The Jewish Problem – National-Socialist Worldview

Jewish Influence caused the Death of George Floyd as well as the Violent Reaction that Followed

Hadding — Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:16:00 +0000

Knee-on-the-neck is a standard technique used by the Minneapolis Police Department. According to NBC News, Minneapolis police have used that technique and variants thereof at least 200 times since 2015. They got it from the Israelis.

Police attended an Israeli “counter-terrorism training conference” in Minneapolis in 2012. (J. Collins, MPR News, 26 June 2012).

Ultimately it will have to be admitted that Derek Chauvin did what he was trained to do, and, to the extent that George Floyd was not the cause of his own death, Israeli training of American police will be exposed as the problem. Chauvin at present is being scapegoated. A civil suit against the Minneapolis PD would make more sense than a criminal prosecution of Chauvin.

Even then, the fact that George Floyd was a drug-abuser (high on fentanyl* at the time of his death) and had a bad heart should be a mitigating factor. Anybody with such problems can die in a stressful situation. If you can’t take stress then don’t do crimes.

But the biggest humbug in all of this is that it was “racist.” It was not. The Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence, reveals himself as an idiot (in case there was any doubt) by giving credence to this accusation.

In fact, with his uncritical admiration for the State of Israel, Pence himself is part of the problem that he rushed to condemn.

In this situation we are experiencing what some call a kosher sandwich. It means that Jewish influence is fundamental on both sides of the problem.

Jewish-controlled mass-media have taught Americans to have a high regard for the State of Israel. As a ramification of this, many American police departments have accepted training in heavyhanded Israeli police techniques, such as restraining a suspect with a knee on the neck.

On the other hand, Jewish-controlled mass-media also agitate against “White racism.” Their default interpretation of any misadventure of a Black criminal (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown) is “White racism.” When they do this, a general reaction against White people (by non-Whites and by some do-gooder Whites) is the result.

How can the standard procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department represent White racism when the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department is Black, and at least half of the officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd, Tou Thao (Vietnamese) and Alexander Kueng (apparently of mixed race), are not White?

Black criminality — based on hereditary aggressiveness, low intelligence, and poor self-control — is the main reason why Blacks disproportionately go to prison and have misadventures while committing crimes.

But the cause of this particular crisis — the reason why suspects are dying unnecessarily in police custody and riots are resulting from it — is Jewish control of mass-media, and the Jewish influence that comes with it. There is a pressing need for Jewish influence to be recognized as a problem. Until we do that, White people will be taking the blame.
__________________________
* which, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, causes “problems breathing.”

Dr. Robert Faurisson talks about Dachau

Hadding — Wed, 20 May 2020 17:51:00 +0000

Professor Robert Faurisson demonstrates that the pattern of deaths at Dachau concentration-camp, where there happens to be a thorough record of all deaths, is completely inconsistent with the Holocaust narrative.

Probably the most important point here is that appearances can be misleading, and moreover that appearances can be used to create very misleading propaganda. One should not therefore allow oneself to be manipulated into reacting with rash emotionality to scenes like those in the concentration-camps in 1945, because in that case the cause of the situation was not what one gratuitously supposes, and because the Germans had in fact tried to prevent such a situation from developing.

A point that Faurisson does not emphasize is that the way that the Allies waged war against Germany, above all the demand for “unconditional surrender,” meant that Germany must be in total collapse before the war could end. Rampant typhus in Germany at the end of the war, and especially in the crowded concentration-camps, was a ramification of this demand.

Professor Faurisson’s statement near the end of this presentation from 1992, that he did not believe that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” to lie, deserves an asterisk, because when I met him at his home in August 2000 he said something that on its face might seem at variance from what he had said publicly 8 years earlier. About the lie of the Holocaust, he said:

“It is not a British lie; it is not a Communist lie: it is a big Jewish lie.”

