one conclusion: Language does not exist.]
• 15 Jan 2006 Three Parasites and a Funeral [comparison of parasitic worms, which attack eyes or brains, with Jews - 'Jews have taken over the sense-organs of White societies and made us blind to the huge threats of mass immigration and non-white crime.']
• 28 May 2006 Bongo in Congo [Evidence of black savagery by comparison between countries - Congo wars and Britain]
• 26 Nov 2006 String 'Em Up! Puppets, Politics and the West's Dance of Death [Jews evolved in pecking order sense, to love oppression and violence; whites are dangerously individualistic (a view resembling Kevin MacDonald's). O'Farrell gives many examples of Jewish uncreative arrogance and brutality, and white uneasy co-operation for gain; British politicians, lawyers and so on, in positions where they can inflict damage.]
• 8 July 2007 When Puss Comes to Dove [Predictions of violence inevitably resulting from Jewish liars promoting immigration into white countries]
• 23 Dec 2007 Heil-Hound On Their Track ... the Resurrection of Race Realism [wolf; chihuahua; border collie; Afghan hound; St Bernard; corgi—conclusive proof that races exist, and can come into existence in a short time]
• 10 Feb 2008 Ave Sharia! [Comparison of the Church of England with an island-dwelling creature, safe from predators... until now. The ineffectual and hypocritical Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is quoted. NB he has been replaced by Welby who has Jewish ancestry.]
• 14 March 2005 Tortured, Beaten, Burnt Alive [Japanese benefits/ Professional ethnics Yasmin Albhai-Brown and Trevor Phillips. Muslim voting fraud, violence, drugs/ Kriss Donald (aged 15) ignored by the Jews-media]
• 1 June 2005 Hell's Bells [rap words and low IQ and psychopathy]
• 28 Jan 2007 Brother-Pluckers—Black Packs and Racist Attacks [Trevor Phillips, Keith Vaz, Sentamu, plus race and religion attacks in Africa and India]
• 2 Sep 2007 Doc Croc [Long piece on hypocrisy and self-promotion of Jews and blacks and collaborators: Ken Livingstone's crocodile tears over 'lucrative' slavery; half-Jew Bob Geldof and self-promotion; Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan and atrocities ignored by the Jewish media; Ruskin as seriously concerned humanitarian vs Marx; South Africa violence and Zimbabwe's dead babies; all outcomes of Jewish 'liberalism']
• 10 May 2005 A Scream of Jewish Hate [Review of Ursula le Guin first published 1968; she studied under the pseudo-scientist Boas]
• 1 July 2005 Red, White and Jew [Midwich Cuckoo and comparison with Imran Khan - lawyer for Muslims; Kamlesh Bahl sacked from Law Society]
• 16 Sept 2007 The Apostle of Jostle [review of Piers Morgan's 'diaries' including Jews - Gove, Aronovitch, 'Denis MacShane' - and avoidance of attacks on whites]
• 21 Oct 2007 Pieces of Hate [Catholic Father Leonard Feeney on Jews and their dupes and one of their campaigns, against 'hate'; down to the Jews behind NuLabour in Britain and the neo-cons in the USA]
• 18 Nov 2007 Poison for Goys [Stepford Wives, Rosemary's Baby, Boys from Brazil as white males against white females. Interesting material from Wikipedia on Robert Harry Inglis, Henry Goulburn, and Edward Sugden, opposing Jewish emancipation in 1830, partly because Napoleon had been funded by British Jews. Modern equivalent of fraud, murders, and rapes by immigrants]
• 13 Jan 2008 Ethnic Invasion and the Crisis of Chrysocracy [Covering-up of anti-white crime by the BBC. Mugabe, Peter Hain, race-traitors Tony and Cherie Blair, Willie Nagel, Isaac Kaye, JPMorgan Chase. 'Chrysocracy' suggests rule by gold; perhaps it's more like 'papyrocracy'?]
AMERICAN-STYLE FEMINISM AS A JEWISH FRAUD, CONCERNED WITH JEWS, NOT WOMEN:--
• 27 Jan 2008 Sharks in the Dark - Biting Whitey in Feminihilism and Finance [How 'feminists' censor even very violent attacks on white women. And material on Jews hiring politicians to further Jewish interests.]
MUSLIMS AS CROOKS:--
• 10 Jun 2005 With Respect, Mr Galloway - You're a Paki-Loving Left-Wing Lunatic [Voting fraud and Muslim corruption. Galloway's 'Respect' party as a possible agency for opening eyes of whites. However, a Youtube of George Galloway speaking (at the 'Oxford Union') titled something like Are You Racist, George Galloway, shows him stating explicitly about half way through that all the 'heroes' who helped him go underground in South Africa were Jews. He even named some: Dennis Goldberg, 'Albie' Sachs. 'Joe' Slovo, Ruth First—see below.]
• 16 Sep 2007 The Apostle of Jostle [Descriptions from Piers Morgan's 'Diaries' of logocentrics, including accounts of Blair, Aaronovitch, Gove, 'MacShane' (real name: Matyjaszek or Mateusek etc), Jewish evasions, lies, and hypocrisies.]
• 9 Dec 2007 Programmed for Pogrom - You can't say that, it's true! [List of repulsive Jews in British financial politics including Sternberg, Phillips, Pollard, Richard Stone, Levy, Abrahams, Mendelsohn, Triesman, Green, Cohen, Abramovich; another Green, Ecclestone]
• 16 July 2006 Spiv and Let Die: Kikocracy is Kakocracy [Michael Abraham Levy, 'Lord Cashpoint', who funded Tony Blair and appears to have been his controller; when this was written, Levy had just been arrested. Also e.g. Andrew Rosenfield, Barry Townsley and Sir David Garrard]
O'Farrell (real name Stephen Whittle) wrote: I don't believe that I'm alone in the journey I've made over the past five years [i.e. from 2001-ish] from sympathy for Jews to fully-fledged anti-Semitism. He is right: 'Exorcist', a Briton who joined nukelies' forum in January 2012, told me that until recently he'd been entirely unaware of Jewish influence. I've just noticed a French activist, Hervé Ryssen (real name Hervé Lalin) who writes on Jewish frauds and indecencies. Here's a PDF download translation into English by Carlos Whitlock Porter as Understanding the Jews, Understanding Anti-Semitism. There must be vast numbers of such people.
Lessons from the 'Holocaust' Fraud: The Evils of LyingWritten by Rerevisionist 6 June 2013
The 'Holocaust' fraud, (or Holohoax, Holoco$t, LOL-ocaust) was started before Nuremberg, but took some years to be developed by TV and other then-new media. At the time of writing, it's been the dogma of 'Holocaustianity', Michael Hoffman's name for the official post-1945 ideology. No official historian or journalist or broadcaster or churchman (as yet) has stood against it. This of course is a tribute to the power of paper money, the root of Jewish power. But it's also only possible because 'Jews' think (or rather feel) in a herd. What do (names taken from a few at hand) Michael Gove, Margaret Hodge, Jack Straw, David Cameron, both Milibands, George Soros, Menachem Begin, Isaac Deutscher, Michael Grade, Michael Lyons, Susan Sontag have in common? The lesson of the 'Holohoax' is that they will tell lies for money; not just occasionally, not intermittently, not now-and-then—but permanently, for life.
The psychology of the 'Jewish' race is a product of their history. Assuming the Khazar hypothesis, their evolution (in the relatively minor, racial variety sense; not full-scale evolution) must have been affected by the spread of the Talmud and similar material to Asiatic Europe. Human beings, unlike animals, change their own environments, and so affect their own evolution: recently, air travel has affected population genetics, medical science ditto, and, further back, books must have had their effect. After (say) 1000 years, say 40 generations, the sorts of pressures described by Kevin MacDonald must have caused undeniable genetic changes. Telling lies to outsiders is simply taken for granted by this race. Centuries of preferring life in squalid little groups - taking orders from fools who are unable to separate words from reality, and prefer written slogans to careful analysis, and who are terrified their flock will one day start to ignore them, leaving them nothing - have left ineradicable genetic traces. Note that 'Jews' presumably had continual leakage out, of people not happy with the narrow lifestyle. And note also that the written fanaticism must have attracted psychopaths, liars, and vicious types: the 'Russian Revolution' illustrates how the high end of the psychopathy bell curve must have been topped up.
Let me amplify. Most people follow their herd beliefs, and if Talmudic stuff appears from nowhere it would have the effect of condoning killing of people who don't accept it. There may therefore have been quite a dramatic effect on khazars as the 'jews' doctrines took hold. This would feed back into actual genes.
From nowhere, a primitive nomadic tribe suddenly had the written word imposed onto it. It was their only media exposure. Its stories, attitudes, phrases, beliefs etc would permeate them; their original folk beliefs would be diminished and probably erased. Abraham, Moses, Jericho, Cain and Abel, slaughter, sacrifice, King David, 'the temple' would dominate their mentality. They'd be told ad nauseam that the highest wisdom is to kill the best non-Jews. They'd be told to be sly, secretive, contract-breaking, liars—as of course would be necessary when meeting any other people—and would practise pilpul and all the rest. The rabbi caste would be told they are chosen by God, all-wise, worth a fortune, and entitled to genocide out of existence towns and populations they didn't like. They would be likely to believe this out of self-interest and pride. They would twirl live chickens round their heads, celebrate supposed victories, mutilate boys. I would guess that many young people, and entire families, who dissented, would simply have been murdered: there was no police system to stop this. Like 'honour killings', it would be institutionalised. Or they might be ostracised, sent out to a likely death. In only a few generations hair-trigger fanatics could be bred. This is what I meant by the introduction de novo of Talmudic teachings.
What are the effects of lying? It seems likely that any more-or-less homogenous group would have been damaged by persistent lying. Any group members who lied about (e.g.) food needed, or clean water or using-up of resources would usually damage their group. Liars in everyday, mundane matters would cause indignation or retribution, and presumably be squeezed out. Correlatively, however, most people would be credulous, believing what they're told, since many generations would have made this the best policy. Children would learn consistent lessons from teachers, parents, and contemporaries.
But in the modern world, there are plenty of examples of lies: lawyers impose non-disclosure clauses, preventing awareness of incompetence in medicine. Newspapers and broadcasts are full of lies and distortions. Wars, housing, and so on are lied about. There are entire knowledge-islands of lies: immigration, JFK's murder, the 'Liberty', NASA, 'AIDS', 9/11 are just a few examples. In all these cases, there was/is heavy Jewish involvement.
The biggest disaster of the past few centuries has been the success of Jews in seizing the paper money and credit systems of Europe and the USA. The resulting ability to fund corrupt groups, with sufficient disguise and cushioning for concealment, has led to endless harm. To take a computer analogy: it's as though rootkits have been introduced into these countries' operating systems, so that legal, moral, and other considerations are secretly redirected to secret Jewish-controlled groups.
Many people have learnt the formula: Jews do what's best for Jews. This fits the Holohoax case - any amount of denigration, insults, lying about the USSR and USA, is automatically accepted by them to make money. As the Holohoax starts to crumble, there will be ever-increasing awareness that Jews, all of them, every one of them, in an unholy union, will unblushingly lie, on the most serious subjects.
But the instinctive, inbred racist tribal solidarity of 'Jews' has a further effect, which has not been generally noticed. What do unrestricted immigration, non-reporting of black on white crime, disbursal of funds to violent groups, enforcement of poor quality education, selective housing of non-Britons, insistence that medical professions must not check qualifications, causing loss-making wars in a general sense, all have in common? They all damage white people. Whether this can be said to be deliberate is questionable, like wondering if homosexuality is inborn. If it's genetic, Jews will automatically clot together, to decide instinctively on actions which will cause harm.
Whether easy-going white credulity will be replaced in time by firm retribution, remains to be seen.
Projecting Revisionism Backwards: What Can We Learn From Napoleon and the Nineteenth Century?Written by Rerevisionist 18 June 2013
The Victorian era is of course outside living memory, but enough survives: family stories and memorabilia, Gothic revival buildings and brick suburbs, old newspapers and adverts, the railway era—to make it feel familiar to Britons: Sherlock Holmes, music halls, Bradshaw's Railway Guide, horse races, Henley Regatta, Wisden, Dickensian pubs with fires and crowds of people, Harrods catalogue, the Great Exhibition, industrial towns which were villages a generation or two earlier ...
The Napoleonic era, the first half of the nineteenth century, has slipped out of most people's consciousness: starving people while the navy blockaded Napoleon, battles against Napoleon, old soldiers with amputated limbs, redcoats, aristocrats running things ...
Now, every serious person reading this site will be aware of revisionism over the last 100 years: the Fed, in the USA, the war against Germany, deliberately prolonged for two years, the Jewish coup in Russia which, perhaps for the first time, showed how dispersed financial power based only on laws (fiat currency) could take over an entire country, the reaction by Hitler, and the post-1945 consolidation of the new religion of 'Holocaustianity' (including Kennedy's murder to put the Jew Johnson into power), which still (2013) rules much of the world, and which has caused immense suffering with worldwide wars, and immense frauds of the NASA type and also (though this is still controversial) the 'Cold War' and nuclear frauds.
To see how we got to where we are, let's push the process of revisionism back to the 19th century, and see what we find; and compare it with 20th century events.
Here's a much longer piece on the theme of revisionist discoveries to the 19th century, based on a mediocre remaindered book by Paul Johnson (Napoleon, 2002). It's rather British-centered, not saying much about 1848 for example. Here, let me pick out some revisionist highlights and comparisons:
* The 'French Revolution'. Looking back, it's easy to see how this was done: France was rich, and therefore had surplus - not everyone had to work all hours. It had intellectual traditions: Roman Catholicism, Voltaire, Rousseau, Chauvin. It had an ineffectual monarch. All that was needed was serious opponents making sound points (modern-day socialists, NOT the Jewish red counterfeit, come to mind). The funded movement - funded presumably by Jews - included traitors (today's ugly anti-woman 'feminists' and ugly 'reds' illustrate), people who wanted personal influence they felt they'd been deprived of (some modern whites illustrate), and many ordinary career and employment minded people ('Common Purpose' and trade unionists etc illustrate). The result was hyperinflation and chaos.
* Napoleon as a Great Man and Soldier of Fortune. This myth and variations was propagated all through the 19th century. In fact, his role was to grab money from small kingdoms in Europe. A short-term policy which predictably (if you do the sums) led nowhere. The pretence he worked on his own as a sort of power of nature is echoed in myths about Lenin, who of course was just a Jew slipped money from abroad. A better comparison with Napoleon may be Trotsky, energetically leading his bands of killer Jews. In both cases, the mythology was needed to hide the truth, and many versions were emitted, for example the 'toy soldiers' accounts of uniforms, regiments etc; the romantic man of action; the man with an inconceivable genius for detail.
* Rothschild money. The best-known event is the post-Waterloo coup at the London Stock Exchange - sales of government stock followed by buying back when the news of Wellington's victory finally arrived. Presumably some, or many, patriotic English families were ruined, but there is, as far as I know, not one single novel of the time dealing with this, which gives an idea of the power of censorship even then.
* British supporters of Napoleon. Clearly, there was considerable support for Napoleon, probably from recipients of Rothschild money. Despite the fact Rothschild had funded Napoleon - an issue brought up in Parliament - Jews were increasingly favoured. As an example, Lord Holland did his best to ensure generous treatment of Napoleon in exile, and led the campaign for his body to be returned to France in 1840. So far as I know, he made no effort to return any of the stolen bullion from Europe's cities. Napoleon was treated in the opposite way to Hitler - every effort was made to praise him.
* Jewish 'emancipation'. Throughout the 19th century there was pressure, for example by Lord John Russell, to encourage Jews (the rich variety). Even the language—'removing disabilities'—shows parallels with today's phrases—'minorities' (when whites are a world wide minority), 'deprived' (of people being given British assets far in excess of anything of their own). There was removal of accounts of Jewish ritual murder. There was concealment of Jewish intermarriage.
A suppressed aspect is the possibility of revenge: Jews had been expelled typically 300-400 years earlier from many European states; it's likely some more-or-less fantastic revenge was nurtured.
There's plenty more, including the debasement of military honour so that theft and rape were barely remarked on. And there are very suggestive points which 'social scientists'/ 'historians' to their eternal discredit have avoided: population issues; power struggle theories with interlocking subsets of people; facts about money; the influence of the human lifespan - 1848 and other events suggest a 50-year interval while forces gather and manoeuvre; whether societies affluent beyond a certain point start to decay.
