The Jewish Conspiracy

A lot of people believe that the Jews act as one, that they secretively and conspiratorially pursue Jewish interests at other people’s expense.

The coordination problem is hard.  No one successfully acts as one.  Two Jews, three factions. That is why neoreactionaries propose terrible solutions to the coordination problem, on the grounds that other, more sophisticated, solutions are even worse.  The Cathedral acts more or less as one – one madman, but they have visible institutions to coordinate them, and even then, do not do it too well.

The Old Bolsheviks were mostly Jewish, and proceeded to purge each other until the party was damn near Judenrein.  The Trotskyists were overwhelmingly Jewish, and, lacking the power to send each other to the gulag, still are overwhelmingly Jewish, (hence the saying two trots, three factions) and they hate Jews more than anyone.

Jewish progressives are conversos.  They hate Israel, and in a couple of generations, will disappear, will entirely cease to be Jewish.  Jewish progressivism is progressives doing to Jews what they did to Christians.  If a progressive Jew believes in Jewish solidarity, Madoff will educate him.

One big problem with Jews is that vibrancy undermines social cohesion, so that when the White Anglo Saxon Protestant ruling elite allowed the Jews in, they all started behaving  badly, for example the Civil Rights Movement. But as we saw in the recent financial crisis, now that they are allowing white Hispanics and white Egyptians in, they are behaving even worse.  Vibrancy not only brings in criminal outsiders, it lowers trust amongst insiders, making them criminal.

In the recent financial crisis, Jewish criminality was insignificant.  The biggest villain was Angelo Mozillo (affirmative action Hispanic), who pissed away nearly a trillion dollars, for which misconduct he was fined the princely sum of seventy million. Compared to him, Goldman Sach’s misconduct was a rounding error.  Further, if we look at “Friends of Angelo”, which is to say, the people in government that he bribed, none of which have been punished, they are a diverse and vibrant crowd, but only a few of them are Jewish.

In so far as elite misconduct followed from letting the Jews into the elite, worse misconduct has followed from letting other groups in.

I suspect, however, that when the elite finds itself in serious trouble for its misconduct, Jews will find themselves performing their usual function.

You can tell who has the power, from whom Angelo bribed, just as you can tell who had the power, from whom Margaret Mead had sex with.

77 Responses to “The Jewish Conspiracy”

  1. […] of his own commentary on Jews and cultural Marxism, Jews and anti-Semitism, Jews and Puritans, and Jewish misbehavior. Nick Land has staked his position. 28Sherman displayed a keen awareness of all things Jewish and […]

  2. jim says:

    Because of the Arab tendency to collective land ownership it was, and is, unclear who owned what. Jews tended to say that if land was owned collectively, it was owned by the government, and observe, there are ottoman government records that prove it. Therefore those currently on that land are squatters.

    Further, because of the Arab tendency to collective land ownership, it was usually difficult, indeed usually impossible, to buy land in ways that most Arabs affected would regard as legitimate.

    Collective ownership makes land easier to defend, but harder to sell, so tends to war. If the Arabs had a system of individual land ownership, much war could have been avoided. But, the situation being what it was, necessary to take the land by force, which was in fact done.

    • Jake says:

      The Ottoman Empire expanded as far as Hungary and southern Poland, as well as the whole of central Europe, including parts of Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria. If Jews no longer have any right to their homeland because it was appropriated by Muslim conquerors, the list of illegitimate states must be very large indeed.

      • jim says:

        All political borders are drawn, and frequently redrawn, with the sword. New thefts must be prevented, but old thefts should be upheld, lest we all be knee deep in blood. The Jewish claim to the land of Israel is valid today because they stole it sixty years ago, and since then have plowed the land and buried their fathers in it.