One can reconcile these statements by emphasizing the word conspiracy. It means that Jews did not have a meeting as portrayed in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion where they decided in an organized manner to tell this lie. Rather, it is a story that began perhaps as a rumor*, which Jews in general have taken up and repeated because it suited their disposition and their purposes. The Holocaust, and the willful credulity of Jews toward this story, is best understood perhaps as a religious movement, where there is a wish to believe, and facts and logic do not count for much. (See my article noting that the Holocaust now is regarded as part of the Jewish identity in the same sense as Biblical mythology.) Unquestionably there are Jews at the top of today’s Holocaust hierarchy who understand that they are obfuscating problems in the story, and perpetuating it through dishonesty (as happens in some other religions), but they did not create the story; rather, they inherited it, and they do not have to conspire (in the sense of secret, organized planning).

In my exchange with Professor Faurisson, the question of who was responsible for the lie of the Holocaust came up because he was talking (or really, I should say, complaining) about David Irving, and when I mentioned Irving’s claim that British psychological warfare had invented the gas-chamber story, that was the professor’s reaction.

When you look at the documents on Irving’s own blog, you discover that the story came from Jews. Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, opined in an internal memo of 27 August 1943 that the British government should not be promoting a story for which there was no evidence, and which was likely false because it resembled lies told during the First World War:

“I think we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence.

“These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of the employment of human corpses during the last (1914-18) war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.”(quoted by S. Ward, Independent, 22 August 1993)

An official named Richard Allen commented:

“It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.” (Ibid.)

If you listen only to David Irving, you might get the impression that Cavendish-Bentinck had invented the gas-chamber story, when in fact it was a report that his bureau had received, originating mainly from Jewish sources, about which Cavendish-Bentinck was skeptical and uncomfortable. Even Wikipedia’s article about Cavendish-Bentinck says this.
______________________
* The Jewish psychologist Leon Festinger, in his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, cites the development of a similar rumor among Japanese held in U.S. concentration camps during the Second World War. The explanation for such a rumor, according to Festinger, is that when people expect to be treated cruelly but receive kind treatment instead, their imagination tends to make up the difference: they assume that what appears to be kindness is a trick. Thus a perfectly innocent shower-room becomes a gas-chamber to the fearful imagination.

Why Zionists who Know the Situation are Afraid to Attack Iran

Hadding — Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:49:00 +0000

E. Michael Jones makes a lot of sense, not in every subject, but certainly when he talks about U.S. foreign relations.

It is puzzling, how much publicly available information Zionist warmongering seems to ignore. For example, how could they not have known that the elimination of Saddam Hussein would facilitate a great expansion of Iranian influence in the region? This should have been a no-brainer. Yet like a deindividuated, unthinking mob, Zionists were determined that Saddam had to go!

The highly competent leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, stated last summer, long before the senseless killing of Qassem Soleimani, that an attack on Iran would provoke a retaliation against Israel. He said that Hezbollah’s missiles could take the Zionist Entity back to the Stone Age, and he said that the Jewish State would definitely suffer a retaliation if Iran were attacked. Perhaps Nasrallah did not make it clear enough that the retaliation would include tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah.

It was only after E. Michael Jones stated that any retaliation for the murder of General Soleimani should be against the State of Israel rather than against America —

“Israel is the cause of this mess; Israel should be held responsible for what happened.” (Press TV, 5 January 2020)

— that Nasrallah’s position seemed to be remembered and taken seriously.

Facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s Holocaust

Hadding — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 06:20:00 +0000

This redacted clip from the Radical Agenda show of 2 December 2019 contains foul language and adult references.

At Stanford University on 7 November 2019 Ben Shapiro quoted a document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland, a deposition attributed to a former concentration-camp inmate named Henryk Tauber, to the effect that 2500 corpses per day were cremated by a crew working in Birkenau’s Krema II. According to information from the manufacturer of the crematory ovens used at Birkenau, Topf und Söhne, this is simply impossible.

There were 15 crematory retorts in Krema II and each could cremate (on average) one body per hour. In 24 hours of continuous operation, then, 360 bodies could be cremated. All the 38 retorts in Birkenau operating continuously for 24 hours could cremate 912 bodies.