EugenicsWritten by Rerevisionist 22 June 2013
A shortish piece on 'eugenics', and how it is that entirely legitimate concern for health and welfare has been demonized by Jewish propagandists.|
[Added 7 Dec 2016:] Here's a relevant website, eugenics.net, one presentation of the truth. John Glad's Jewish Eugenics (published 2011) examines the historiography of 'eugenics' though understating Jew propaganda in falsifying the truth.
Let me first try to present the 'Holocaustian' view, which I'll illustrate with a 2007 BBC4 1-hour TV programme Scientific Racism: The Eugenics of Social Darwinism.
I'll ignore the usual ludicrous soundtrack, as though black Tasmanians had echo chambers; the ludicrous visuals of cane-cutters; the heavily cropped black and white photos, etc; and the inability of the scriptwriter(s) to understand that science does sometimes produce new knowledge, making older procedures—such as measuring skulls and faces—seem, to the uncomprehending, obviously silly.
Here are the main topics of the BBC piece, with my critical notes in square brackets:
 Starts with the Namib desert, and what was then German South West Africa. Includes Shark Island where 3,500 Hereros and others allegedly were killed in 1900-ish. [The point here is to introduce Germans; and the phrases 'concentration camps', and 'foreshadow the Nazi period'. And per contra NOT to mention British concentration camps and deaths of Boers in the Boer War]
 Material on Tasmania. The Tasmanians, total numbers several thousand, famously were known to the Victorians to have have died out. The Governor, British of course, produced a poster showing hanging as a penalty for whites who kill blacks, and also for blacks who kill whites. [Tasmania is about the size of Ireland; it's entirely unclear why such a large space should have been so difficult to share, but programmes of this sort are propagandist, not factual. The hack voiceover actress dismisses the mixed-races-getting-along as obviously absurd, in stark contrast to the holocaustian official view]
 Governor Eyre and Jamaica was a notorious event. [John Stuart Mill, a sympathiser with the blacks, gets no mention—the idea is to pretend there was unanimity. Eyre was legally cleared, but this apparent legality is not explained]
 Slavery abolitionists (white, British, Christian) get quite a few mentions. [The point here is to pretend all slave-owners were white, and slaves black, omitting the parts played by Arabs, Jews and black Africans. Many abolitionists were viewed with suspicion by their contemporaries, since their incomes came from white kids dying in coal mines, but this is not in the programme. The link with then-new steam power, which reduced dependence on labour (for the people who owned it), is also unmentioned]
 Christianity is generally ridiculed, of course an automatic part of the Jewish agenda. [One of the talking heads suggested the 'Adam and Eve' story was the basis of the obviously absurd 'all men are brothers' idea, presumably unaware of the race material in the Bible]
 There's a supposed change round about 1850: Carlyle is mentioned on negros; an obscure surgeon, Knox, wrote a 12-chapter book on races—Saxons, Jews etc, [Probably Knox was inserted because he allegedly said 'race is everything', distracting attention from the same quotation from the more famous novel by Disraeli. On Disraeli, click to read Michael Hoffman on Disraeli's omission of collaborators with Jews.]
 Darwin and Social Darwinism. [Poor Herbert Spencer, the inventor of sociology, is described as an 'engineer', maybe to avoid the correct attribution of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' to him. Steve Jones, a media geneticist, makes a fool of himself on Wannsee, no doubt as a bit of easy money].
 'Imperialism' is introduced without definition at some point. There's nothing on India's constant wars and multiple languages, or the horrors of the Mogul Muslim invasion. However Lord Lytton and famine and celebrations of Victoria's accession; in the 1870s in mentioned; and 1880s, and 1890s. Total deaths: 30 million. [The figures must be suspect. And we're invited to believe there was enough food in Madras' docks to feed ten million people. Note that the early famine is ascribed to cash crops and El Niño; maybe they were shy of 'global warming'. Of course the more recent Bengal famine is omitted—that was in the Second World War, though, so that's OK]
 The Scramble for Africa 'killing literally millions'. Of course African history is absurdly garbled. [The net effect of whites has been to multiply the black population I'd guess 400 times. Incidentally the 'basters' are mentioned; many African coloured have names like Joseph, Moses, etc, and there's a censored belief that Jews having sex with blacks caused this. There's a short story on this theme by Doris Lessing]
 Immigration into the USA and someone 'notorious' called Davenport. [Immigration of 'Jews' into Germany, a never-ending flood which caused enormous concern in Germany, is not mentioned]
 Someone called Michael Burleigh, apparently author of a history of the Third Reich, was a talking head. [His function was to pretend there were gassings. There is also the word meaning race-hygiene; after the First World War, some German women were impregnated by black troops used by the French...]
Let me note a few other omissions: the Napoleonic Wars accounted for something like four or five million dead Europeans. Who knows how many little-known ethnic groups were wiped out? There's nothing on Jews making money from Napoleon; Jews making money from slavery; Jews and Jackson; Jews making money from opium in China; the US civil war and the greenback connection; minerals and the Boer War; white deaths in both world wars; the biggest 20th-century atrocity, the mass murder of Russians.
It's worth noting a characteristic of Jewish propaganda: it is vague, irrational, concerned with simple endless repetition, much like an ingratiating and wheedling salesman, indifferent to truth, perhaps as a result of near-total isolation from the rest of the world for centuries, so that checkable facts were rare. (Consider: Friedman? Freud? Chomsky? Trotsky? Marx? Derrida? Einstein? Susan Sontag? Hobsbawm? Oppenheimer?) The TV subject is supposed to be eugenics; most of the programme is utterly irrelevant to that topic, in order to push the Jewish agenda. Eugenics is a coining meaning 'good genes' or possibly 'good race' (Latin, gens); at the time, genetics was not well understood, although there were polices in Europe on permitted marriage, and empirical evidence from plant and animal breeding, and anthropological information on mating arrangement around the world, many of them soundly based to preserve their gene pool structure. Having two parents permits genetic defects to be bypassed, to some extent; it seems likely the whole mechanism of sexual reproduction evolved in effect to permit complex gene structures to persist indefinitely, at the cost of each individual having quite large numbers of defects. Many genetic problems result in unviable offspring, but many are non-lethal.
There's an odd tendency, which must be a result of media propaganda, to avoid questions of heredity. If someone can't make insulin, without medical science they would die; but with insulin injections, genetic diabetes can spread; already we have primary school children injecting daily. Sickle-cell anaemia seems to be a taboo subject (the cells are malaria parasite resistant, but not very good at carrying oxygen), where discussion of the influence of malaria on human genes is unmentioned.
Why would anyone object to studying this and acting on the findings? Let's first look at the Jewish propagandist anti-eugenics view, and then at a related belief-system, originating (I think) with Bergson's book Creative Evolution.
Why do Jews insistently oppose and malign 'eugenics'? (The title of the BBC4 thing is 'Scientific Racism: The Eugenics of Social Darwinism' typically conflating various mispresented ideas). To Jew-aware people, the answer is obvious: the 'sacred' books of Judaism insist Jews are a supremacist 'master race'; they are encouraged to damage goyim. (Watch someone called Black in the video talking of a 'blond master race'—something he falsely claimed Galton and others wanted). There are countless examples of wars fomented by Jews for money; they support fluoridation; they support Muslim heroin traffickers; they want inferior education for others; they deliberately promote inferior people on race grounds; they support sex with little children; they like to offload their costs onto host communities; they tell lies to make money from non-Jews; they support freeing of dangerous criminals; they encourage white miscegenation with deliberate lies. Of course, the opposite policies apply to 'Jews'. Opposing sensible genetic policy is a good example of their rather comical 'chutzpah'. Another reason is that Jews historically are inbred (e.g. 'Tay-Sachs Disease'), and a side-effect is to produce a relatively high proportion of defective children; if the costs can be offloaded onto goyim, so much the better.
I've been quite surprised to see articles in nationalist sites of the 'creative evolution' type, in which the authors, such as H Millard, seem to predict 'supermen', men able to fly, of unlimited strength, and what have you. This seems unlikely to ever be remotely true: babies and children will need food and water to assimilate and grow, learning will take many years, they will be subject to illness and diseases and accidents, and the basic engineering must persist; the body parts will be similar to now. Maybe it's the influence of American comics, where 'mutants' occur without even one generations, to speed up the storyline; maybe it's something Biblical or to do with uniforms; maybe it's just Jewish racism reappearing; maybe it's just lack of education leading to absurdities not being detected. I've even seen it suggested new human races will emerge within fifty years!
Eugenics is intended to improve people down the generations, or keep up a standard. In Bertrand Russell's words: [just as Malthus's] difficulty was overcome by birth control, so [the doctrines of Darwin] will be overcome by eugenics. People will still remain people. Racial supremacy is in fact a jewish ideology. The deliberate ridicule of master races is partly to hide jewish supremacism. And partly in the hope that whites and others will if possible be ill, damaged, stupid, uneducated and so on: they WANT their rivals to be illiterate, addicted, uncontrolled, violent. The unthinking furore, screeching and yelling, surrounding eugenics is just another trick against goyim.
On Malthus: Malthus predicted misery into the indefinite future, as human population swelled to the limits imposed by food production. This idea is presented as his sole idea, Malthus's future book accretions being presented as 'useless verbiage'. But maybe he developed his ideas further: because, if Malthusian principles apply to all human populations, presumably either wars are inevitable, or some form of joint controls would be needed, if endless famine is to be avoided. An obvious point, which Jews of that time and later may have censored—it's not clear how long the Jewish anti-white ideas have been fermenting, so it's impossible at present to say.
Here's a facebook exchange, late December 2014:
...Depopulation and Agenda 21 in detail...
Raeto West: With respect, 'depopulation' is not the same as 'eugenics'!
Judith Ann Hitt: The ultimate result is the same therefore would you not classify them as one in the same?
Raeto West: The aim of eugenics is to try to improve people. Of course there's debate about what this means. But there's no implication that populations should be removed: an ideal or optimum population is something else. You've been taken in by Jewish liars, whose aim is to kill off anyone they decide to hate. If they succeed, it's perfectly possible the world will mostly consist of backward, stupid, uncreative etc populations.
'Campaign Against Arms Trade' RevisitedWritten by Rerevisionist 30 June 2013
CAAT had an unmarked shack-like building in Goodwin Street, north London, where I went to see them in the 1990s. They appear to have moved since then. They were mostly young women, all with PCs and phones, though there was also an amiable Oxbridge male who chatted, and struck me as a bit ineffectual—not unlike me in fact. I have a copy of Death on Delivery, a CAAT 1989 paperback in my arms/ weapons revisionist library, which I'll paraphrase bits from. At the time I had no idea nukes are probably a fraud, something CAAT still, in 2013, haven't got round to checking; and I wasn't very skilled at separating out strands of thought which are often confused.
CAAT is Britain only—I mean it campaigns against British arms trading. Are there lessons from this organisation? It seems rather low-profile; my own website gets more page turns than theirs. And there's an institutionalised feel, as with AIDS, cancer research, well-digging for Africa, third-word poverty; some of their people have worked for years in related activities: ' ... active in the peace movement for more than 40 years ... extremely concerned that various sectors of the military-industrial complex seem to be "beyond the law" ...'
Looking back, their material had pervasive weaknesses, analogous to much post-1945 white angst. One weakness was the uncertain factual basis. Their own table gives British arms sales only about 4% of world sales; with USA and USSR (the 'Soviet Union' was still just about alive). Suggesting much of their effort had no effect. Thatcher is a hate figure, promoting unethical sales, but her role in selling assets to paper money types is unmentioned. There's much emphasis on sales to the Third World—but if they had no arms industries themselves, of course the sales will go there. Significantly, about a half of all third world arms imports went to the Middle East (Iraq, Egypt, India, Syria, Saudi Arabia) where 'regional arms races, conflict, and superpower rivalry have served to keep business brisk'. Note the missing elephant!
A related problem is the reliance on shock stats, as of course recommended by propagandists: "if you can't find a shocking statistic, look until you find one." In an effort to situate weaponry amid world trade, I came across a statement that if there were NO third world weapon imports at all, their huge debt would diminish—can you guess by how much?—just 20%!
From a revisionist view, the 'intense superpower competition for global supremacy during the Cold War and the power vacuum left by decolonisation..' from my viewpoint is largely hollow. Jews controlled the USSR and increasingly tightened the vice on the USA. They probably made money from arms and in my view dropped more bombs on Vietnam than during the entire Second World War just to make money. CAAT has no comprehension of such possibilities. It also has no real idea about debt: they know the USA had debt at the time—after Nixon dropping gold, and under Reagan's 'star wars'—it was building up; so was Third World debt. The underlying paper money/ fiat currency is unexamined by CAAT.
The details of deaths—30 million claimed in wars since 1945—ignores white deaths in wars and of course under Jews in the USSR; and abortions. Typically, only third worlders count. And incidentally it's perfectly possible that machetes killed more than hi-tech weaponry. These countries' 'leaders' appear to be slipped paper money, then use it to support their own armed forces—in the same way they like a national airline, they want national armies etc, in Africa, Asia, South America, and so on. A slight degree of blame is given to these people, who no doubt are paper tigers, but not much.
I have to conclude, as I did with activists looking into nukes, and wind power, and money/poverty, and medicine, that these people don't have much idea what they're doing. Pity.
Some Notes on PopulationWritten by Rerevisionist 4 July 2013
I'll try to show here that there's been a fairly systematic campaign to minimise the lethal effects of war; a propaganda campaign, run I'm afraid by the usual suspects. Some of my remarks were suggested to me by an actuarial book on demography, pointing out that influential writers have their impact on populations; media control can have the same effect.
Let's look at the First World War's effects on European populations and the age pyramids:
For Britain, war losses 'touched virtually every household ... and nearly every family was diminished by the death in combat of a father, a son, a brother, a cousin, or a friend'. ... Losses in continental Europe and overseas were similarly severe .. estimated that 9.45 million died in military action including 2 million Germans, 1.8 million Russians, 1.3 million French and 723,000 British or Irish. ... we must include ... the large number of injured who subsequently died, ... civilian deaths and the births lost as a result of the disruption caused ... by the war. .. in Britain almost 60 per cent of war deaths were in the age range 20–9 ... In France the population was 'mutilated like a living organism: the age pyramid shows this injury to its flank, like an axe blow'That account doesn't mention the 'Influenza Epidemic' after 1918; this was designed to conceal the large numbers of deaths from food shortages, contaminated drinking water, enfeeblements caused by the years of war. What's not often noted is the effect on the USA:
... most estimates put the number of migrants from Europe as a whole during the period 1800–1930 at some 40 million, a phenomenon of such magnitude as to produce economic and cultural change at the global scale as well as profound social consequences in the countries of origin. A major part of this emigration was, of course, absorbed by the USABut
While the steep decline in emigration marked by the First World War itself was temporarily reversed after the end of hostilities, [white European] emigration never regained its former momentumNow the Second World War:
The Second World War was traumatic and destructive in so many well-known ways for much of continental Europe and had massive demographic consequences in terms of lives lost, population redistribution and labour shortage. The post-war years, however, were to contain a number of surprises which confounded much of the pre-1939 pessimism about demographic trends.That's all the book says; post-war deaths in central Europe are not mentioned. After all, everyone knows the Second World War was a 'good' war, apart from a few renegades who consider world-wide destruction was a huge price for supporting cult racist parasites and murderers. There's no discussion in that book of white emigration to the USA after 1945, not even of Jews being selectively given 'refugee relief'. But, in stark contrast to the present illegals situation, there were huge restrictions on population movements.
There were baby booms after both wars, as everyone knows ... or were there? After death and destruction and chaos, and with rationing and rebuilding (for the lucky ones), why would people rush to have kids? I haven't done any comparative calculations, but I suspect the 'baby boom' idea may be a Jewish-media myth. A baby boom was pretended to have happened in Britain after the First World War; at least for a time. However, single women in those days, and of course there were huge numbers, couldn't think of having children. In fact, a war about twenty years later was ideal for removing another swathe of young men. There was certainly a belief in a 'baby boom' after 1945; Bertrand Russell said (TV interview) people were confident, despite the 'atom bomb'; just look at the number of babies! And (e.g.) a 1947 newsreel item singled out Swindon as a high birth rate place, with film of babies, and shops selling baby clothes etc, but with no actual evidence. I'd guess the same happened in the USA. It's not as easy as it seems to check up: 'crude birth rates' don't allow for rates per fertile woman, with some age allowance, for example, and may be doctored to avoid mentioning blacks, Jews, people overseas, immigrants etc. Statistics in white countries are compromised; figures for immigration, race, unemployment, benefits, weapons, and what have you are all doubtful or non existent or unreliable. However it seems undeniable that birth figures dropped in the 1930s, and fell after 1965. The 'baby boom' may be a myth; there may not have been even replacement-level births The fall after 1965 due to the 'pill' and abortions is real enough though.