  3. Jake says:

    But the Jews did not steal the land of Israel, nor did they have to. There was always a Jewish minority in the area. The Jewish population was built up through immigration, and further supplemented by pogroms against Jewish communities throughout the Islamic world. Zionists legally purchased barren and sparsely populated land from Arabs at extortionate prices and developed it, increasing the Arab population and attracting an estimated 100,000 illegal Arab immigrants and their families. While some Zionists did advocate using economic pressure to drive Arabs out of land designated for Jewish settlement, all such proposals were emphatically rejected by the leading Zionists from Ben Gurion to Jabotinsky. The Zionists very sincerely and naively believed that the Arabs would accept Jewish immigration for its economic benefits and that the two communities could coexist in peace.

    When you say the land was “stolen”, you imply that force was employed to dispossess the natives (as if Arabs were native to the area). However, the Arab refugees were not displaced by the existence of Israel or the presence of Jewish immigrants, but by the Arab wars to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967. The notion, propagated by revisionist Israeli “New Historians”, that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed is a complete fabrication, and any news report from the time will tell you that the Arabs were urged to flee by their own leaders (although doubtless their departure was good for Israel, at least in the short-term). When the UN partitioned the area, the tiny piece of land designated for a Jewish state was majority Jewish, and it did not require any violent seizures of land by militant Jews to get that way. The Jews accepted two earlier partition plans that would have given them an even smaller and more indefensible state, which is not the pose of an aggressor.

    Zionism was always based on cooperation and the voluntary purchase of a small area of land, rather than acquiring a large area won by fighting. It’s certainly true that Israel has had to abandon such notions and mistreat the Arabs in the wake of countless wars and endless terrorist atrocities, but Arabs are still better off in Israel than in any Arab state, and Gaza was better off under Israeli rule than it is today. In assessing the Israeli demand for independence, we should consider the persecution of Jews in Islamic societies and the relative freedom enjoyed by Israeli citizens. To claim that the Jews are thieves to exercise sovereignty in any portion of the region of Palestine because they immigrated there from other countries is absurd, especially considering the same is true of the Arabs. Arabs probably exercised sovereignty over the entire region 1,000 years ago, just as the Jews did 2,000 years ago–does the fact that the Arab claim is more recent negate the right of the Jews to a small country one-tenth the size of Ecuador? I think not–surely, the Israelis have the most recent claim of all!

    You’ll find pervasive anti-Zionist distortions on the Internet, such as reversing Ben Gurion’s “we do not need and do not wish to expel the Arabs and take their places” or omitting Moshe Dayan’s reference to purchasing the land when he spoke of every settlement in Israel at one time or another housing Arabs, but I do not see how voluntary agreements can be construed as theft. Israel “stole” land from the aggressors to use as a buffer, which is commonplace, but they didn’t annex it and traded back the Sinai for peace with Egypt. They even unilaterally ceded Gaza, giving up land with no promise of peace. Finally, recall that “Palestine” is not an Arabic word or a nationality but a new name given to the ancient Jewish homeland by the Romans, and that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Israeli Zionism/the Israeli seizure of the West Bank/Gaza from Jordan and Egypt. This hardly renders a separate Palestinian state illegitimate, but the fact that it would likely be a brutal terrorist theocracy like Gaza does much to undermine its desirability.

  4. Zach says:

    What is this psycho babble (comments)? Good god, I have to start reading history books.

  5. Red says:

    Mandela trained by Israel and his terrorist organization run by Jews.
    Damn useful pawns.

    Step one in dismantling the cathedral should be removing their useful tools by co-option. Jews could be very useful allies.

    Though Jews like Tim Wise are going to make that much harder:
    I’m sure when things get bad that the America public will stop and say well, it’s really those boys in Harvard that hate use, not the Christan hating Jewish nut cases like Tim Wise who’ve been spouting genocidal hate at us for decades. I’m sure that will end well.

    • jim says:

      Tim Wise also hates Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Thus, his identity as a converso is what is driving his behavior, not his identity as a Jew.

      I don’t have any direct evidence that Joe Slovo and Ronnie Kasrils were anti semites but, given that they were communists, almost certainly were anti semites and most likely murdered many Jews because they were Jewish.