It’s really worse than that, because the ovens had to be out of service for 3 or 4 hours each day to be cleaned. In that case the maximum possible numbers are 315 for Krema II and 798 for Birkenau as a whole.

The idea that cremations could be accomplished faster by piling in bodies seems to be based on the assumption that a crematorium functions like an open fire, where the energy released as heat is mostly wasted. In fact a crematorium, especially the kind used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, functions more like an oven for baking food, where the temperature is controlled and waste of energy is minimized. It is a well known fact that in a household oven the time required for cooking a piece of meat is roughly proportional to the mass. This rule also applies to crematory ovens.

Apart from false testimonies like Tauber’s, there is no reason to believe that Birkenau’s crematoria were operated to the maximum extent possible. A document discovered by Carlo Mattogno refers to a “twelve-hour workday” in relation to fuel-consumption. Also, some of Birkenau’s crematoria spent considerable time out of service needing repairs, which surely would not have been allowed if the full capacity for cremation had been needed at all times.

The impossibly high rate of cremation claimed in Tauber’s deposition seems to have been calculated to support the old Soviet line, that 4 to 5 million died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Auschwitz Museum’s current claim (still a gross exaggeration) is that only about 1.1 million died there.

Indisputably, that document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland makes absurdly inflated claims about how fast corpses could be cremated in Birkenau concentration camp, and Ben Shapiro was a fool to trust it.

Shapiro felt the need to try to demonstrate the factuality of the Holocaust because of Nick Fuentes’ mockery of it in a video-clip from last January, which had been dredged up and publicized as a way of attacking Fuentes after his followers humiliated the representatives of a phony conservative organization called Turning Point USA. A discussion of the conflict around Nick Fuentes can be read here: America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control.

Was the Civil Rights Movement opposed to Identity Politics? Balderdash!

Hadding — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:15:00 +0000

The self-proclaimed conservatives of the Republican Party have a sickening tendency to try to minimize controversy by not challenging the sacred cows that the anti-White left sets up for us all. Thus we hear, for example, Rush Limbaugh speaking in reverential tones of “Dr. King” and “what Dr. King had in mind.”

Has everyone forgotten that the Republican presidential candidate of 1964 opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Republican president elected in 1968 had campaigned on opposition to forced busing — meaning continuation of de facto segregation?

Amnesia is the great enemy of conservatism. If we fail to remember where we were, if we fail to keep in mind what we were trying to preserve and what we were trying to prevent, we end up gradually adopting all the positions of our persistent enemies.

This has been the story of so-called conservatism since the Second World War and it is a tendency evident even in Tucker Carlson.

Last night I heard something very stupid on Tucker Carlson’s show. Tucker and his guest lamented the growth of “identity politics” and together declared that identity politics was never what the Civil Rights Movement was about.

Well, let me give you this red pill.

The NAACP — the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — is more than 100 years old. It has identity-politics in its name.

The term “Black Power” was coined in the 1960s.

In the 20th century, the so-called Civil Rights Movement was ALWAYS accompanied by identity-politics. It was about achieving gains for specific groups.

First the Blacks were mobilized against Southern Whites within the infamous Black-Jewish alliance, then Northern Whites were targeted too. Jewish Cultural Marxists would mobilize any group with a conceivable grievance against straight White males, and even create such groups by proselytizing deviance.

When I hear Tucker Carlson agree with Tammy Bruce that the Civil Rights Movement was opposed to identity-politics, it makes me think either that he is weak, or that he has no memory.

All of this genuflecting toward the Revrun Docta Martin Loofa King — the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement — should be coming to an end now, with all the information that has been published about him.

We used to have identity-politics for White people in the USA, and we were not ashamed of it. We wanted to maintain a White majority and the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected that. A real conservatism would try to defend that status quo. It is the reason why Donald Trump was elected. The fact that we cannot even openly declare this purpose, and our acceptance of the premise that there is something shameful about it, makes this preservation of our country and our people very much harder to accomplish.