Let me give here a possibly related quotation (from Bertrand Russell, 'Science and War', a lecture reprinted in The Impact of Science on Society, c. 1947:
'Modern warfare, so far, has not been more destructive of life than the warfare of less scientific ages... Until recent times, pestilence almost invariably proved far more fatal than enemy action. ... Sennacherib ... the Peloponnesian War ... Syracuse.. Carthage.. France 1792 to 1815, in the end suffered compete defeat, but ... not ... anything comparable to .. Central Europe since 1945. ...'Even supposedly serious writers on the effects of wars ignore important historical examples, such as the Thirty Years' War in Europe, and the death toll when the Moghuls invaded India, or famines as side-effects of war. I'm suggesting that war casualties are deliberately understated, and the effects understated; and note that the Fed in 1913, plus Baruch; and Roosevelt and Churchill; and numerous 'communist' Jews promoting immigration all had their reasons to understate white deaths.
It's perhaps worth noting another effect of Jewish influence: most people by now are aware of Jews, the Fed, Balfour and the entry of the US into the First World War, as it was christened—or perhaps judaised?—in 1916. And the decision to aim for the Second World War (Churchill's expression, I believe) by means of secret Jewish action, for example 'Polish' atrocities against Germans forcing Hitler to invade Poland. The note the escalation of the Vietnam War by the Jew Lyndon Johnson from about 1963, the likely significance of that war simply being to make money for war profiteers. Note the timing - three sets of long wars by 20-plus years. Ideal to remove white males from the population, and to demoralise and debase the survivors
A related issue is the failure to allow for the costs of children. Many Jewish media articles present white kids in a negative way, or put down to being scroungers, many don't see the long term outcome. It's been a policy of sorts at least since the 1920s to present kids as messy, annoying etc. Bertrand Russell noted that the 'fount of affection' of mothers in the USA seemed to have dried up; but then he wasn't Jew-aware. He thought in all previous eras children were liked and wanted, though his evidence (a bit of Shakespeare) wasn't very impressive. However, there has been little or no public debate on the issue of the costs, in the broad sense, of the next generation. Or of educating children to be parents. And this is intentional; it's to avoid discussing immigrant costs.
Extracts from 'The Changing Population of Europe', edited by Noin and Woods, 1993, part of the deluge of EU propaganda; other books say a lot more, for example, mentioning deaths in the USSR in the 1920s. Most of the authors in Noir and Woods are geographers: it's worth noting much of the impetus behind the EU was by academic geographers, who generally have little idea of biological or technical realities, or even simple things such as the effects of hot climates, but enjoy drawing lines on maps.
(On the related subject of suspect population figures see Are world populations exaggerated?)
Jewish Plans for White GenocideWritten by Shaunantijihad 11 July 2013
The enemies in our Government attack Muslim countries and murder their women and children. They then bring the Muslim men here, who cannot be deported because it "breaches their human rights", even after they rape and kill White girls, which presumably is the plan. Weaken Muslims and destroy White people's lands at the same time.
Transfer the US military technology to Israel (created as a result of the largely false flag cold war between the Jew run USSR and the Jew run USA) in order to create an advanced military Jewish State whilst genetically lobotomising all surrounding nations, and eventually the world.
Jewish Satraps will then occupy positions of power in all these lesser nations to keep the goyim under heel, preferably turning them into a lower IQ, part Negro Untermenschen.
Murdering all the above average intelligence Whites in the USSR did not result in the hoped for "nation of White niggers", though no doubt it did have a devastating effect upon the goyim populace. I suspect it did not work in that case to lower mean IQ because the survivors of the Jewish run genocide were not genetically inferior or stupider than those murdered, they were merely uneducated and illiterate peasants.
However, the new plot to use the Negro gene to lobotomise the White race will be successful if it continues. One only has to look at some South American nations that are mixed Caucasian (Spanish), Negro and indigenous Mayan etc to see the intended result. Mean IQs of mixed race people seems to be in the mid-80s.
Yes, it's a plan. It is happening simultaneously in all White Western nations. They started here when the Empire Windrush docked in London. The boat had about 490 Negroes, only 10 or so of whom were female. That pretty much shows their intentions. The consequences you can see all over London, Birmingham etc.
The job of the Jewish media is to celebrate this genetic destruction as "modern" etc and "anti-racist" and such until we are defeated.
Genetic defeat is permanent—for all time. That's what we face.
When you see details like this one following, see it in the context of the larger plan and it makes more sense:–
A foreign criminal who was jailed for his part in the London riots has used human rights laws to overturn attempts to deport him. Derrick Kinsasi was jailed for 18 months for burglary and theft from a branch of Comet during the August 2011 riots. But his lawyers have successfully argued that sending the criminal, who has no wife and no children, back to the Democratic Republic of Congo would 'breach his rights to family life' under the Human Rights Act. ... [presumably Jewish] immigration judge Nathan Goldstein said the 21 year-old could stay in Britain, because to remove him had 'echoes of exile'. Kinsasi told the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber that he came to Britain with his brother in 2002 to claim asylum. He was refused, but was granted 'exceptional leave to remain' ... [etc].
Anyone new to this idea is invited to check it for themselves when new information about populations comes to their attention. Not just genetic matters, but anything with potentially harmful effects. Could fluoridation of water be Jewish-promoted? What about intentions to damage wild-life in a country? Are killer doctors and nurses often Jews? What about destruction of old books, with assumptions about life and morals which contradict post-1945 officially-pushed views? What about films and TV and other media, where the storylines and subplots are more-or-less false and propagandist? Why should attempts be made to disarm whites while arming Jews?
Taboos about JewsWritten by Rerevisionist 3 August 2013
Bradley Smith founded the one-subject website forum CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust) about fifteen years ago. Recently he spoke for an hour on Chicago-based Deanna Spingola's online radio show. (The episode was advertisement-free). His autobiographical material included the fair sex, the rather less fair race, and, near the end, a plaintive comment: "Why don't we discuss Jews? The rest of our society is guilty of co-operating with Jewish censors... It's us, it's not them, we're the ones who have the numbers; in the end we have the money; how much money does it cost to publish reviews? The spirit among those of us who are not Jews is wanting.. where are the people willing to speak the obvious? .. Elie Weisel can tell lies, that dead Jews underground can spurt their blood in geysers for months! Yet even universities accept him as a speaker. ..."
Nearly a century ago now, Hilaire Belloc's unique book 'The Jews' included a similar query; Chapter 6, The Cause of Friction on Our Side contains Belloc's criticisms of 'gentile' behaviour. He attributed the silence to 'the avowed purpose of personal advantage'—'This disingenuousness, ... lack of candour on the part of our race in its dealings with the Jew—a vice particularly rife among the wealthy and middle classes (far less common among the poor), extends ... to [the study of] history.' This was not a universal attitude; in the nineteenth-century some Frenchmen, and many Germans (including Wagner) discussed Jews publically, as Belloc knew. There must have been comment in Russia, Poland, Hungary and other Slav nations. After 1917, Belloc thought Jewish Bolshevism would force the subject to be discussed in depth, fully, by about 1940—which turned out to be the opposite of the truth.
It seems fair to regard this silence, which dates at least from the time of Cromwell, as a taboo (thanks to Captain Cook for the word!) Discussion is felt to be dangerous, risky, offensive to sacred or religious interests, tempting fate, socially unacceptable—what used to be described as "not done".
I'd like to attempt here to survey control over opinions: how has this taboo been introduced and enforced?
Let's start with children: at first sight, it seem likely that all taboos are instilled into children. Because they might chat about anything that attracts their attention, but don't, surely prohibitions are drummed into children? And there is some truth in this: many people spend their whole lives horrified by swear words, unable to discuss sex, afraid to talk about death, unable to say "If you exist, God, strike me dead!" and so on. Complaints to TV companies were mostly about swearing, and maybe still are; not a very rational attitude to a mere flatus vocis. Taboos in the original sense seem to have been largely to do with words. A rabbits used to be called a "coney", rhyming with honey, but the word fell, or was driven, out of use. According to my Latin dictionary, 'penis' meant 'tail' in Latin, and maybe it was an evasive word with the Romans: perhaps in a thousand years time, serious text-books in Chinese will talk about 'dicks'. And conversely people saying "Jumping Jesus" or "By Our Lady" as "bloody" show some decline in religious belief. Possibly Islam has or will have a similar pattern.
However, children are bounded by their senses, no doubt for sound evolutionary reasons. They cannot see things far away, or far back in time, or in the future. Just as no European in the middle ages knew about Manhattan Island, or what people did at stonehenge, or what electrolysis was. Also children can't know of things that are invisible: laws and ownership patterns and obscure belief systems and the way inventions work, for example. And there are other barriers, such as languages and formulas. The human mind is powerful, but liable to be deceived and misinformed and distracted by immediate surroundings. Let's distinguish between everyday, practical knowledge—being polite, eating breakfast, speaking whatever language is used, doing whatever has been learned, avoiding dangers—and everything else–abstract information, general beliefs, attitudes, worries and concerns, codified religions. Each of these has power entanglements—parents, teachers, members of larger groups such as governments and tribes, all have their own outlooks.
Simple, direct, everyday, matters known to everyone include bodily functions, which often lurk in swear words: one of the witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case described the killer as a "creepy ass cracker"; the US Jewish media have given us 'asswipe'. There's a general tendency for once-neutral words to be downgraded: 'toilet' used to have elegant suggestions, 'bathroom' is the US version. This is rational enough: it's hard to imagine even the most libertarian-minded of libertarians advocating the right to shit in the streets, as in India, though maybe Freudians will make it their next campaign. Sex is obviously likely to be a taboo topic, because it's intermittent, and has personal aspects; women have to be discreet to try to avoid unwanted attention, for example. Doggers and promiscuous holidaymakers have de facto separation from everyone else.
Indirect examples of taboo-type evasions include other bodily features: respectable Victorians were supposed to dislike references to 'legs', and to recommend that books by unmarried authors should not be side by side on bookshelves. The relatively difficult idea of death follows this pattern: hence expressions like 'passing over', but also solemn reminders like tombstones, memorials, and memento mori. Foods and clothes are hedged about with taboos which vary over time.
Control over beliefs involves parental, friend, enemy, legal and police actions, including learned reactions ('conditioning') as types of 'belief'. At one time, having a bastard child could result in eviction from rented property, and other serious problems; a 'git' or 'get' expresses the feeling to such people. When the legal effects vanished, so did the stigma. Another example is the introduction of universal 'education' into Britain; children might play truant, and it took an entire generation of school board examiners and fines before there was general acceptance of going to school.
We're interested here in deliberate systematic long-term control of information, and the effects of this on societies. Lies tend to be more successful when they involve more abstract things which are remote, invisible, and hard to understand. And the likelihood of censorship depends on how important such intangible structures of ideas are to interested groups. Lies of the sort Orwell described in Spain—battles which never took place— succeed if there are few channels of communication; this is the reason for Jewish control of purchasable media, and keeping the visibility of control low. It also explains the efforts to muddy the water on such issues as democracy, finance, and war.
Let's survey historically important examples of information control. Christianity provides many examples, including the setting up of Canonical books, and the almost complete destruction of rival heresies and advocates of paganism. (It's possible that if they'd been less censorious, Christianity might ultimately have been stronger). Near our day, we can still find lingering traces of attitudes enforced by Christians: there used to be fines, 'one day's wage of a milkmaid', for non-attenders at church on Sundays. I still remember peoples' unease at not going to church on Sundays, partly a lingering apprehension of now-vanished punishments. In fact it may be possible to deduce the aspects of systems which are regarded as important by the hierarchy of censorship: for example the level of abstraction seems important in Christianity: atheism used to be regarded as unspeakably evil. But the question of the existence or otherwise of a genuine historical Jesus seemed only rarely to surface. There's a relationship with ideas which are taken for granted: G B Shaw, a once-famous writer, described a meeting with a flat-earth believer, who raised emotions which even an atheist couldn't. Similarly most people have assumed that one man has only one wife, and vice versa.
The power of Roman Catholicism declined at the Reformation (or 'Protestant Revolt'), but there was a long preliminary interval, marked particularly by new translations of the Bible. In Britain the process of seizing assets and keeping on a hierarchy with different beliefs went uncomplicatedly. 'A discredited organisation was fleeced without sanctimony or humbug' according to Hugh Trevor-Roper/ Lord Dacre. In the rest of Europe, it didn't happen easily. There is a parallel with the Jewish situation now: a smallish uncreative group, spread over many countries, with its own language and habits, and an artificially privileged financial situation, and a propaganda system distributing standardised messages, controls sufficient individuals to hold onto power. Lives of saints crossing the Irish sea on tombstones have been replaced by corpses spouting geysers of blood.
In Britain, Elizabethan censorship was harsh: Harrington's book on the Commonwealth was proscribed; anyone found with a copy would have his house levelled, be executed himself, perhaps with his colleagues. There were plenty of writers anxious to assert the then-new consolidated more-or-less national monarchies were ordained by God. Most countries have no monarchy now, but Britain still has taboos around the subject. Stage censorship was thorough: the 'Shakespeare' plays were at one period intensely patriotic, in effect against Spain, the modern debased equivalent being Hollywood's pro-Jewish material. Stage censorship ceased in the 1960s, no doubt because theatre audiences were tiny compared with film and TV viewers.
The New World led, after a time, to a tremendously enlarged range of ideas—as enlightening as the discovery of new types of animals and plants. I suspect that free discussion tends to accompany such periods, just as surrealism tends to accompany periods of danger and terror. The Ancient Greek world, if it was anything like as it was presented in the past, may have had sceptical discussions largely as a fashion.
Let's briefly look at a few other subjects liable to the taboo of self-censorship. One is violence: many soldiers will not discuss their experiences; many Americans never discuss atrocities in their wars; many news reports censor violence. In each case lessons and warnings can be lost. Another is surveys of large groups: many people at present will not say women have been disappointing in their intellectual achievements, or the same with blacks, however good the evidence. People will often avoid, through what is, or looks like, politeness, certain subjects: Bertrand Russell's friends avoided discussion of nuclear weapons.
The behavioural part of self-censorship results from a small army of events. It's impossible for anyone to know everything about laws, so taboos arise if something similar to the dangerous thought was known to have been penalised. To take specifically Jewish-related topics: If you mention Jewish race fanaticism, maybe there's a law against it? Could something a parent or relative said about Jews be slander? If you try to find out about paper money and Jews, could this be an official secret? Are you allowed to point out that someone is a Jew? What about the early days of Israel and murders of Britons: is that a military secret? Looking at American education, and text-books written by Jews, is it libellous to criticise them? Is it legal to insist a supposed 'survivor' reveals his sources? Can people enquire why, given the vast wealth of control of money, Jews continue to damage and exploit without the slightest sign of slowing down? Most people go along with their herd because of vague fears. Self-censorship by non-specialists happens in radio and TV, local and national papers, forums, chatrooms, schools, universities, Mensa, small publications; everywhere.
Bear in mind that taboos have been different in the past; there will come a time when the current stuff seems quaintly obsolete, and the emotions almost impossible to take seriously.
Inevitably, this must take time: it's certain that many people are incredibly ignorant, with absolutely no idea about 'ZOG' and its implications. Belloc, nearly a century ago, said their deception must stop, and yet, still, nobody points out that the 'American' neocons are Jews, or that all the Fed chairman candidates are Jews. Many people have heard of the 'bell curve', the so-called 'normal distribution'. Similar distributions can hold over time: at first, very few people understand the issue; then numbers increase, until just a few stragglers remain. We're still somewhere not far from the start of the curve.
Let's try to make a rational answer to Bradley Smith's comment. Some people still believe in the unique hardship and misfortunes of Jews, and their descent from Biblical tribes, with sacred texts, and of course to the non-credulous these issues can only be resolved by evidence. But there is also a fear of future problems, and in view of what happened in the USSR this is a serious matter. Do people who want open debate in fact have the numbers, and have the money? It's uncertain how much money-based power Jews have: if they succeed in killing off or silencing opponents, it may be wise to keep quiet. It depends on assessments of Jewish power, and in view of the severe censorship, certainty isn't possible yet. But I'm inclined to think the takeover of Russia relied partly on the backwardness of Russia, and partly on the financiers being thousands of miles away. Both these factors apply much less now; Jews are arguably less able to disappear, leaving their ruined dupes. I suspect the cumulative evidence from immigration, history, wars, and analysis of paper money and frauds will come to influence very many more people. And, waiting in the wings, are frauds in science and technology—NASA, AIDS, fluoride, biology, nuclear issues, 9/11—awaiting objective assessment. The Internet has played a terrific role, and effectively isn't even twenty years old. And there are signs that the vast numbers of supporters must shrink: propagandists, trolls, liars, party apparatchiks, senators, congressmen, MPs, lying journalists, fake charities, spurious peace and amnesty groups, pressure groups, fraudulent industries, mercenaries, advertisers etc, must at some point be too expensive. So, despite the chaos and horrors of the last century, I permit myself some hope.