  6. […] On the Jewish conspiracy. […]

  7. […] The Jewish Conspiracy « Jim’s Blog […]

  8. spandrell says:


    I was referring to the medieval Jews, not modern progressive Jews. I agree Whigs starting undermining the cohesion of European society before the Jews entered the elite. It’s quite obvious Jews qua Jews aren’t a tight knit supremacist group today, if they were Palestinians would have been grounded for fertilizer.

  9. Joe Owens says:

    They did act as one with communism and the Comintern. But they know through their Talmudic brainwashing their on this planet to destroy us. From Freud to Jerry Rubin, they know what is expected of them. There in a cultural war to destroy gentile society.

    • jim says:

      But the first target of the Jewish Old Bolsheviks was not us, but each other.

      And to this day the Trots are more anti semitic than anyone.

  10. Trimegistus says:

    The Left takes up many tools and abandons them when they stop being useful. But the job is always the same: destroying America and the West. When Jews were reliably Leftist, the Left rewarded them and promoted them.

    But when Israel stands as a bulwark of the West against the barbarians of the Arab world . . . suddenly the Left doesn’t like Jews any more.

    Note that Jews are Leftists to the extent that they aren’t Jewish. The most politically conservative Jews in America are the Orthodox. They still hold to the faith of Moses rather than the heresy of Marx. It’s the unbelieving “cultural” Jews who have taken up Leftist politics and the promise of a Marxist utopia.

    • jim says:

      The Jews have a long history of being employed by the ruling class to do objectionable jobs, and then rather suddenly abandoned. As we approach the crisis, this may well turn out the same.

  11. […] The Jewish Conspiracy « Jim’s Blog […]

  12. […] decline of Western Civilization.  It isn’t that we’re necessarily against discussing either of those things, our minds are just elsewhere.  Finally, as I said, Neoreactionaries tend to be […]

  13. Daniel Schmuhl says:

    What about the work of Kevin MacDonald on ethnocentrism caused by genetic similarity?

    • jim says:

      What about it?

      • Daniel Schmuhl says:

        They can act in ways that further Jewish interests without even being consciously aware of it. I don’t believe that Judaism is the source of leftism, but there seems to be more to the Jewish question than many reactionaries are willing to acknowledge.

        Jews are proportionally much more leftist than gentiles and played a pivotal role in every leftist intellectual movement.

        • jim says:

          Jews played a pivotal role in every leftist intellectual movement, except the one that rules the world. There is something self destructive in every Jewish pursuit of power, and there is something self destructive in leftism. When both of these come together, the Jews shoot themselves in both feet, reload, then shoot themselves in the knees, stomach, lungs, and head, the Old Bolsheviks being the classic example.

          Jewish movements have a tendency to spontaneous self destruction. Israel hovers on the edge of abolishing itself.

          • Daniel Schmuhl says:

            Sorry I should have qualified that statement, every leftist movement in recent history. I mostly agree with you, I just think there is an ethnic component here being overlooked. It’s not specific to Judaism either, you see the same thing with Asians.

        • B says:

          That really is a mirror image of the leftist argument that white males, much as they try to purge themselves of their racism, sexism and rape are still unconsciously driven by them. The great thing about this argument is its unfalsifyability and usefulness as a rhetorical club to impute a sort of Original Sin to the enemy.

          If you think of Jewish interests in an evolutionary sense, it is obvious that the foundational one is genetic survival. Given that serving the American elite and accepting its values is inimical to reproductive success, you can see who is getting the shaft here. For instance, are any of Kissinger’s kids Jewish? Or, did Feynman and Einstein have any Jewish children? Or take Boris Sidis. It doesn’t get more elite than that: he got his BA, MA, PhD and MD from Harvard before the turn of the 20th century, rewrote Western psychology and in general was as successful as possible before being stabbed in the back by all his colleagues for pointing out that Freud was a Freud. How did he use his success to advance Jewish interests? Did he have a dozen children and push them into govt sinecures where they distributed sack of cash to the Jews of Europe? Nope. He had one son, a genetic dead end with a record IQ, William James Sidis, who in turn used his genius not in advancing ZOG’s cause but solving some sort of complex abstract problem. Probably it was a decoy, and he spent his nights flying around on a broomstick undermining Western male virility.