The real threat to the future of the United States is not from identity-politics but from the failure of the White population to practice identity-politics with sufficient vigor as to retain control.

Kristallnacht as a Jewish False-Flag Operation

Hadding — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 05:03:00 +0000

Warning: this discussion contains some crude language.There are three distinct major points here.

The violence of Kristallnacht has been greatly exaggerated. (The canonical figure for deaths is not in the thousands as one might suppose, but only 91. Heinrich Haertle however says that the number was 35.)
German authorities had strong reasons for not wanting such violence, and in fact took measures to stop it when they found out.
A conspiracy of Zionist Jews instigated the violence so that the British government would not ban Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Points 1 and 2 are indisputable. Point 3 is somewhat speculative, but it answers the question of how violence could erupt throughout Germany all at once, contrary to the interests of the German government, without any organizing factor in view.

Of course, there must have been many German people angry at the Jews, not only for the assassination of their diplomat but for the hardships of the worldwide boycott against Germany organized by the World Jewish Congress in 1936. At the same time, however, riots do not erupt simultaneously in many places without organized instigation.

In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the National-Socialist government made an effort to prevent repetition of such an event. Since Kristallnacht seemed to be an expression of the German people’s rage against the Jewish presence and especially Jewish commercial strength in Germany, the government sought to placate that rage and to prevent another such outburst. First, a large fine was imposed on Germany’s Jewish population to pay the cost of repairs. The National-Socialist government then bought Jewish-owned businesses so that they could be placed under non-Jewish ownership (aryanized), so that there would no longer be large numbers of Jewish-owned shops to provoke resentment. Under the Rublee Plan, adopted several months after Kristallnacht, every Jew under the age of 45 was expected to emigrate, and Jews who could not afford to emigrate received financial assistance to make it possible.

Did Jews provoke the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting?

Hadding — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 15:30:00 +0000

There have been suggestions that Robert Bowers’ spree-shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, which caused eleven deaths, was in some measure provoked by Jewish behavior. Bowers himself had indicated that he was angry about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society’s role in bringing non-White violent criminals into the United States.

The first commentary to this effect that I heard came from Jewish radio talker Michael Savage. As a Jew who often seems frustrated with the behavior of other Jews, Savage complained that leftist Jews were stirring resentment with their own hostility toward White Americans. He seemed hesitant to go into much detail about this, however. Simultaneously, Savage in some ways defended his ethnic group — as is to be expected — alleging that Catholic Charities was a bigger factor than the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in promoting demographic change. Although he barely hinted at the size and nature of the problem, it seemed remarkable that Michael Savage as a Jew was willing to assign some blame to Jews for Robert Bowers’ action.

Now, a more unambiguous indictment comes from Catholic historian E. Michael Jones, who says that Jews have in various ways set an example of lawlessness — an example that, Dr. Jones says, Robert Bowers followed. Jewish organizations like the ADL are also causing frustration and blocking peaceful resolution of grievances through their efforts at censorship.

The tightening of censorship is an important point, not only on Internet but in terms of public demonstrations. Several men went to prison for defending themselves and each other against Antifa at Charlottesville. Antifa had undertaken violently to suppress the Unite the Right rally, which was a lawful and permitted event, while police were ordered to stand by and let Antifa try to shut it down. While Alt Righters go to prison for defending themselves, Antifa who committed acts of violence without physical provocation get at most a slap on the wrist. For somebody who really attempts to exercise his constitutional rights in the United States today (and not many people really do that), it becomes obvious that the law is not enforced impartially. If you conspicuously espouse a disfavored opinion or represent a disfavored interest-group like White people, in certain jurisdictions the local government will collaborate with the federal government to shut you down and possibly put you in prison. The FBI is still pursuing Alt Righters who did nothing more than fight off the Antifa onslaught at Charlottesville that police were supposed to prevent!