'Facism', 'Rascism', the 'Borjois', and the Imperative Need to Understand the Jewish 'Single Standard'Written by Rerevisionist 6 August 2013
Sandwich boardsThe photo shows a collection of 'useful idiots' in 2009, at Sharon Wilkinson's first appearance as a BNP (British National Party) Lancashire County Councillor. The crowd entered the public gallery, and chanted for a few minutes, before leaving to collect their ten pounds and no doubt go for a drink. This sort of thing is a common occurrence in Jewish-related activity, and it's not by chance that the fake left usually can't understand, spell or even pronounce their scripted words. Let's investigate. I'll use the misspellings to indicate the sloganistic usage.
Let's trace this attitude back in time. I'll select 1941, about the time of the 'surprise attack' on Pearl Harbor and the USA's joining Churchill's and France's European war. Here's part of an exchange of letters on would become the Second World War between two British men, Bertrand Russell and Gilbert Murray, each regarded as a first-class scholar at his peak:–
Gilbert Murray: ' ... it was not quite clear what the two sides were: e.g. some people said it was Communism or Socialism against Fascism, others that it was Christianity against ungodliness. But now, as far as ideas are concerned, it is clearly Britain and America with some few supporters against the various autocracies, which means Liberalism v Tyranny. Bertrand Russell: 'I quite agree.. The issue became clear when Russia turned against us [i.e. Hitler-Stalin pact: Russell thinks of 'Russia', in fact the Jewish-controlled 'Soviet Union', as one of 'us']... etcDespite the fact Hitler had made it perfectly clear (but in German) that he opposed Jewish money-power, the two quoted above simply have not the slightest clue what was happening—as equating Stalin with Socialism, and the USSR with Russia, and the absence of anything on Japan and Italy and the NSDAP programme and Poland, prove.
By 1945, Russell's understanding of fascism (by then twenty years in power) is illustrated by this comment in his autobiography: I said to them [British Embassy officials in the USA]: 'You will admit this is a war against Fascism. And ... the essence of Fascism consists in the subordination of the legislature to the executive. ... Now... you are the executive and I am the legislature and if you keep me away from my legislative functions... you are Fascists.' The disaster of WW1 and Italy's dissatisfaction and change of sides, and the problems of Italy, are simply unrecognised by Russell. He was of course not alone; I pick him as a perfect example (I've studied his life and work) of someone either not Jew-aware, or, more likely, who has learned to suppress any overt comment on Jews, despite the facts that his grandfather was a significant part of the movement to empower Jews in Britain; and he had personally witnessed New York Jews start to wreck Russia. And yet—nothing.
If you're interested in Russell, read this detailed piece Bertrand Russell: Dupe of Racist Jews.
Russell's legalistic evasive formula is still absolutely typical of academic attempts to examine 'fascism' in countries dominated by Jews. Naturally, it has no predictive or explicative power at all. However, there's another parallel interpretation of 'fascism' of the same age and longevity; which is something like 'gang violence'. Russell thought Julius Caesar and Napoleon were 'fascists', for example; and he thought Mosley, who wanted to avoid a Second World War, was thuggishly violent.
Another example: George Orwell's review of No Orchids for Miss Blandish (1939; I wonder if this was intended to inspire sadism, a sort of bookish Tarantino?) includes this passage: 'Several people, after reading NO ORCHIDS, have remarked to me, 'It's pure Fascism'. This is a correct description, although the book has not the smallest connexion with politics ...' That book (written by an English or French author, not an American, presumably for money) has sordid murders and cruelty 'and much else of the same kind', and clearly disgusted Orwell—'a header [i.e. headfirst dive] into the cesspool', he wrote. Orwell was a dupe; he had no idea of Jewish mass murders, and was happy to ascribe sadism to fascism.
More on Orwell as a useful idiot here
Veale's Advance to Barbarism (1953, and later editions) gives an idea of the censorship in Britain (and no doubt the USA, and wartime violence):
There was no official prohibition on expressions of opinion [during WW2] as such, but persons who ventured to express opinions which the authorities deemed might hamper the war effort were put in prison without a trial or even without a specific complaint against them.Veale was entirely Jew-unaware, motivated by humanitarian impulses; he pointed out that in 1961, C P Snow's lecture Science and Government included:
'.. March 1942 Mr. Churchill's War Cabinet had accepted the plan laid before it by Professor Lindemann by which 'top priority' as an objective for air attack was in future to be given to "working-class houses in densely populated residential areas."This mental structure has remained extraordinarily intact for ninety years until the present day, as a result of control of the media and 'education', with the bulk of populations in the 'west'. Even quite well-informed persons, such as Frank Ellis (lecturer in Russian, and immigration realist) are this type. Paul Wilkinson (1980s) is (or was) the same type, with a bibliography of books that he regarded as 'technical analysis' of fascism, which prove to be just the usual stuff. It's terrifying that such ramshackle analysis could stay around for such a long period.
Probably the media underpinning is the fact that Jews are terrified that other groups might use Jews' own technique, and unify solidly against them. The potential power of cohesive groups is always minimised: Alexander, Caesar, Christ, Mohammed, Luther, Cromwell, Napoleon, Gustavus Adolphus, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Mandela, even the present Queen of the United Kingdom, are presented as very exceptional and abnormal individuals. The large numbers of anonymous supporters behind the scenes go unmentioned. If cohesiveness cannot avoid being mentioned, it is attacked, usually in a mouth-frothingly red-faced vicious way. Hence parrot cries of 'Fascist'—and 'racist', which also implies large groups of similar united people.
The conclusion is that 'facism' is a chant against non-Jews who oppose Jews and Jewish violence, even though they may not know it. Jewish violence in Russia in 1905, Jews in Hungary, Jews in the USSR, Jews in Ukraine, Jews in Palestine, and Jewish funded surrogates and patsies—in South Africa, in Korea, in Vietnam in Iraq, the USAF, are not called 'facist'. But much any opponent or concerned person is.
This is Leon Trotsky's 1930 work, "The History of the Russian Revolution", from which shown above is a passage. The last word['s] ... Latin transliteration is "racistov", i.e., "racists". This work here is the first time in history one will ever find that word.
Thus an Internet quotation on the etymology of 'racism'. In fact the word 'racialism' preceded it, though of course before the Jewish coup in Russia it did not have the same connotation that Trotsky required, viz. opposition to Jewish policies dealing with forced movements of races.
That's the emotional meaning; as with 'fascism' there's an evasionist meaning, but this is complicated. Religious or fanatical Jews regard all other people as infinitely inferior; so of course there's no theoretical reason to distinguish between them (except maybe the females, for sexual purposes). Hence the insane Boasian idea in the USA promoted by 'anthropologists' that race does not exist: from the point of view of people 'chosen by g-d', nobody else matters. But of course race does exist, and 'rascist' is a chant against such people, notably if they unite in some way against Jews, even if they don't realise it.
Here's an unedifying exchange, on Amazon, related to a book review of mine; the respondent may think he or she is Jewish; note the astonishing chutzpah in denying the most racially-aware group that ever existed is 'racist':–
Chancery Stone says: Jews are a racist cult? How so?The conclusion is that 'rascism' is a chant against anyone who either recognises the obvious fact that races exist and differ; and/or who recognises that Jewish religious ideology claims Jews are a very very special race indeed. No wonder the screamers look a bit puzzled.
Double Standards and the Jewish 'Single Standard'
'Double standard' is an expression that seems to have started with reference to sex. Women can have children, and are otherwise somewhat different from men. Presumably this should result in different treatment; 'double standard' is a technical-sounding phrase to try to counter this obvious fact.
There is, arguably, a characteristic in most whites which makes them receptive to ideas of fairness, equity, even-handedness, and so on. If A accepts that A and B are on an equal footing, then if A treats A and B differently, there is indeed a 'double standard'; A can be called a hypocrite. BUT it is ESSENTIAL to see that if A does NOT accept that A and B are on an equal footing, there is no 'double standard': it's just a 'single standard'. What A does is good, what B does is bad. An observer may accuse A of hypocrisy, but A's single standard doesn't accept that as a criticism.
Many people are amazed at the breathtaking hypocrisy of Jews, as they tell lies, defraud, and so on, over years, decades, and centuries. It's just a single standard: We will grab what we can at any cost.
RamZPaul on 'White Privilege': more Jewish Swindlespeak. What about 'Jew Privilege'?Written by Rerevisionist 16 August 2013
RamZPaul, an American (Ramsey Paul?), makes short, witty videos, which he uploads onto his own popular Youtube channel. His videos alerted me to another phrase which Jews try to push into circulation, helped by the dull deadweight of the Jewish media. This is 'White privilege'.
This video (below) was made after recent Trayvon Martin demonstrations; viewers will know the controlled media barely reports black-on-white murders, however vicious, but instead picks on legal cases for political reasons. Thus Trayvon Martin, misrepresented as a little boy, shot by a Hispanic he attacked, in what looks like a trespass. (Stephen Lawrence in Britain shows the same process, except that there are no Hispanic dupes).
That video is nearly four minutes. RamZPaul points out that someone, I think a Jewish mouthpiece with a megaphone (see below; short video), talks about "you white people", despite the Jewish lie that there is 'no such thing as race', and it's all a 'social construct'... so how can they be 'white'?
'Your guilt is not enough'. No comment on Jewish guilt, of course! RamZPaul invents a counter-slogan: 'Check your white contact', i.e. meaning if you don't like whites, go away. [I'd suggest "Jew privilege" might be a better slogan!]
The implication of 'white privilege' is that if you're white, like all whites, you have it easy. RamZPaul talked of his grandparents in Indiana, who worked hard but didn't have enough to eat, and had no shoes in summer. (On a wall here I have a photocopy of a newspaper, of March 1946. An item says: There are 10,000 Liverpool children absent from school every day, most of them because they lack clothes or shoes, declares Mr. H. V. Clark, headmaster and city councillor.)
Here is another RamZPaul video
A review of a film, Elysium, which he says is set 1,000 years in the future, showing events after white flight to (I think he says) a Martian space station, where they speak English, presumably with an American accent. It's supposed to show illegal immigrants trying to get into it; the promise being multicult paradise. RamZPaul puzzles over the fact that Los Angeles is shown as a mass of graffitied slummy Spanish-speaking violence; surely if illegals are desirable, in 1,000 years L.A. should be wonderful? He makes two points:
The immigration debate (insofar as a debate has ever existed) is that all people are equal: it's a modern religious item of faith. RamZPaul produces a few counter-examples. And
'White privilege' is presented as a kind of unfair advantage that all white people get, appearing from nowhere, inexplicable; "it's like we're hoarding it, and it's not fair ..."
It's typical of RamZPaul that he doesn't try to generalise, for example by looking at Jewish-run Hollywood or Jewish-run US TV over time. It's left to the audience to pick up other pieces of the puzzle. Anyway—next time you hear of whites refused benefits, denied housing, thrown out of work by the Jewish political parties, not getting medical treatment they paid for all their lives, getting third-rate education, or being dismembered in a foreign war, remember they have 'white privilege.'
On the subject of Jews forcing abnormal word usage into English, here's another Youtube set I happened to notice, Damsel in Distress.
Damsel in Distress in video games
I don't know whether the scriptreader believes she is Jewish, though I'd take a big bet. Note the barefaced absurdity of the physical strength claims, and, in passing, the inability to get a grip on technical matters, which of course tend to be irrelevant to propagandists. And the indifference to violence. And the use of the rare word 'trope', torn from its literary use. I suppose we should be grateful we aren't showered with Yiddish constructions.
Note: 'Swindlespeak' is a word coined by Lady Michèle Renouf.
David Irving on Heinrich HimmlerWritten by Rerevisionist 30 Aug 2013
Just a short note. David Irving's ten-venue speaking tour in Britain is almost over; he is following it by a guided tour around sites (such as Sobibor) in eastern Europe. He's now 75, and seems as energetic as ever. He's keeping up-to-date with printing technology; he has print on-demand copies available for many of his books, and translations into many languages; and a presence in e-books. His subject on this tour was Himmler's life and death, in five parts--
1 Chester Wilmot's radio broadcast on Himmler's alleged suicide;
2 Himmler's death in the 'specially prepared house';
3 Himmler's youth and adulthood, until his death aged 44;
4 Information on shootings in the Reinhard camps;
5 and Himmler's part in the bomb plot against Hitler.
David Irving's book on Himmler is "about 80% finished". I made a video (and edited, titled, incorporated photos in it) in a location 'somewhere near Manchester'; people new to Irving might like to check what you see, against the Jewish media version. It's about 100 minutes long.
There were no rentathugs, perhaps not for want of trying: a mole released venue details on Internet, but had been provided with a gay bar in Manchester; just right for his Cameronian mates...
Extract from Endzog
David Irving Threatened By Jewish Thugs - August 16, 2013
The transnational Jew rag 'The International Business Times' recently carried a report by Kike correspondent Dominic Glover (isn't wonderful how the hebes' appetite for grand larceny on a global if not cosmic scale means that they will steal everything including our Christian and European names?) wrote a sordid little article, and I mean little because to extract anything longer than a text message from the modern 'reporter' would be to strain the poor fellow awfully, in which he threatened to set a bunch of nasty Jewish street-thugs on the famous Second World War historian David Irving if he dared, DARED, to express his freedom of speech and his academic right and duty by giving a talk in HIS OWN COUNTRY (or at least in what was his own country before the total Jewish takeover) about Heinrich Himmler, the much maligned, demonized and defamed member of the German leadership who drew the short straw and ended up supervising the concentration camps which contained Jews amongst other inmates; criminals and threats to national stability, morality and security.
Camps in which Jews who had to be taken off the streets of Germany lest they did any more damage than they already had to the German people remained for one reason or another during the Second World War after the Rothschild-controlled 'British' government refused to let them into Palestine. Of course as many of us now believe International Jewry, who controlled the war propaganda units and the media and of course since the war Western education, and who ran both of the Zionist agents Churchill and Roosevelt through Bernie 'the fixer' Larouche, wanted the Jews to remain in the camps so that they could create the Holohoax by ensuring that all acess routes to them would be bombed towards the end of the war in order that Hollywood film directors like Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock and English shabbas Goy Richard Dimbleby could lie through their faces while filming piles of dead emaciated victims of typhus, victims of their own cunning who they could claim were all Jews who had been gassed or murdered. How convenient then for top US five-star general and Jew Dwight D. Eisenhower to arrive at the Buchenwald camp with faux-human lampshades possibly flown in from a Hollywood effects department to create for once and for all the Holohoax myth. ...
... the second like the first world war was provoked by the Jews and untold millions of Germans alone were murdered or starved to death during and after the Second World War by the forces instigated by the Jews. We need a historian for the German side to work all this out, but taking into consideration only the deaths of Germans in and after this war, those figures easily outnumber the number of Jews who died.
... So much has Britain been redesigned and re-arranged that only a party like the German NSDAP or nazi party can sort out the problems we have and eventually restore our mores and values. ... in David's younger days it would have been enough to have left the good Jew alone and brought legal sanction to bear on the subversive elements, had that been done we would not be in the position we are in now. But now our economy, government, banking, political parties, immigration policy, education, the legal system, policing, corporations, food supply, entertainment, fashion and to a growing extent sport is solidly in the hands of the Jews ...
I added a Table Talk Youtube - 40 minutes - of Questions & Answers & other material following Irving's Himmler talk. youtube.com/watch?v=TNUEcQgItkw
Interesting to listen to a first-rate researcher and raconteur; and I inserted segment numbers and short descriptions - useful for reference.
There are a couple of unimportant mistakes - Martin Gilbert as Gilbert Martin, and E J Wicks misspelt, I'm told.
I just noticed Irving say Lord Alfred Douglas was sued for criminal libel by Churchill, for saying Churchill had made a fortune from the Battle of Jutland. Maybe Lord Alfred Douglas wasn't quite as languid as his image suggests.