          • Daniel Schmuhl says:

            It seems like you’re either straw-manning my position or not understanding it. I’m talking about ultimate and not proximate interests of a sub-species of human. When I say that Jews tend to promote certain ideologies to benefit themselves, i don’t mean that they’re consciously aware of it or that there can’t be internal conflicts. I’m saying that they tend to be against European traditionalism and nationalism because genetically speaking they’re not quite European. There are deviations from this to be sure but i think that much evidence supports this.

            Jews have transformed America’s elite (supplanting the WASPS), and have used it to further Jewish interests in the Middle East. So contrary to what you’re saying this has worked well for them so far, i doubt it will in the long-run though,

            Regarding your first point, I’m not proposing some sort of religious concept of original sin. Just stating the fact that human beings are innately predisposed towards ethnic nepotism. Some groups are more ethnocentric than others, Jews are more collectivistic than Anglos from example.

            • jim says:

              Jews tend to promote certain ideologies to benefit themselves

              If so, they are not doing a very good job of it. Jews promoted communism, and communism purged them and killed them.

              Jews damn well should promote an ideology that would benefit Jews, and that ideology should say that Israel has the right to do whatever it takes to secure a Jewish state.

              I’m saying that they tend to be against European traditionalism and nationalism because genetically speaking they’re not quite European

              Well sure, obviously. Of course. But our problem is that our white elite hates whites, our American elite hates America and Americans. If you look at the Duke University rape case, that was not the fault of Jews. Who started the civil war? It was not the Jews.

              Jews have transformed America’s elite (supplanting the WASPS), and have used it to further Jewish interests in the Middle East.

              US policy seems hostile to Israel, in the same way, and in the same sense, as it is hostile to the US. And, as I said above, you can tell who has the power by who Angelo bribed. Some of them were Jews, but not that many.

          • B says:

            The ultimate interest of any subspecies of human is genetic survival and flourishing. If there are no Jews around, all the other ultimate interests are irrelevant.

            >they tend to be against European traditionalism and nationalism because genetically speaking they’re not quite European.

            This is a non-sequitur. If you assume that it is in the interest of the Jews to avoid assimilation (it is,) we should rather be in favor of European nationalism and traditionalism.

            >Jews have transformed America’s elite

            The American elite transformed itself by embracing Progressivism vs. ethnic and religious identity and making its lower reaches meritocratic. The Jews took the tests, got the grades, got into the universities and got the jobs. To see this as some sort of conscious transformation of America’s elite is warped.

            >have used it to further Jewish interests in the Middle East

            From a secular perspective (which I don’t share, but you’ll notice the Jewish elites of America are secular,) having half of the world’s Jews crammed into a small space surrounded by enemies hardly serves our national interests.

            Then, you will notice that the Jews somehow neglected to use their control of America to further Jewish interests in the most obvious way-cutting a deal with Hitler and buying out the Jews of Europe in exchange for fuel or trucks or whatever. Even when those deals were offered by the Nazis!

            If you say that this was so obviously against American interests that even the Jews couldn’t make it happen, I will point out that America interests did not preclude industrial giants like Ford, ITT and IBM from continuing to service Germany throughout the war, and that the Jews who were best placed to influence American national policy in the Jewish interest were the least interested in doing so:


            Finally, I will point out that American aid to “Jewish interests in the Middle East” runs to:

            Providing weapons, which maximizes Israeli reliance on the American military-industrial complex, sometimes explicitly crushing Israeli programs which would allow a dangerous degree of independence.

            Applying political pressure to make Israel give concessions to its defeated enemies, including stopping the Suez War, making the IDF stop short of Damascus in 1967, pushing for the return of the Sinai in the 70s, bringing back, funding and arming Arafat in the 90s, giving Gaza to the Hamas in the 00’s, withdrawing from South Lebanon.

            Funding every single traitorous Israeli NGO out there.

            Arming Israel’s Arab neighbors in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi with the most advanced American weaponry and training them to use it. Thank G-d there is no way for the Americans to give those retards brain transplants, or they’d do that too.