I am not a Christian, but I have been urging people to obey the law and be “Christ-like” by patiently enduring the present injustice, because in the long run this is more likely to produce good results — since it is in our people’s nature to rally to the cause of justice — rather than spontaneously undertaking violent actions that lack broad support, which will facilitate obfuscation about who the important lawbreakers are.

But it becomes hard to persuade people to obey the law when they have experienced lawlessness government. E. Michael Jones points out some respects in which Jews have been getting away with breaking the law. I just pointed out others. If Jews are getting away with lawlessness, it is partially because they have corrupted the government and made it to some extent lawless too, which is bound to have an effect on the general population’s attitude toward the government and the law.

I have suggested that the public demonstrations like Unite The Right, when they weren’t violently suppressed, were an important avenue of expression for White men unhappy with the country’s direction. What are those men supposed to do now that Jews have used one-sided enforcement of the law, and legal persecution, to suppress such demonstrations? In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Janet Reitman demands that the federal government find more excuses to prosecute White Nationalists, and refers to the prediction of a professional Jewish agitator (head of the “Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism”) named Brian Levin:

When we first spoke this August, Levin noted the continued ascendance of the far right, even after many of its members went underground after Charlottesville. “The rocket ship is still twirling,” he said. Levin predicted that the next big wave of activity wouldn’t be around mega-rallies but around what he calls “aggressive maneuvers” by loners or small cells. A series of violent outbursts in a single week in October made his prediction seem prescient.[J. Reitman, NY Times, 3 November 2018]

In other words, influential Jews understood that suppression of perfectly legal mass-demonstrations would lead to illegal alternate activities: sporadic acts of violence that could be prosecuted. Apparently, a synagogue-shooting is just the kind of thing that they wanted. Of course, the crime is also exploited as an impetus for intensified censorship. The answer to E. Michael Jones’ question about whether the Jews at the Anti-Defamation League were privately happy about the synagogue-shooting is: most likely, yes.

After a lifetime of defying Jewish Bigots, Robert Faurisson dead of a Heart-Attack at age 89

Hadding — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:29:00 +0000

The video below, by Vincent Reynouard, shows what was happening in Faurisson’s life the day before he died. The computer-pronunciation of Faurisson’s name in the video below is not quite right. It is FOE-ris-son.

Professor Robert Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the Sorbonne, and later at the University of Lyon. He was a famous scholar in the 1960s because of his work on French authors like Rimbaud. He was sufficiently famous as a literary scholar, in fact, to be invited to appear on French television.

His book about Rimbaud is called A-t-on lu Rimbaud? — Has one read Rimbaud? The emphasis on the word lu (read) in the title meant that people had missed the poet’s meaning because they had not read him carefully.

It was not only poetry that people read with insufficient care. Faurisson, when I visited him in 2000, said that he had conducted a class wherein students were asked to read and interpret news-reports. When people read the news, they often do not remember what they have read, and do not notice contradictions in what they have read, and do not derive the full implications. When the news is read carefully, sometimes the meaning turns out to be completely unclear. Not infrequently, the details buried within an article contradict the title or the first paragraph. With this kind of thing, Faurisson started to get into trouble, because now he was teaching skepticism toward mass-propaganda. The Holocaust was part of that.

Faurisson became interested in the Holocaust in 1960 when he learned that the claims of gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald had been abandoned, according to Martin Broszat of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. This was remarkable news, because there had been some so-called witnesses to these alleged gassings, who, now it must be concluded, had lied. What then was the full extent of the lying?

Faurisson spent years researching the question. He traveled to Auschwitz where he questioned officials of the museum and acquired documents, and in 1978 went public with his conclusion that there had been no gassings there. Ultimately he concluded that there was no real evidence for gassings of anybody anywhere by Hitler’s government.

Faurisson told me that the period after he published his conclusion about Auschwitz was very hard, because nobody that he knew accepted his finding. The solitude that he experienced, he said, was like having ice on his heart.

In the mean time he at least found intellectual support among likeminded people around the world, traveling to California to attend the first annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979.