Off topic, Lord Alfred Douglas (the original Dorian Grey) in fact played a significant part in the exposure of Jews by revealing the Amsterdam synagogue message to Cromwell, offering money when Charles was killed. So Lord Alfred Douglas wasn't just a pretty (and then ugly) face. (From memory - I'm fairly sure this is right. NB Michael Hoffman claimed I think in 2014, that the exchange of letters is an invention or forgery. The British Museum at one time had these documents, or something like them, on display under glass; I remember them, probably in the 1970s. However, they do not appear on the British Museum website. Possibly they were destroyed. But I'd guess cameras were widely-enough available to ensure there is evidence somewhere).
A NEW REFORMATION & Modern Techniques of Image FakeryWritten by Rerevisionist 2 September 2013. Updates 20 July 2016.
We Are Living Through a New Reformation
Many people reading this site are aware that 'false flags', including secret provocations, have been used to justify wars, both to people who want to profit, and to the commanders and mercenaries paid to do the work. The US's war with Spain, for Cuba and the Philippines, was sparked by the 'Maine' being blown up; Japan's War with Russia was funded and no doubt started by Jews; the First World War appears to have been deliberately sparked by murders; Jews in Poland forced Hitler to act, a perfect excuse for another war; Palestine was invaded; the US knew Pearl Harbor was on the way - See this new in Feb 2016 view of Pearl Harbor as a US false flag bombing - another excuse; there were border incursions in Korea; the Gulf of Tonkin; and US actions in unfortunate counties in Africa, Asia, and south America. Jews in the USA and in the USSR were in a perfect situation to rig up events, or just make them up, with media control. Iraq was invaded on pretexts. I've listed below some visual effects. The techniques of course have been getting better and better.
In my opinion, we're now in a situation analogous to the time of the Reformation. The Catholic Church had an international operation, with its own language, its own promotion and career system, land and asset ownership, and constant streams of money. It had a (for its time) worldwide propaganda system, adapted to both illiterates and people who could read. Such events as the Black Death had shown its pretensions to practical usefulness were empty; and explorations and experiments showed how much more there was to the world than the Church's restricted outlook allowed. But its tentacles were so extensive it took centuries to cut down its power. There were wars, and, even more so, chaos as mercenaries invaded territories bringing enormous destruction. There were people like Wycliffe, propagandists of the type of Luther, heretics and martyrs, local rulers like Henry VIII, all playing their parts.
In our time, and for a few centuries, Jews have been a similar growing international tight clique, operating alongside local elites, analogously to the Church, and with its own huge propaganda system. For example, the Holohoax has stories exactly parallel to martyrologies in Catholicism. Another example: the Jewish media output of stories is similar to monks in the Middle Ages producing book after book on miracles of saints. However, it's obvious now to thinking people that 'ZOG' is corrupt, in the sense that it has vastly overextended in a criminal way into regions it should have left alone. Cutting down 'ZOG' is necessary, but, if the Reformation is anything to go by, may take centuries. It may not even be obviously successful: the Church of England, and the English state, took over lands and assets, and the money outflow was staunched: aristocrats were enriched, the clergy changed their views a bit, and very likely ordinary people were somewhat, but perhaps not much, better off.
So it looks as though we can expect a few centuries in which Jewish liars will work overtime, and vast numbers of people will still believe what they are told. Probably there will be wars between blocs of people, some too brainwashed to be able to change, others not caring one way or the other, and looking for security or money. Yet others will simply be caught up in vicious wars. There may be the economic versions of wars—hyperinflation, starvation, poverty, decay of towns into filth and dilapidation. There may be unexpected alliances, in ways designed to replace Jewish control, perhaps worldwide rather than Europe only. There may be the equivalent of burnings at stakes for blasphemy. There may be a final loss of patience with Jews. There may be odd new quasi-religious cults, as happened during and after the Reformation. Perhaps groups believing evolutionary or race heresies, that wars improve people's genes, or races should be forced to mate, or Rothschilds should be made into holy relics, or anyone with forbidden books is Satanic. Part of the persuasion process will be frauds; do please look out for false flags in the news. So far these new fakes have been surprisingly amateurish (see photos); maybe they can't get the staff; who knows. But bear in mind we may be in for a really long haul. There isn't the slightest sign that Jews will develop any sort of normal honesty or conscience.
Modern Techniques of Image Fakery
Individual processing of single pixels (for example, typically cyan or green to leave faces unaffected) is hugely powerful. Green screens allow entire backgrounds to be replaced. CGI (computer generated images, including moving faces and objects) have been used for years in the cinema.
There are of course also photoshopped still images, a descendant of retouched photos. ('Photoshop' is just one image processor, but the name is in generic use). My advice is to take this stuff calmly; it's the way it is now amongst the liars and frauds. Forewarned may be forearmed. Here are a few pioneer debunkers.
Simon Shack (pseudonym?) is a sound engineer living in Italy, within sight of the Vatican. His website is September Clues and he has exposed numerous 9/11 frauds—computer graphic simulations of the towers and airplane strikes; the 'vicsims', i.e. simulated victims; the elaborate hoaxes involved in interviews, both with officials and with supposed members of the public. The technology was, of course, available in 2001.
Here's an account on fakeology.com by Markus Allen (not the Marcus Allen of Nexus magazine, who is a long-term critic of the faked NASA moon landings)
Youtube: Truth about Syria on the Truth about Syria, a well-made video, including actors, and what he claims are fake bodies and so on, apparently sourced from videos in Arabic. Well worth the few minutes to get up to speed with controlled information, though Markus Allen's main interest is marketing.
This link is an online talk about nuclear issues. (Click for 200 minute mp3 file; which is long!). Most of the initial doubt about nuclear weapons was prompted by oddities in the films, which were made available on DVD years after the event. http://www.nukelies.org has discussions from 2011-2012.
'Ab Irato', of fakeology.com, says he was triggered into action by 9/11 truthers, including Simon Shack. He's good on Canadian psyops and has identified convincing signs of fakes in the Canadian printed press, generally used to push some cause or law. He does not include the Jewish element, however, including the Holohoax, so it's not impossible his work is controlled opposition or part of an exit strategy, or even part of a publicity stunt.
July 17, 2016 On Obama's acting skills: I owe it (personally) to Miles Mathis for opening my eyes to the role of actors in frauds, the more direct, but much more perishable, equivalent of written frauds. Mathis wrote an excellent piece on Lincoln's alleged assassination, drawing attention to John Wilkes Booth as an actor: a stage bang, a loud declamation (in Latin), followed by a theatrical leap, down what turns out to be an impossible drop. And of course we have 'crisis actors'. Thinking about it, I recall being positively shocked when I found in about 1975 that BBC news announcers, and, for that matter, even IBM salesmen, often had acting training. But there's a problem: Jewish actors are often, in my humble opinion, not very good. It finally occurred to me that genuine acting means trying to feel what it's like to be another person – or indeed a ghost, king, thug, emperor, 'vampire'. But I think Jews are always acting the part of Jews; it’s not really acting at all.
May 27, 2016 Those two TV ads [Italian one, showing boring Italian male shoved into a washing machine, emerging as a supposedly thrilling black; and a Chinese one, the other way round, otherwise almost identical] are all but identical – same setting, behaviours, actions. Incredible. NB for people who haven't seen them, youtube has several sites showing US (or rather Jewish) TV ads which portray whites as wimps etc, and blacks as wise, knowing etc. The black actor Morgan Freeman is riding (or has ridden) that wave. [There are many youtubes with anti-white ads, no doubt by Jewish advertising agencies.]
Going back in time, here's a 50-minute TV programme aired in 1999, at the end of a session of studio discussions each evening, corresponding to the supposed moon landings of 1969. Colour photos, and b/w TV footage, were used in the fakes, as were studio sets of several types.
Youtube: Moon Landing NASA fraud (five parts). A considerable amount of photographic evidence.
Visual evidence for the so-called Jewish 'holocaust' obviously dates from about 1940-1945, and is mostly black-and-white and mostly under Jewish control. A good site to comb for fakes on this subject is http://www.codoh.com, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.
Illustration: older technology. A lithograph of the 'Destruction of the U.S. Battleship Maine' in 1898. The explosion occurred in Havana harbour. The U.S.A. used the explosion to declare war on Spain, and 'acquired' the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and commercial control of Cuba. From Chicago Historical Society; reproduced here from Brian Catchpole's 1968/1976 A Map History of the Modern World.
Jewish Control of Money.
Written by Rerevisionist 14 September 2013
Comment from 'anonymous'; but note that credit is discussed, the Gresham-like laws of paper money are not:-|
This is one of the most important articles posted on this site - and it deserves to be read and re-read. Rerevisionist's concept of the two-tier system is key towards understanding the power we are dealing with. The two tiers are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.
In the bottom tier, we have the power of money as we conventionally understand it: the power of hard cash (or increasingly, intangible money in bank accounts) to buy things, services, provide loans, pay off debts etc... This is the activity of money that everyone engages in when - for example, buying goods from a supermarket (if I buy German chocolates, for example, I am empowering Germany with my funds, - or at least the workers and shareholders of that company who are probably German...)
In the top tier, we have the power of credit - that is, the power to supply and withdraw enormous amounts of funding to an organization / economy - and thus, to effectively determine its fate. It is this power that lies behind Rothschild's famous quote to the effect that:
'Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws.'
This is a power that far surpasses the power of the bottom tier - for even a highly profitable firm will find itself in difficulty if its credit lines are cut off. Entire nations can be brought to their knees by the concentrated withdrawal of capital (as we have seen in various financial crises), and likewise, others can be raised to prominence by infusions of it. He who controls the central bank, controls the money supply, and he who controls the money supply, controls the economy. And in our materialistic era, he who controls the economy rules political and social life.
A point which people may be missing is not just the fractional reserve thing.
There's also the lending to governments (or anyone else). If paper money or plastic etc costs a lot less than the nominal value, an apparently small interest charge is magnified hugely.
Example: Government wants to borrow £500M owing to waste, funding thugs, investing in climate change frauds, or whatever.
Cost of £20 banknote = (say) 20p each. Interest charged to the Chancellor = say 4%. This means each £20 note handed to the exchequer has 80p per year interest charge. (This is 4% of £20).
However each note costs only 20p.
So the actual interest is 400%.
In effect, an order is placed for security printers, for notes worth £500 million; say 25 million £20 notes. The cost is 25 million x 20p, i.e. £5 million. So the security printer gratefully hangs on to one hundredth of the notes his company prints; the others go to the government, and each year there's interest of 4% of the loan, £20 million.
And yet the cost of the entire print run was only £5 million!
Update by 'henrythefifth'
Rev, your article has correctly identified and explained the control the jewish banking usurers have on the money-supply and credit-creation/ withdrawal of many nation states including Britain.
However, your example above isn't quite right. The private banks/Central Bank don't lend actual bank notes and coins to the government at interest; the government issues this money debt and interest-free minus a small printing/minting charge; this is what's known as seigniorage.
The banksters actually lend digital computer-screen money to the government (business, citizens for that matter) for no cost, well, very minimal administration cost. In your example the 4% interest charge would be a 800% return rather than a 400% return for the banking criminals as they are just transferring money and money they don't really have on a computer screen with no cost.
Paper Money: Incentive to Harm, and Warrant for GenocideWritten by Rerevisionist 15 September 2013
Norman Cohn's negligible book 'Warrant for Genocide' was probably written in job-application mode; it's an empty work supposedly discussing the 'Protocols of Zion', and it's the sort of thing that still leads to promotion in the corrupt academic shadow world. I remember chatting with a student about it, many years ago. Of course, plenty of Britons had died, some in unpleasant ways - drowned in freezing sea, burnt to death on bombing raids, blown apart by bombs. But obviously Jews were specially singled out. A nasty topic, and one felt sympathy, not knowing at the time that it was a money-making fraud and Jews had murdered many many millions. I'll borrow from the title, though 'warrant' isn't quite the right word. I'm pointing out that paper money, or 'fiat' money in the general sense, can amplify destructive behaviour such as Jews display, nudging them into more destruction and evil.
I was mulling over the problems Jews have in disposing of paper money. It is worthless, except as a legal document; if laws change, it can fall. And they know this more than anyone, certainly more than people in the lower tier of money use. Maybe the Rothschilds have nightmares in which they are removed and replaced; it wouldn't surprise me. On the principle of bad money driving out good, they presumably seek to offload and replace the paper with genuine assets: property, productive industries, valuable products of the past, plus of course media control to hide their activities.
But property is itself dependent on law: if the title deeds are torn up, they may lose their assets. So what follows from that is they prefer changes which they think are in their favour, and which are hard to reverse, or, preferably, irreversible. I think this is one clue to their love of assassination and war. If they can disable or permanently destroy rivals, their paper money has at least made its mark. Similarly with white genocide: ruined populations will probably never recover. Probably also their liking for forcing prostitution where possible on weak countries: black Africans, Russians and Vietnamese being three examples. At a smaller-scale level, it helps account for their love of bombs, damage, demolition, and cultural destruction.
An exception may be if they can find some fortress or stronghold; it wouldn't surprise me if money given as 'aid' is being used to construct new towns in for example the cooler parts of India. There's a tradition of Jews hiding away - many country houses in Britain were and are Jewish, out of reach of Russians, Germans, Africans, and others.
Note: some people may not understand the bases for these comments on Jews. The best authority known to me - in fact, almost the only one - is Michael A. Hoffman, who has single-handedly described and analysed the Talmud and other compilations. He has also rediscovered writings and authors who otherwise are censored into oblivion: Eisenmenger is one. (Eisenmenger wrote in Germany, surveying Jewish practices; Hoffman has published on DVD a scanned-in copy, in the original Gothic face. He has also reprinted an English translation, The Traditions of the Jews, apparently about 40% of the entire original text). Hoffman has also located other writers, including someone called Alexander MacColl about whom I've been unable to find little. (This obituary may be of MacColl, a Gaelic and English theologian and speaker. MacColl was the author of A Working Theology, but this short work has little on Jews). Hoffman uses the word 'Judaics' to refer to the people who call themselves 'Jews', on the grounds there is no evidence for any actual connection.
Comment by ConnalOakesHolt
Probably the single most crucial development to happen in Europe since the issuing of the Reichmark, is Hungary's expulsion of the private bankers. [Note: August 2013- Rerev.] Yet we hear nothing about it in the media. Well no surprise there. Though even if the tactic is to ignore this development in Hungary and impose measures covertly from other nations that trade with Hungary, at some point in the near future Hungary will be either the Rothschilds' nightmare made flesh, or it will have been destroyed via other countries that simply stop trading with her. In the way that the South was defeated in the American civil war when Britain ceased to purchase cotton from them.
There is of course another factor to consider, and that is the exchange rate mechanism. How does a potential visitor to another country, in this case Hungary, exchange their currency prior to travel if the banks refuse to play ball, which I'm sure they will? There may be other countries willing to barter with Hungary in exchange for goods, but for how long?
A Day Out: Straws in the Wind and Mental DragWritten by Rerevisionist 18 September 2013
Time for a break. Let's drive to the seaside. Here we are, at their park n ride. It has an obsolete global-warming wall display (absurdly, right next to plaudits for a local hero, who died years ago breaking speed records in his fossil fuel vehicle).
This town flourished in Victorian times, and up to the 1930s; it still has some of its spirit. Here and there are black and white or sepia photos showing beaches crowded with what now seem overdressed people, all of course whites, native to Europe. It has a significant shopping street, with wide streets, iron pillars supporting external glass protection against rain, and arcades as well as shops, some dating from the era in which local entrepreneurs could build up their very own department store. There are a few buskers. There are some beggars; all of them white. The average age of the people is high.
In conversation with the owner of a very long-established bookshop; I'll call him P. P tells me of a local jeweller, who saved by not being insured; over the years he'd reported a number of break-ins. And yet he never took out insurance. P told me he took years to work out what happened: a fraud officer told him he was operating an income tax scam, pretending he'd lost stock and selling it for cash. We agreed that was clever; and both of us are naive about this sort of thing. I told him there must be a fantastic degree of immigrant-related fraud. He recounted another story: an investigative unit into social security fraud had been closed, despite costing only a few hundred thousand, but saving, ooh, hundreds of billions a year. (Europe is showing signs of inflation psychosis: when Germany had hyperinflation, it's reported that people lost track of numbers; they might report their ages as ten million. I think P was exaggerating; but no doubt he was on the right lines).
So I thought: let me tell P how it is. I pointed out Jews want to cause damage, and it's deliberate policy. Did he know Cameron is a Jew? - Er, no. Does he know paper money is a Jewish racket, as in the Fed and the Bank of England? - Er, no. Did he know about the Talmud? - Er, no. I went on to explain the myth of the 'Cold War', the obvious fact the US could have bombed Cuba, and so on, though of course I might as well have been explaining the periodic table of elements, and its relation to ions, to some mediaeval monk. I left him puzzling over his gas bill and the intricacies of competitive oligarchies and their strategies.