Faurisson became the architect of Ernst Zündel’s defense in the Canadian False News Trials of 1985, 1988, and 1992, where Zündel was prosecuted for republishing a booklet called Did Six Million Really Die? The defense masterminded by Faurisson, which set out to prove that Zündel had not published “false news” as charged, was earthshaking in its effects. Faurisson was heavily involved in preparing cross-examinations of the prosecution’s witnesses, forcing them to make embarrassing admissions. It was Faurisson who proposed that an expert on gas-executions from the United States, the only country where gassing was used as a method of execution, should be procured as an expert witness for the defense. That expert was Fred Leuchter. It was Faurisson who interviewed Leuchter to determine whether he could be of use to the defense. Faurisson was apprehensive because Leuchter said that he believed in the Holocaust, and with his curly, dark hair Faurisson was concerned that he might be Jewish — but Zündel decided to bet on Leuchter’s professional integrity, and the rest is history.

Faurisson’s reward for seeking the truth consisted of physical attacks by Jews (whom the police would not arrest), endless litigation, and recurring imprisonment. He told me that he did not keep his files at his home, “Because the police could come at any time.” In recent years, the recurring litigation became much more onerous because he had to care for his ailing wife, which he could not do if he were sent to prison. But he never bent under the pressure.

In fact, he even taunted the government. There was a telephone hotline for reporting incidents of Holocaust Denial, and Faurisson would call in to report himself. Whenever Faurisson was put on trial, the courtroom became a forum for him to present his views.

If you can momentarily forget the worst consequences that Faurisson endured, you may find something amusing about a little old man who refuses to stop saying precisely those things that people are most afraid to say and most prohibited from saying. Faurisson’s example of defiance reduced the fears of other people, and the sign of this reduction of fear is laughter. In his last years Faurisson acquired something like a countercultural following among young people in France; in particular he was befriended by the famous mulatto comedian Dieudonné.

I think that we can say that in the end, through persistence, Faurisson won. Suppose that you have the most powerful group of people in the world trying to beat you down, destroy you, or intimidate you any way they can, to shut you up, and you survive to a ripe old age without ever yielding even slightly, while gradually more and more people believe that you are right. That is winning.

He was irritated with some people who did yield under pressure. My girlfriend and I spent five hours with him on that day in August 2000, and a good bit of that time he spent complaining about Mark Weber and David Irving. Weber, as editor of the Journal of Historical Review, seemed to be constantly trying to soften the impact of Faurisson’s articles, which did not please Faurisson at all. He was annoyed with Irving for his lack of rigor, which unfortunately gave some validity to Deborah Lipstadt’s accusation that he was a falsifier of history. The faults that Faurisson noticed in these men eventually became much more evident. Within a decade, both had retreated to the point of endorsing the proposition that some Jews had been gassed. A couple of years ago when I wrote my articles criticizing the retreat from Revisionism by Weber and Irving, and also by David Cole, the time that my girlfriend and I had spent with Professor Faurisson on 5 August 2000 was constantly in the back of my mind.

The following is a general introduction to Holocaust Revisionism. You might have some difficulty with the pronunciation here and there, but it is very worth the effort, if you want to have a good basic knowledge of the subject.

A Few Words about “The Deep State”

Hadding — Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:36:00 +0000

There is a general tendency among conservative Republicans to focus their ire on people who are not the real problem. People who run for office, or who work for the government, even violent Antifa, and others who make a lot of noise, are not the real problem, because they are pawns in a game played by others.

James O’Keefe has begun releasing undercover videos that purport to expose “the deep state.” In fact, that is not what he is doing. Instead he is exposing holdovers from the Obama Administration who do not agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish. We already knew that those people were there, and they are not the deep state, properly speaking.

The term DEEP STATE does not properly refer to people in the government. Peter Dale Scott imported the term from Turkey, where it referred to a criminal syndicate that effectively controlled the elected government of Turkey. It refers to entities outside of the government that are sufficiently powerful to control the government. In the American context, Peter Dale Scott specifically refers to Wall Street as part of the deep state.

I am inclined to make the meaning of “deep state” within the American context even more specific, to point out that the deep state has a particular ethnic coloration. One can see, for example, that the largest political donors are overwhelmingly Jewish billionaires (many of them connected to Wall Street). Mass-media in the United States also have been dominated by Jews since broadcasting began. It is clear that enormous extra-governmental power is in the hands of Jews. Peter Dale Scott however does not venture that degree of clarity. In fact “deep state” seems to be essentially a way to avoid talking explicitly about Jews.

Nonetheless, even as Scott uses the term, it has some usefulness. It means the powers that be, fundamentally outside of the government but penetrating and controlling the government.

It was probably through Peter Dale Scott’s appearances on Infowars that the term gained some currency.

When Reagan cultists like Rush Limbaugh got hold of the term, however, they tried to make it fit their preconceived notion about where the source of trouble must always be. Since Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem,” it was more comfortable to assume that the deep state meant people within the government.

Limbaugh really should know better. The concept represented by the term deep state is not entirely new to him. In November 2014 Limbaugh noticed and admitted that wealthy people outside of the government — “the donor class” — were in fact the real problem, at least in regard to the push for illegal immigrant amnesty. This observation posed a great problem for Limbaugh’s ideology, which is disposed to regard billionaires as benevolent “job-creators” who help the country, rather than as greedy monsters who will destroy the country if not curbed. More recently, Limbaugh has also come to regard mass-media as a malevolent power unto itself.* These observations are entirely corrosive to the “classical liberal” ideology that Limbaugh has been espousing since the late 1980s, but he still has not embraced the anti-liberal implications. He continues, hypocritically, to spout the old Reaganite cant.

Consequently, when Rush Limbaugh heard “deep state,” he seems to have fallen into his old ruts and assumed that it meant people entrenched within the government — which is fundamentally not what it means.

James O’Keefe follows the example of Rush Limbaugh in misapplying the term DEEP STATE to refer only to people in government.

Now I hear that a Jew named Jason Chaffetz has opportunistically written a book called The Deep State, which perpetuates and reinforces the already prevalent error, calling the deep state “an army of bureaucrats.”

With their incorrect use of the term deep state, O’Keefe and Limbaugh and the Jew Chaffetz are letting the important culprits off the hook. Of course, some of this could be intentional.

The image above represents the allegory of the cave, from Plato’s Republic. It represents the fact that most people are unaware of the real powers behind events. They are focused on shadows on the wall, which could represent the public actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are unaware of the puppetmasters behind them that manipulate those shadows. James O’Keefe by invoking the term deep state pretends to be exposing the puppetmasters, when in fact he is still focused on the shadows on the cave’s wall, and also keeping others focused there.

Whenever you hear somebody using this term deep state to mean entrenched bureaucrats, you should point out that, according to Peter Dale Scott who introduced the term, this is not what it means; that it refers to the real power, which is outside of the government.

___________________________________________________
* “You know, I still chuckle when I see stories talking about how, ‘The media, following the lead of Democrat Party leaders…’ Give me a break. It’s the other way around.” — Rush Limbaugh, 2 July 2018

Who did the 9-11 attacks?

Hadding — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:30:00 +0000

This poster issued by the FBI, although revised in November 2001, does not say that Osama bin Laden was wanted in connection to the 9-11 attacks. It only specifically mentions the African Embassy Bombings from 1998. Why? Because, despite all the hoopla to the contrary, evidence for OBL’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks was lacking.

Furthermore, the director of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Agency at the time of the 9-11 attacks, August Hanning, said that his agency could find no connection to “al-Qaeda terrorism.”

Jason Burke, a journalist for the Manchester Guardian, went even farther and declared, in the third hour of Adam Curtis’ documentary, The Power of Nightmares, that no such organization as al-Qaeda even existed, but that it was invented in order to allow charging Osama bin Laden under the USA’s RICO statute. There are also scholars who have been saying that no such organization as al-Qaeda existed.