Then a visit to a sidestreet fish and chip place - I'm not sure if the word 'restaurant' is accurate. These have quite a history including entrepreneurial types inventing trawlers, and gas- and electricity-heated frying equipment. The EU deliberately killed off a lot of the fishing; and the law killed off many such shops on grounds of smell, just in time for so-called Indian restaurants to come in. Anyway, here, the average age of the clientele must have begun with a 6 or 7, and they were largely female, after the workings of selective male mortality. Interesting to muse over the total immersion in propaganda of these rather naive people, with their very selective narrow-focus cunning.
I chatted to a person who seemed to be a woman tramp, who told me she has an Open University degree. I asked her if she'd heard the idea, without commenting on whether it's true, that nuclear weapons are a hoax. No. What about Churchill's ancestry? And his advisor Lindemann being a Jew? Eisenhower's death camps? No. Shakespeare authorship? No. A vague memory came to me of a pencilled message on a wall: 'sociology degrees - take one!' with an arrow to a wall-mounted roll of paper...
Evading rain, I found myself attending to a radio, temporarily interrupting shop muzak. The bloke was nervously reading out a carefully-prepared press release, on the great advantages of a government scheme for the region. They would give several hundred million pounds - the exact figure hardly matters; it could anyway easily be exceeded - for several hundred - 400? - new 'homes' which would even bring in jobs! The wonders of paper money. I couldn't help thinking of Arthur Kemp's praise for a tiny white enclave in South Africa; and Western Spring's projects, apparently wanting about the same sum, but to be paid for by lifetimes of income made from work, the remnants of heavy taxation on income, and taxation on spending too, and taxation on anything else feasible. It's perfectly obvious Jewish control of fiat money has to be removed.
Musing on the general effects of immersion in propaganda, looking at the shoppers, and their somewhat illusory generous-spiritedness, it's painfully clear that deceit works in many ways; one is by hiding evils committed by people's own groups. Jewish media kept Eisenhower's death camps secret for about fifty years, but there's no anxiety by most people to factor this into their minds. This is a weakness in The Occidental Observer's website, with its idea whites are genetically benevolent. Here's a short quotation from I F Stone's 'Hidden History of the Korean War', 1950s: 'A napalm raid hit the village three or four days ago when the Chinese were holding up the advance, and nowhere in the village have they buried their because there is nobody left to do so. This correspondent came across one old woman, the only one who seemed to be left alive, dazedly hanging up some clothes in a blackened courtyard filled with the bodies of four members of her family.' That (only a tiny sample of what happened) was more than fifty years ago. The Occidental Observer never mentions anything like that, despite the fact many living Americans know about it, and in fact participated in genocide and rapes.
That is war, at least as practised by Jews. I'm uncertain if whites are so inherently psychopathic as Jews; very likely not. I was amused a few days ago to see a piece on the British resistance site trying to resurrect the Jewish divide-and-rule 'class war' thing, as though blokes grumbling about work and pay constitute 'war'. That isn't war, sonny.
Anyway, I'm thumbing through a recently-bought second hand book, which is a Penguin Special, dated 1965, on 'The Crisis of India', by Ronald Segal, aged about 32 at the time, having spent one trip in India, and presumably thinks he's a Jew. It largely has information on taxes, income, 'estate duty', expenditure, international economic aid, foreign business investment... Out of interest I looked at the adverts in the back, for other Penguin books; and most or all the books were by Jews. Sanctions Against South Africa is one; Segal is listed as having convened 'The International Conference on Economic Sanctions against South Africa'. There's the Berlin airlift - the USSR of course was Jewish run and this must have been some rigged-up event. There's a book by someone called Behr on Algeria; the blurb says almost nothing about Islam. It interested me that Algeria and French evil were promoted in the Jewish media, while atrocities in Vietnam were kept secret, except as an exit strategy at the end. Were Jews involved in promoting war against French settlers? We find a study of Cuba by Scheer and Zeitlin, 'two young American scholars', who, one must assume we are invited to believe, had full information on what happened around Cuba, despite the fact that records are kept secret for decades or centuries. It's fascinating to see the way 'Communism' is attributed to Asians, most of whom would of course have no interest or idea in Manchester cotton mills and British workers insofar as Engels and Marx portrayed them. No doubt they were struggling against Jewish-run America. It's quite funny to read of 'Communist imperialism in South East Asia', as conveyed by the Jew York Times, compared with the facts.
On the total immersion of propaganda, it's fascinating to see the advantage that narrow Jewish race fanaticism has. The traditional view of westerners, and very possibly orientals too, is that the world is best understood by some sort of honesty in debate, coupled with understanding and speculation. But how much simpler to be a fanatic! A serious university investigation into religions is difficult, and needs a wide survey of human hopes and fears and possibilities. The Jewish approach—all non-Jews are scum—is refreshingly simple. What about human relationships? Well—non-Jewish women are all whores, non-Jewish children are sex objects, non-Jewish men should be killed. Again, refreshingly simple! What about history? When Jews were allowed access to universities, what an opportunity to suppress unpleasant facts, to tell lies about long-term rivals, and to distort events; how much more simple than trying to tease out truths, and how much more instinctively satisfying to psychopaths! It must have been similar in London's East End; just keep quiet, and let Jack the Ripper disembowel women! They're all whores, after all! The stupid goy police can do nothing against us, God's chosen! Jewish psychology research for years has been in such topics as how to persuade goyim to accept immigrants; and the Milgram experiment is an anti-white thing, for example. Jewish IQ research of course is purely interested in making goyim as stupid as possible. Jewish politics is simple, too—just tell lies about anything that might advantage the smelly goys. Jewish economics and economic history never mentions Jewish leverage points—the worthless money used to make further money, the bribery and corruption, the militarism, the selective training of more Jewish liars. Jewish broadcasting is about the views of their leaders. And what an advantage fanaticism gives when it comes to everyday life: students of law, considered as a method for dispensing justice, may well find it dull; but when it's thought of as a way to defraud, there's a real motive to get to work. Medical science can be studied as a way to help people; how much more exciting as a money-making scheme! News work may be dull; how much more thrilling, how much more worthwhile, to lie, promote your own tribe, spend your life putting out biased anti-white stuff! Surely the stupid goyim will never notice the most absurd lies, such as that there is no such thing as race!
Anyway, the sun's out here. The sea isn't visible as it's under mist, but the Victorian pier with its suggestion of engineering skill and unimportant pleasures can be seen.
When there was rapid inflation in the early 1970s, people talked of 'fiscal drag' - 25%, say, of new higher figures automatically pulled in more money, at least in a numerical sense. For want of a better phrase, why not consider 'mental drag', the way people cannot update to take in new information? We have a long long way to go.
Recently talking to University educated middle class types, I'm struck by the brick wall in their minds when you get onto the subject of immigration & don't mention the Jews!
They say there's always been immigration & don't see any negatives. When they hit 50 I bet some if not all will find it difficult to get work. Already I have met students with degrees who can't get anything but a part time semi skilled job, they're already taking second place in the job queue.
The standard way to remove phobias, for example of spiders, is to first, expose the person to tiny spiders a long way off; explain the habits of spiders; and slowly progress to normality. Presumably this works removing Jewish discussion phobia. Though there's something to be said for the blunt approach, too, which I try to use.
I had lunch with a woman today and we discussed, inter alia, why African poverty and general failure seem immutable. I pointed out that low average IQ and high testosterone levels undoubtedly were huge contributory factors. She quite literally broke out in a sweat and gasped 'I don't want to discuss this any more'. The depth and effectiveness of the programming is astonishing.
Incidentally, she made numerous telephone calls afterwards among the relevant circle complaining about my bigotry and how devastated she was. She also, and this is interesting, blatantly lied about what I actually said.
Agree about treason, but I don't put this dupe in that class. It's the likes of Alan Shatter, the "Irish" [sc. Jewish - rerev] Minister for Population Replacement who are the traitors to me.
Update added Dec 2015: Dr. E. Michael Jones discusses his piece "Soros or Cyrus: The Violent Legacy of the Black/Jewish Alliance." Jewish support for the Civil Rights Movement [Harlem Renaissance, NAACP, Gunnar Myrdal of An American Dilemma, 1944] was an attempt to turn black Americans into revolutionaries. When that project failed in the late 1960s, the CIA and Hollywood went to work producing a series of "blaxploitation" films [Shaft, Superfly] promoting criminal behavior and sexual promiscuity among black youth with the goal of destroying the already weakened black family. The militarization of the USA's police departments and the creation of a black "lumpenproletariat" are part of a divide-and-conquer strategy by the likes of George Soros and including Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, 'Black Lives Matter', proxies in Syria. (Click to play; 48 mins audio 1 min music intro from Renegade Tribune )
Jones's interpretation may be subtly wrong: the NAACP (='National Association for the Advancement of Colored People') was not 'supported' by Jews: it was established, set up, and run by Jews, just as much as the 'ADL' (='Anti-Defamation League') was Jewish, and had its own aims, unrelated to 'Dafamation'.
How Jews Use BlacksWritten by Rerevisionist 15 November 2013. Supplements Dec 2014 and Nov 2015, Dec 2015, Apr 2016.
A south African on Jews and African blacks. (Click to play; 11 mins)Update Added December 2014: Colin Flaherty became well-known in 2012, with his book White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it which seems to have been published by WMD, though www.wmd.com clearly seems to be part of the Jewish media. This may explain why Flaherty seems never to raise the issue of Jewish censorship, though he must know of Jewish media ownership and Jewish attitudes. White Girl Bleed a Lot says it's based on internet research since 2010; his website seems to have started in 2007, and Youtubers email videos and video link to his site. His 'Flaherty Communications' started in 1993.
Update April 2016: About a dozen videos by Flaherty banned by Youtube.
The point of Flaherty's information is to simply list violent black-on-white crimes and incidents, and in passing comment on such things as official classifications by race (Jews omitted?/ Hispanics called 'white' when the aim is to inflate white crime figures) and selective media reporting, so that murdered whites are ignored, just as happens in South Africa. And similar events in education (black history lies) and politics and law ('Bronx juries', 'snitches and stiches', 'positive discrimination' of badly-qualified blacks).
The aim results from what may be the Jewish genetic hostility to whites, and the Jewish genetic tendency to cunning attacks to divide and rule. Blacks are exposed to fake history and generally led to believe whites have and do oppress them. (Jewish ownership of cheap high-rent housing is not mentioned). Rap music, gun use and so on are encouraged though in a way ideally targeted only at blacks. It's not very different from Jewish propaganda aimed at whites when Jews want war: when the US was in Vietnam any amount of mass murder and cruelty was justified by the Jewish media, and to this day there are whites who still don't understand this. In the Second World War, US comics were regarded as almost bestial [beast-like], targeted in the same way. The novelty here is that Jews are targeting a population which shares news space with the other population. This isn't like Germans and Britons, Americans and Japanese etc etc.
Anyway, Flaherty has a popular approach and has been (as far as I know) infinitely more successful than others publishing statistical analyses with careful breakdowns of figures. But at the price of omitting the Jewish controls behind the scenes.
Update: Dont Make the Black Kids Angry is Flaherty's follow-up book, published 1 March 2015. A lot of material on the US school system, such as it is. With emphasis on media liars and school administrator liars. But his youtube hit rates, at the time of writing, are not very high.
Jews and Blacks in the USA: added November 2015. 'I've heard it said that blacks growing up in northern ghettos saw only five whites the Irish cop, the Jewish landlord, the Jewish grocer, the Jewish social worker and the Jewish teacher. The Chosen had a nice, profitable racket ministering to the poor. No wonder blacks turned on them. What did the Chosen really think—that the blacks didn't know the Jews made money from their poverty?' (Instauration, Oct 1989). Note the omission of the 'Fed': Jews made money from blacks from the control of paper money, and the things it can buy.
Two state funded Norwegian media figures claim that white Norwegians deserve to be victims of crime at the hands of non-white immigrants. - was a story on several websites over several days. The book (see the cover design) title means Uninvited Guests.
' ... Arild Opheim and Elin Ruhlin Gjuvsland are longtime 'journalists' and hosts for the far-left taxpayer funded NRK. This is Norwegian State TV and radio [i.e. presumably their equivalent of the BBC]. Two years ago, two illegal aliens from North Africa broke into their house. They were attacked and robbed. ...' is a typical summary. It's not stated whether the authors are Jews, though it seems likely - Opheim for example looks like Oppenheimer. Their book appears to be published by a conventional (i.e. Jewish-controlled) publisher; its title appears not to be new, but recycled from music or some other source. In view of the Jewish inclination to tell lies, I'd guess the whole incident may have been invented. However, here, let me repaste two commenters' remarks, then comment on their common misunderstandings:-
Commenter 1 Racists! As Elin put it, she came dangerously close to buying the theory "that immigrants are just coming here to exploit us, that we have to make sure that there won't want be too many of them, and that we're going to be overpopulated with certain nationalities in fifty years." She'd begun to worry that thanks to lax immigration policies, there was "going to be massive crime so that we're not safe in our own city." In short, she was on the brink: "I thought: 'Damn it, is this going to turn me into a racist?'"
Pause for a moment and ponder that statement. "I thought: 'Damn it, is this going to turn me into a racist?'" Note, especially, the implied definition of "racist" - namely, someone who has a realistic understanding of current criminal statistics, of reasonable demographic projections, and of the less-than-noble motivations of many "non-Western immigrants."
But Arild and Elin's story ends in victory. To be sure, Elin admits that she's more scared now than before about her children's everyday security. But, she affirms triumphantly, "we haven't become racists." Au contraire! Thanks to those men who climbed in their window, physically abused them, and threatened their lives, she and Arild have become first-class dhimmis. As they wrote in their op-ed, they now agree with what one of their uninvited guests told them:
Yes, we are getting what we deserve... . We're getting what we deserve because of Norway's, and Europe's, immigration policies. Because they're too strict.
Yep, you read that right: Europe's immigration policies, which have transformed the continent in the blink of an eye, are "too strict."
Let me just mention Elin Krantz, a murdered Swedish woman. An analogous case. And Michela Eklund. And a video 'Mix It Up'.
Commenter 2 "Amy Elizabeth Biehl, by all accounts a talented, intelligent woman, arrived in South Africa in 1993 as an exchange student on a Fulbright Fellowship and was continuing her Ph.D. studies in political science at the mainly Black University of the Western Cape. She left Stanford, where she had received her earlier degrees, for South Africa with anti-racialist political objectives in mind. She wanted to fight apartheid, which she passionately opposed, and accordingly spent much of her time registering Black voters in South Africa's first all-race elections, scheduled for April of 1994, which would hand over political control of the country to its Black majority.
Biehl would have acknowledged, openly and proudly, that she was working against her own race and on behalf of another race, the Black race. That was the principal ideological source of her now celebrated idealism. She wanted to fight White "racism"; she wanted to help its supposed Black victims.
On August 25, 1993, Biehl was driving three Black companions through Cape Town's Guguletu Township. A mob of toyi-toying supporters of the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), fresh from a raucous political meeting, attacked her car, pelting it with stones and smashing its windows while shouting "One settler, one bullet," a PAC slogan popular among South African Blacks, "settler" being a synonym for a White South African. Biehl was struck in the head with a brick and, bleeding heavily, dragged from her vehicle. As she tried to flee, stumbling, across the road, she was surrounded by a throng of Blacks who repeatedly kicked, stoned, and stabbed her. The fatal wound, among many, came from a knife, buried to its hilt, that entered under her ribs and ended in her heart.
Four of Biehl's assailants, from among the dozen or so who attacked her, were arrested and convicted, but in July of 1998, in the wake of apartheid's demise, they were released from prison, on the ground that the motive for her murder had been political. The killers had believed that her death would help end apartheid, Desmond Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded. She was, as the Commission further observed, simply a representative White in the wrong place at the wrong time. As one of the killers testified: "We were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive; we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to our eyes."
Amy's father, demonstrating how thoroughly he shared his daughter's anti-racialist convictions, shook hands with her murderers and encouraged their release. Peter Biehl told reporters: "We hope they will receive the support necessary to live productive lives in a non-violent atmosphere. In fact, we hope the spirits of Amy and of those like her will be a force in their new lives." Two of the freed killers were, however, subsequently accused of rape, a common pastime in the "New South Africa," and have since fled prosecution; Amy's parents selflessly assumed the White man's burden and befriended the other two. Doubtless Amy herself would have befriended her father's killers, had he been killed by a Black mob instead of her. Such is the nature of anti-racialist idealism: It thrives on the most outrageous violations of normal human loyalties."
-"It was the television reports that got to me. I remember very clearly watching the ABC News reports on the trial of the men who had stoned and stabbed Biehl to death as she begged for her life. The courtroom was packed with the relatives and friends of the accused, who had to be admonished by the judge over and over to maintain order during the proceedings. The ABC newsman focused on one dramatic event during that day's testimony. As a witness for the prosecution described in detail Biehl's begging while a knife was being driven into her chest down to the hilt, the black women in the crowd began to laugh and perform a mocking ululating while a few performed mock begging motions. The black men yowled in glee and the entire courtroom broke out into hysterics as the black crowd mocked this white girl's final moments."
Both commenters have misunderstood the dynamics. It's important they should be understood:-
Typical U.S. TV Jewish 'news': spokesman reads his lines, running through his script, incidents chosen as examples: Ferguson .. New York City .. Baltimore .. and now Charleston .. the President [Jewish puppet, Obama] .. violence against African Americans...
 Do the authors of 'Uninvited Guests' really believe what they say? Jews are possibly the most tribal and race-minded group of people on the planet. Obviously, their motivation is to wreck Norway. There's no suggestion they want the Jews who control the media, and the Jews printing money, and the Jews making absurd laws, to give what they have to foreigners, to whites, to blacks, or to Norwegians. In particular, they are not offering Israel to immigrants. They only want to be generous with other peoples' lives and countries. Arguably, this is genetic, and a grossly hypertrophied instinctive reaction: they simply can't help being hostile to their hosts, even if the result will be a disaster for possibly both.
(2) In the Biehl case, the commenter says 'she would have acknowledged, openly and proudly, that she was working against her own race and on behalf of another race, the Black race.' This is not true. Jews think of themselves as a race, specially chosen by God, or G-d, or Jehovah. They hate white races. Her motive was to encourage blacks to kill whites, even though this would wreck their country.
What Biehl implicitly said (no doubt in an American Jewish accent) was something like this: "Look, I hate whites. I want them all dead. What they did to us, oy vey. Some of them even had the chutzpah to fight us after we murdered tens of millions of them! I want you blacks as allies! Obviously I don't think you're equal to us chosen people. Don't get the wrong idea. In fact, we know perfectly well you're no competition! We want to offer you lifetimes of work (at minimum wage) and steal your lands so we can make fortunes out of you! We want to introduce what we, laughingly, call 'democracy' here! We know you can't understand the issues, that's why! We've used the same formula before. So be a nice bunch of inferior blacks and help us get rid of real whites! That's why I'm here being given a lot of money by American taxpayers and Jewish 'trusts' to study you simple folk and call myself doctor! We want apartheid gone - but of course I'm not going to campaign in Israel to get rid of their racist policies! I'm not going to campaign against Jewish rabbinical racism!"
He's a link to a video of a Jewish TV news report; it shows (1 minute in) what seems to be a Jewish teacher in New York City, punched by one of a mob of blacks. Most blacks identify Jews as whites, as a result of Jewish media control, of course. Also as a result of Jewish media control they have been taught - if that's the right word for a mental diet of Jewish violent junk TV, film, cartoons etc - and slogans such as 'black lives matter' - that whites have deprived and exploited them.
Knockout - The Game of Punching Out Random [sic; this means white] Strangers
So here we have (if the TV piece is true) a manipulator manipulated. Exquisite irony. Perhaps he'll be damaged for the rest of his life, a bit like tens of thousands of white South Africans, except that they were murdered.
Protocols of Zion and the Mysterious Case of the Missing GenreWritten by Rerevisionist 19th November 2013
The debates about, and the organisation, of Jewish plans must have needed secret meetings: synagogues, masonic meeting-places, Rothschild mansions, ghetto hovels, rooms at Bilderberger hotel get-togethers, the Pentagon, editors' offices, homosexual clubs in the USA: all no doubt hosted such plots. There would be no published minutes, and very likely no minutes of any kind; but probably there would be oaths, and secret documents in Hebrew. There's plenty of scope for imaginative reconstructions. The only work of this genre known to me is the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Personally I like the theory that they were a summary jotted down by the Tsarist police, or supplied by some informer. However, there must have been precursors - 1789 ('French Revolution'), 1848 (European Revolutions), and of course earlier still. Just as buildings need drawings, plotters need plans. The Frankfurt School Jewish material, certainly authentic, is strikingly similar.
Literature of this sort, including plays, is of course suppressed, at least in the English language: there are 18th and 19th century writers, for example Peacock and W H Mallock, who make a vague stab at conspiratorial discussions; I would guess France and Germany should have more—it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mozart's operas had Jewish references, and Goethe's Faust. Jew Süss is a modern novel based in the 18th century.
Needless to say, perhaps, the Jewish media has endless junk programming about traditional enemies (all types of whites - surly, vicious Germans, effete French, harmless English buffoons, Slav murderers), plus enemies of the moment - Arabs, Iranians, Cubans, whatever. And friends who can be used, typically at present blacks and hispanics.
This is a hint or suggestion, a seed which I hope will flourish, growing into schools of serious artistic reconstruction of events such as the Jewish coup in Russia. If it's any help, here's my one-act play on the decision to invent the 'atomic bomb' hoax: Oppenheimer, Groves, Slotin, Spaatz get together in 1945.
Inappropriate PolitenessWritten by Rerevisionist 5 Dec 2013
Just a short note suggested by a 1948 book, available on Internet as a long PDF download, The Tragedy of Anti-semitism, presented as an exchange of letters between A K Chesterton and Joseph Leftwich; published by Robert Anscombe.
These two met, or met again, as officers fighting in Somaliland and Abyssinia. It's interesting to read of such then-recent issues as the Marconi Scandal, Bernard Baruch in the USA, Nesta Webster's books notably on the French Revolution, racial types and the effect or otherwise of education on them, the British Empire, the UNRRA (supposedly for Refugee Relief), Zionism and Palestine, and the extermination of Jews (insisted upon by Leftwich), between two men, neither very bright, both victims of intensive propaganda.
There are ten rather dull chapters and a maximum of rather forced politeness. At this distance, it is easy to spot Leftwich inserting traditional Jewish lies and their modern equivalents. However, my point here is that Chesterton (brother of G K Chesterton) 'fought' (in the modern, industrialised war sense) the Germans and Italians without the remotest investigation into their case. Where is his book 'The Tragedy of Anti-Germanism'? Where is his unbiased examination of the justice of war against Hitler? Why does he assume that Jews fighting for Britain were 'gallant and distinguished', whereas William Joyce 'did his country abominable wrong'? Chesterton isn't easy to analyse, as of course the entirety of British media and the BBC were against him. He might have asked Germans for their account of the genesis of the war, if he could speak German; he might have asked the German embassy, if he could have found anyone uncowed; he might have used German press cuttings, rather than British, if he could read German. But he probably had no easy way of finding out how the most recent war was provoked. He was one of the 'sheeple', but this expression is misleading; a better animal analogy would be something like one of the cocks in a cock fight, or one of the dogs in bear-baiting. It's a pity Chesterton wasn't a more forceful and intelligent character.
Footnote: reading a piece by Kevin MacDonald on receiving the 'Jack London Prize', I see he said: " ... I greatly admire Jews as a group that has pursued its interests over thousands of years ..." which (apart from the probable mistake, the omission of the historically recent money scam, and the assumption the 'spectacular success' will continue) shows a similar overbalancing on the side of politeness.
How White is White Violence?Written by Rerevisionist 5 Dec 2013
A short note suggested by many consciously white authors, such as the evolutionalist Kevin MacDonald, and a host of online commentators on white races. An evolutionary view is that whites, because of the need to survive in a rather unfriendly world of cold dark winters and irregular crops and hardship, evolved inventiveness, foresight, co-operation where needed, and teaching of children. They are therefore decent people who are instinctively reluctant to reject newcomers, since there's a long-established unconscious feeling that the non-humanised world can be fatal to them. And they keep pets, and feel romantic attachments.
Whatever may have been the case in the vast stretches of time of the remote past, the last century showed that many whites are perfectly capable of sadistic behaviour. Here's some information on Vietnam giving some information. The First and Second World Wars and Korea (where every single village was bombed by white Americans) shows that the truth is not so simple. Many Americans have no idea of their involvement in mass murders and genocide. The Jewish-controlled media censor it, since they are solely concerned with tribal affairs. I would guess that in perhaps fifty years there will be exhibitions of old snaps taken by GIs in Vietnam, raping women, disembowelling children, and so on, in New York Jewish galleries. In my view, the US veteran organisations and so on would do better to be honest, since truth has its own momentum and value. The question here is: How much of white violence is white? To what extent was Kissinger and the Fed controllers and other Jews responsible, considered separately from the career Generals and USAF operators and the simpleton GIs? That's the important question when considering Jews, war, and the future of the USA.
Reparations to Whites from Jews, for Vast, Possibly Incalculable, DamagesWritten by Rerevisionist 5 Dec 2013
At some time in future it is fairly likely (not certain) that assessments will be made for damages by Jews. Obvious examples include the 9/11 fraud, Vietnam, Iraq, Israel and so on; going back in time, the extortions fed by 'Holocaust' lies are another example; general financial fraud stemming from Jewish control over issue of money, as well as smaller frauds (but still huge by the standards of individuals) are another. Science frauds are equally fairly likely to be exposed and investigated.
Going back in time, aristocracies (British, French, German, Russian) since the time of the French Revolution might awaken to possibilities of restitution. So might descendants of workers, peasants, victims.
There will be a tendency to think in terms of money; but by then it will certainly be clear that money is a variable and uncertain standard, and I'd suggest that assets will have to be taken back from Jews on huge scale. After all, they know perfectly well their fiat money is worthless, and use it whenever possible to get hold of assets of all types.
Judging by the experience of Iceland, investigators will not at first seem very qualified for the job. But they will soon learn and accumulate good people.
Assets are one thing, and lives another. Since Jews have shown no hesitation in mass killings, and more and more terrible facts about the USSR are likely to be discovered in future, suggestions will be made to kill or remove upper tiers of Jews. It's impossible as far as I know to predict what will happen. Personally I would favour strong surgical irreversible action.
Jews 1: Jewish 'Sayanim' & Liars, Trolls, Nudgers, Reputation Managers, ParasitesWritten by Rerevisionist 5 Dec 2013
A newish aspect of mechanised verbal person manipulation is 'reputation management', yet another pseudo-profession hanging from Google, which still maintains its supremacy, no doubt based on Jewish cheap money and non-Jewish skill. The technique hangs from the first page of Google results; post more and more material, adjust the wording, and after a time the target site sinks. If some undesirable item shows up here, people may pay to depress it; just the second page will often do. It's still there, but less obvious. This may be called 'reverse optimisation'. Free sites like 'Twitter' can be loaded with favourable items competing for search engine space. Corrupt lawyers, people caught in flagrante delicto, various types of failure, can, with luck, be displaced from the follow spotlight by subsequent planted messages. What might previously have relied on letters to editors or lunches and gifts instead scents the world of binary electric charges. The same technique is applied to more serious matters.
'Sayanim' is a modern adaptation of the plural of what is presumably an older word, sayan. It's supposed to mean more or less unofficial assistants, dotted around the world, to Mossad, itself supposed to be Israeli.
Here's a glimpse into the fervid world of these pre-scientific liars: Sayanim & Hasbarat.
And here's an insight (three pages, lots of information) into the 'James Randi Educational Foundation' which poses as a 'skeptics' group. In fact, it accepts Jewish rubbish as true, relying on unimportant material (dowsing, ESP, second sight, creationism, homoeopathy, cold reading...) for its staple diet of attacks. There are many similar and analogous sites, all of course without commentary on Jewish history and activity. I removed 'spoonbending' from my list as Uri Geller thinks he's a Jew; presumably 'Randi' is careful what he says about that.
Their techniques include trolling and simple lying. Many 'controversial' sites are Jewish fronts; with practice and intelligence, these aren't hard to spot: whatever the topic, whatever the relevance, Israel, Jews, the 'holocaust', pop up, wearyingly unaccompanied by truth and accuracy. Often the point is to promote some current Jewish mania: homosexual sex, war against Syria, trying to disarm Americans, etc. Many comments to would-be controversial sites are of this form: they weaken and damage their parent sites, but the moderators are often not competent to query them. The BNP website is an example of poorly-weeded commentary, though it's a bit unfair to single it out.
These are verbal equivalents of fake image processing: subsidiary to the really big liars, but real and present. Most of the examples above are from 2012; since then, there's been publicity for Hasbarat, presumably with a different plural ending, and meaning something like 'helpers'. There seems to be an inferior grade of liar who, judging by published comments, are paid peanuts for their 'work'. Like the unexpected phone calls: "Can I speak to the owner. My name is James. ..." 'hasbarat' are easily recognised after a bit of practice.
Possibly, as time moves on, 'truth adulteration' will be seen as a marker of the 20th century, just as adulteration of food was widespread in the Victorian era.
Jews 2: Jews and UnionsWritten by Rerevisionist 6 Dec 2013
Just as there's a simple image projected for Jew-controlled political parties, so unions usually have a simple message for their members. And most members seem not to question their unions: Why do they never seem to get anything? Why are they losing jobs overseas? What's happened to all their dues?
The theory I'm suggesting here, to be tested in the world, is that Jewish control of finance is easily enough to buy 'leaders' of unions—'leaders' in quotes because their role is to obey orders. This of course may have economic effects, and these can and should be studied. (See ... Deliberately Missing Economic Theory above (click back-arrow to return here) for the parallel in 'high finance'). One obvious point is that Jews straddling several countries can play with unions in those countries. Suppose, for example, as happened in the 1930s, that there are deemed to be too many ships. A secret agreement may determine who gets the orders, and who doesn't. This seems to have been a standard post-war pattern in all white countries. As an example, the BBC gave prominence to the death of 'Red Robbo', someone who had damaged the British car industry and whose role looks like that of someone paid to wreck the industry. Earlier, the BBC gave prolonged coverage to coal miners' strikes at the time of Thatcher, with, of course, no information at all on the technical details of coal. In such cases, a serious researcher ought to tease out Jewish influence.
Another point is control at a union level of beliefs. In the UK, the biggest union by membership appears to be 'Unite', once called 'Unison'; its membership includes a miscellany of not very educated workers in not very important, but often subsidised, public sector jobs and pseudo-jobs. The NUT (teachers), NUS (students), NUJ (journalists) all have, or often had, Jewish 'leaders' who of course are groomed, like MPs, for their roles, generally anti-white, anti-white education, anti-white rights, housing, everything. The union rule books all prohibit serious discussion of topics recognisable as Jewish related or to do with Jewish frauds. The actors union, 'Equity', has the same policy. These things are far easier to check than they were before Internet; any serious researcher ought to spend time checking them. And they might check the obviously race-based unions - incredibly, black lawyers, black police etc are permitted unions.
The analogous situation applies to people who don't regard themselves as workers: the Civil Service, the secret Common Purpose organisation based on the Communist Party, University Teachers' organisations, Church of England clergy, the Army, the General Medical Council, the BBC, the Bank of England, employees of whatever the 'Crown Agency' is now called, police and prison staff, all have assorted rules and traditions, worth studying for their Jewish-influenced absurdities.
And of course there are groups where Jewish influence is simply bought: news agencies were bought out long ago; newspapers ditto; radio and TV later; advertising agencies typically follow a Jewish agenda, for example intentionally including mixed races and immigrants.
Jews 3: Jews and Fake InformationWritten by Rerevisionist 6 Dec 2013
A short note, not on the Jewish controlled media (newspapers, BBC, radio, books), but on the more subterranean organisations which work to publish lies and channel money to issues believed by Jews to benefit them, mainly of course, at present, by damaging whites.
These are worth investigating for several reasons known to me: (1) Monitoring and auditing is not very competent; there are too many charities and there may be little income in checking them; (2) They are not subject to Freedom of Information enquiries, so information can be hidden; (3) Their objects can be very vague; (4) For political reasons, they can get away with race based activities. (5) They give the appearance of being non-profit, when in fact almost all of money they get never arrives at the supposed destination(s).
The trick is to try to identify their overall activity: for example, I read a summary of a charity - it arranges for immigrants to receive housing and money at the expense of locals, gets public money, and is classified as non-political. I read of another which poses as an educational charity, but caters only for genetically defective Jews.
A good source here is the so-called Frankfurt School of German Jews. Click the link to find lists of targets. These include attacking the family, promoting abortion for whites, corrupting the legal system to introduce uncertainty, and several other things. Many nominally independent think tanks are Jewish funded, often via immigrant boards of the poorly-qualified, and their work consists of publishing and promoting Frankfurt-style objects. Many campaigns which get a lot of Jewish media publicity are backed by organisations of this type: for example the 'look say' method of reading (to damage young children's education), fluoridation campaigns (to damage drinking water), campaigns to free dangerous criminals, race-based campaigns such as the Stephen Lawrence 'Trust', campaigns for paedophilia and pornography, campaigns to selectively house immigrants, and so on.
Here's just a very small amount of reading material: reviews from the 1960s to 2000s of Koestler: Hanged by the Neck (Jewish campaign against capital punishment when whites are victims), British Race Relations (included here in a group of reviews removed by Amazon), a race campaign by the 'Race Relations Board' to promote unwanted immigration, L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work, a Social Services campaign to pretend blacks aren't racist, and an account of 'The Stephen Lawrence Enquiry', on pressure group policing.
Educational and Research Foundations
The main points of educational 'research' at present are (1) To pretend there are no difference between people especially races, (2) To hide any serious evidence on education, (3) To leave Ivy league/Public School style organisations alone except as regards Jewish funding, (4) To prevent children/ pupils/ students from developing critical thought and independent judgment.
So, for example, research into race is effectively banned, and evidence is never produced. When did you ever see photostats or copies of written efforts by black children, for example? They are kept secret because there are terrifying implications for the future of illiteracy and innumeracy, and of fathomless ignorance.
Fake 'Skeptics' Groups
I've looked at these above (see e.g. notes on the 'James Randi Educational Foundation'. The object here is to feed an official line, while pretending to follow free thought and truth-seeking agenda. It's curious to see the brittle self-confidence of the people paid to post in these junk forums.
Political Change Promoters (including Sex)
Worth noting, as a specific part of the Frankfurt School, is promotion of abnormal sex. The recent (late 2013) promotion of 'same sex marriage' in many countries (12? 20?) is clear proof of international behind-the-scenes activity. This is part of the Jewish agenda, which it shares with Islam, to reduce and remove the age of consent, so any children can be buggered and raped. It's curious to see supposed feminists saying nothing about these schemes. And it's curious to see Archbishops and politicians saying nothing about anal sex, despite its risks, but Britain's Jewish Prime Minister, David Cameron, has made no attempt to establish an inquiry.
Jews 4: Jews and Wars Considered as Jewish Cock FightsWritten by Rerevisionist 6 Dec 2013
Considering the psychology of fights... At the start of the First World War, there was mass exultation; many young people rushed to join up. Or so the story goes; the media said so. But of course the media are not unbiased: the Jewish media then had a long tradition of insulting Russia, and a shorter tradition of insulting Germany. Fast forward half a century; consider the USAF and young American killers let loose on peasants given no option but try to fight back. The media (under of course full Jewish control) keep activities censored as much as in eastern Europe after 1945. To this day naive people discuss whether the USA 'won' or 'lost' in Vietnam. I found a comment on domestic.com about Vietnamese as 'dangerous animals'; I had an email about destruction of villages, 'fun at the time'; I saw a TV thing, probably BBC, a 'veteran' saying he 'never liked the Vietnamese'. Anyway, in modern wars, most of the people had little idea what they were fighting for, though the defenders were probably more clued up: for example the Germans had faced declarations of war by Britain, twice. My best guess is that the Vietnam 'War' was purely to make money for Jews (just as Johnson bombing the Liberty was Jewish). Hence the huge expensive bases, the leisurely winding-down, the tonnage of bombs (more than the whole of the Second World War), the drug and prostitution sidelines, the loss of aircraft to be replaced, and no doubt the currency control by Jews.
The Jewish tradition was to supply credit to both, or all, sides. This sort of investment is far larger than mere small beer investments. (Many people, for example George Bernard Shaw, thought wars start when interest rates are low, though without identifying a convincing reason). After the Federal Reserve, paper credit could be extended more or less ad lib; the effects would be felt later, as the currency became less and less valuable. In effect, it's a modernised form of corn clipping, with dead 'goyim' providing the decorative background.
Cockfights are arranged with trained birds, preened and fed, fitted with metal spurs. The amused spectators watch them slice each other up; not that different from gladiators, or from two Africans, each armed with a car axle, forced to fight. Tens of thousands of U boat sailors died; tens of thousands of allied pilots; and these figures are nothing compared with the hecatombs in eastern Europe. No doubt to Jewish amusement, and bets on the side.
Let me repeat a crucial point here. Most people in the Christian tradition consider war is a last option, a grave decision, something not to be undertaken lightly. They refuse to believe business people want to make money from war. From some online comment: 'Both Haig and Churchill must have known they were sending men to their deaths. It's a tough decision.' The point is, the Jewish attitude is unambiguous: the goyim are animals and deserve death, theft and prostitution. For Kissinger, for Churchill, for neo-cons, it is an easy decision which they favour: goyim get killed, Jews make money!
Maybe there will come a time where every few years a secret lottery will take place to pick a territory, and declare war against it (if anyone still bothers to 'declare war'): New Zealand? Texas? Algeria? Kyrgyzstan? Sumatra? Uruguay? Zambia? to be made an outlaw. For a few years any bombing, shelling, strafing, plunder will be permitted. If this sounds crazy, is it any crazier than allowing a clique of Jews to do much the same thing?
Jews 5: Jewish Hatred for WhitesWritten by Rerevisionist 1 July 2014
Some sample quotations and claimed quotations, to illustrate the hatred of Jews for whites. This is usually well-hidden; gullible people tend not to believe such things, which is a good reason for researchers, historians, Biblical and Talmudic scholars, to collect evidence and also list approved Jewish stratagems, such as 'kill the best'. (This may have been done in the past, perhaps by isolated 19th century thinkers; or by, for example, Germans. If so it's been buried). If you know about e.g. Deuteronomy, the Talmud and annotations, bibliographies on Jews, and the Quran perhaps, why not co-operate on a compendium of Jewish malice and its techniques? This would certainly cast light on present-days Jewish policies. Please!
The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of of life itself.
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races.. .... as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."
The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Of course we expected bewilderment from people who still think of race as biology.
'There is no place in Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states'.
I don't like [white men]. I want them to be a lost species in a hundred years
"The English are hardly worth saving as a race"
I think there's a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multi-cultural, and I think we're gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multi-cultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multi-cultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.
'We still nurse a sense of homogeneity and difference from others, and that's precisely what the European Union should be doing its best to undermine'.
"To feel and even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable plane is natural, given its history and current documents. Let the white race perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, racially mixed and classless ecological society! Long live anarchy!"
[ Start of This Articles Page | New Articles 2016 - 2017 | Articles 2012-2015 | Detailed Article Index at End | Guide for Politically Perplexed | Truths About Jews | Jew Curriculum Ideas | Main Site ]
A standalone linked page, recommended for intelligent people who are new to analysis of Jews. Not exactly BEGINNERS, but close enough. I've seen many painfully silly misunderstandings, by perfectly normal people. Sometimes I've been moved to add them here, often using the original wording, plus my decoded explanation. So it's IMPORTANT! Learn to decipher the endless stream of code words, lies, insults, and misleading phrases, pushed continuously by Jewish media and commentators and their puppets. Roughly sorted into topics and buzzwords. Started 6 Dec 2012
Jewish Influences on Everyday Beliefs General Introduction
Examples start here: Separating Out Jewish Influences | Appeasement | Puritanism | Democracy | Socialism | Anarchism | Communism | Capitalism | Collectivism | Failed Targets as Inevitable | Individualism | Left vs Right | Liberalism | Nations, Nationalism, National Characteristics | Patriotism | Nationalisation, Privatisation | Planned Economy | Conservatism | Religion & Free Thought | Women and Family Life, Feminism | Sex Perversions | Slavery | 1960s | Pacifism | Intellectuals | Jewish™ word abuse | 'Minorities' | New World Order | Parliaments and Opposition | Race & Jews
Academic Subjects: Economics | Sociology | History | Religion | Health]
Did Jews Hijack Early Christianity? 17 Aug 2016
[ It's clear to intelligent people that Jews, once they've decided on some lie or other, stick to it, seemingly forever. Projecting this characteristic backwards in time, we consider whether the centuries Christianity took to become established might have been used by Jews to change the whole of the ideas and beliefs of Christianity, to pretend is was a Jewish idea all along. Jewish plagiarism and dishonesty are commonplace; here's a brief examination of the issue. Kept short to try to head off the inevitable timewasters and misunderstanders and fanatics.]Nuclear Exit Strategy. 1 July 2016.
[ The nuclear industries are riddled with Jewish frauds, and have been at least since the Manhattan project. Some Jews want to get out. But how do go against more than fifty years of lies? On the general subject, www.nukelies.org remains the best serious source. ]Jo Cox 19 June 2016. - Supposed murder, fake rich charities supposedly for the 'Third World', 'Brexit' and leaving the EU vote, nonwhite invaders
Do 62 People Rule the World? 26 Jan 2016
Tell the Truth about Jews 3 Jan 2016
Donald Trump vs Jews 25 Dec 2015
[ Attempt at a detailed look at Donald Trump. My list of ten important issues which may worry Jews is: 1 Experience with tall buildings; think of 9/11! 2 Money and Bank. Trump must have a lot of experience here. 3 Dissent between Jews and their crime syndicates. 4 Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power: Trump has some practical experience and may discover nukes are not what they seem. 5 Muslims, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ISIS - all these are a factor in Jews trying to colonise more middle east land. Trump may twig to the real costs, and real effects, of these things. 6 China, Mexico, Japan: Trump has some feel for big international money flows. He may not be taken in with Jew-biased information. 7 Iraq Wars: Trump seems at least partially aware of the scams here. 8 Education. Trump knows the system is partly designed to turn out dim Americans. 9 Jewish books and freakishness may make an impression on Trump, despite his AIPAC advisors. 10 False Flags and Psyops: Trump seems easily strong-minded enough to question official accounts. ]Jeremy Corbyn 15 Dec 2015
When the Gentiles Awake 23 Nov 2015
'MIGRANT CRISIS' as continued Jewish social interference using nonwhite invaders, 22 Nov 2015.
[ Networks of Jew-funded organisations, funded by such Jews as George Soros, include people traffickers, teams of lawyers, embedded Jews in police forces, third-rate journalists and so on. They are having a similar effect to Jews in the USA who force in illegals under 'President' Obama. Many people STILL don't understand that organised Jews are promoting and supporting nonwhite invasion of white countries - but not Israel. This is a deliberate, long-term strategy. My piece tries to show this even to people unwilling to admit it. evidence includes the fact that Jewish organisations ALL support invasion. This is worldwide - USA, Canada, Europe, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Part of the reason is to ruin white societies; another part is to try to clear areas of the Middle East for Jews, just as Palestine was cleared by Jewish atrocities after 1948. ]New View of Suffragettes 16 Nov 2015
[ Explored the idea, suggested by a book review, and new to me, that alleged suffragette atrocities were in fact Jewish false flags, aiming to get Britain and Germany at war ]Flat Earth Promotion 16 Nov 2015
[ Looking at a wave of promotion of 'flat earthism'; probably to try to show critics of NASA are as ignorant of science as NASA itself ]Much Money in the Bank. Little in the Head 13 Nov 2015
The Real Flynn Effect 9 Nov 2015
Two Tiers: Key to Understanding Money, Banks, Jews, and Varieties of Capitalism 1 Dec 2012
[ Important! Looking at money, banks, and in particular central banks with a monopoly in one country. The result is counter-intuitive: most people fear debt, but central banks benefit from it. Essential in understanding the modern system from the days of William of Orange and Cromwell, to the Fed and the present day. The 'two tiers' are ordinary people (who have to work for money) and the legal issuers of paper money and e-money (who don't). Includes typical details of banks and their relations with the Third World. ]
The work of Kevin B. MacDonald 18 Dec 2012
What Should We Do With Synagogues? 1 Dec 2012
Parasitism 3 Jan 2013
[ Survey of parasitism in nature: including tapeworms, ichneumon flies, greenfly, ants, cuckoos. Parasitism in people is hard to analyse, because belief systems, organisations and so on are far more complicated than in other forms of life: I've linked to a very convincing article, considering evolution in human groups, and the possibility that many generations living in cities in the middle east bred a parasitic group. I've tried to give many examples of behavioral traits which would be expected of human parasites, such as secrecy, mimicry, fanaticism, and indifference to behavior patterns of hosts. Denial of reality as a parasitic characteristic. And a look at the genetics of settled societies under attack from specialised hostile groups. ]Scientific Nationalism 8 Jan 2013
Nuclear Scepticism and Revisionism 17 Feb 2013
Jewish Murderers and Mass Murderers 17 Feb 2013
Jew Process 10 April 2013
Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys? 25 April 2013
One Man's Journey to ‘Anti-Semitism’ 27 April 2013
[ Articles written under the pseudonym Luke O'Farrell, from 2005-2008. The author was jailed when he went to the USA with Simon Sheppard to claim asylum—which I'm told they could have done had they followed the procedure. Interesting articles on the fag end of Tony Blair's regime. Detailed and well-written pieces showing Jew awareness awakening. ]The 'Holocaust' Fraud - The Evil of Lying 6 June 2013
What can We Learn From Napoleon and the 19th Century? 18 June 2013
Eugenics 22 June 2013
[ Examines the way Jews have made 'eugenics' into a word of horror, completely ignoring the medical possibilities and deeper possibilities if human power structures become understood ]
Campaign Against Arms Trade 30 June 2013
[ Reexamining campaigners against weapons, and peace campaigners: do they know what they're doing? ]Some Notes on Population 4 July 2013
Jewish Plans for White Genocide by ShaunAntiJihad 11 July 2013
Taboos about Jews 3 Aug 2013
'Facism', 'Rascism', the 'Borjois' and the Need to Understand the Jewish 'Single Standard' 6 Aug 2013
RamZPaul on 'White Privilege' 16th Aug 2013
Irving on Himmler 30 August 2013
NEW REFORMATION & Modern Techniques of Image Fakery 22nd Aug/ 2 Sept 2013
[ An account of false flags, notably visual fakery, including the USA war against Spain, which used its own atrocity/ false flag propaganda. I was developing the comparison of removing Jewish influence now with the removal of Roman Catholic influence then, in the Reformation, though this comparison has the weakness of not recognising the common Jewish influences. The piece includes a link to a new theory by FirstClassSkeptic, that Pearl Harbor may have been bombed by Americans. ]Jewish Control of Money. And the Missing Economic Theory of Macrofinance 14 Sept 2013
Paper Money: Warrant for Genocide 15 September 2013
[ Norman Cohn's negligible book 'Warrant for Genocide' was probably written in job-application mode; it's an empty work supposedly discussing the 'Protocols of Zion', and it's the sort of thing that still leads to promotion in the corrupt academic shadow world. ... ]Straws in the Wind & Mental Drag 18 September 2013
How Jews Use Blacks 15 November 2013
[ Jewish fake altruism towards blacks, in fact aimed at weakening white societies: includes the case of Amy Biehl, possibly like 'Lauren M' c 8th Feb 2016, and others. Many Jewish women are brought up on stories of such activities. ]Protocols of Zion and the Case of the Missing Genre 19th November 2013
Inappropriate Politeness 5th December 2013
How White Is White Violence? 5th December 2013
Reparations to Whites 5th December 2013
Jews 1: Jewish 'Sayanim' and Liars, Trolls, Nudgers, Reputation Managers, Parasites 5th December 2013
Jews 2: Jews and Unions 6th December 2013
Jews 3: Jews and Fake Information 6th December 2013
Jews 4: Jews and Wars Considered as Jewish-Run Cock-Fights 6th December 2013
Jews 5: Jewish Hatred for Whites 1 July 2014
[ Quotations widely found on Internet showing Jewish hate for whites, in particular. Jewish organisations which claim to oppose hatred, xenophobia etc are entirely bogus. Many people of course find this hard to understand, and hard to believe. ]
[ Start of This Articles Page | New Articles 2016 - 2017 | Articles 2012-2015 | Detailed Article Index at End | Guide for Politically Perplexed | Truths About Jews | Jew Curriculum Ideas | Main Site ]
Writing, HTML © Rae West at the various dates listed. This version (three separate files, to save space: 1 Jews in history and the emergence of revisionism; 2 Miscellaneous articles; and 3 'Guide to the Perplexed') first uploaded together 2016-Feb-07. Some mobile phone tweaks 2016-10-23