            If this is the American Jewish elite pushing an American policy that furthers Jewish interests in the Middle East, what would a neutral American policy look like? Covering Tel Aviv and Haifa with sarin followed by conversion of all survivors to synthfuel?

            • jim says:

              they tend to be against European traditionalism and nationalism because genetically speaking they’re not quite European.

              This is a non-sequitur. If you assume that it is in the interest of the Jews to avoid assimilation (it is,) we should rather be in favor of European nationalism and traditionalism.

              Obviously Jews will not value European traditionalism. But what, I think, Daniel Schmuhl means is that Jews will want Europeans to not value European traditionalism.

              But this is only true if Jews want to assimilate.

              If, instead, we consider that progressives want to assimilate Jews, that Jewish progressives are conversos, that progressives seek to do to Judaism what they have already done to Christianity, then progressives seeking to assimilate Jews will be hostile to European traditionalism, and this serves progressive interests, not Jewish interests.

          • Daniel Schmuhl says:

            “To see this as some sort of conscious transformation of America’s elite is warped.”

            I never said it was conscious, if you can’t even get that right (after i explicitly told you that i was not claiming that), then i don’t see much point in arguing. Have a good night.

          • B says:

            Glad there were no objections on the rest. Good night, don’t let the Jewbugs bite.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Yes, congratulations – you’ve manage to throw out straw man after straw man with enough verbiage to irritate someone into not wanting to continue arguing with you.

            You win.

            You’ve also managed to be another data point to anyone reading this that it’s not worth ever listening to Jews when the subject is Jews because they’re mainly in it to distract and annoy rather than discuss with any honesty.

  14. Handle says:

    Angelo Mozilo is Sicilian, not Hispanic.

    • jim says:

      Very likely, but when his mentor needed him to be Hispanic, he was counted as Hispanic.

      Similarly with the numerous native Americans at Harvard.

  15. fnn says:

    Jewish progressives are conversos. They hate Israel…

    Relatively few Jewish progs hate Israel-otherwise there would be more visible support for the Palestinians in Hollywood.


    • fnn says:

      Tzipi Livni, who murdered people in Europe for the Mossad, recently spoke at a J Street conference.

      Because it is inside the Jewish community, and the Jewish community doesn’t want to hear from voices outside the Jewish community except on its own terms, with cuddly Peter Beinart swearing his love for Israel, these are babysteps. Every step of the way the older organized Jewish community is fighting J Street on the babysteps, and they are in the house…Because its focus is communal, J Street justifies and engages in tribal politics. Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, said that the age of universalism has not come to pass and tribalism is still alive, and so Zionism is therefore justified.

      So no Israel-haters at J Street-despite the fact that it was founded with Soros money.

      • jim says:

        On visiting the J Street website, I am immediately greeted by an advertisement urging me to sign a petition for two states – meaning that Palestinian intransigence should be rewarded by the creation of a state that would be, like Gaza, immediately and permanently at war with Israel.

        Under present circumstances, a two state solution is a step towards the destruction of Israel and the murder of all remaining Jews in the middle east, so I conclude that J Street, founded by George Soros, is in favor of the destruction of Israel and the murder of all remaining Jews in the middle east.

        I used to be anti Israel. I felt that they stole the land and mistreated the Arabs, which of course they did, that they were racist, which of course they are. Then came 9/11, which inclined me to think that maybe you need to mistreat Arabs. Then the Jews gave the Arabs the Gaza strip back, complete with all the facilities and infrastructure that Jews had created. Arabs destroyed the infrastructure, and proceeded to launch rockets at Israel. The Gaza withdrawal proved that there is no solution but to kill Arabs till they are discouraged from killing Jews, that concessions bring only war, that not only do concessions harm Jews, but that concessions, like giving whiskey to an alcoholic, harm Arabs, by enabling their self destructive behavior.

        9/11 and the Gaza strip shows that there is no solution for Jews but to slay their enemies, and I think every Jew should go to the middle east and do so, creating an ethnically and religious cohesive state, and by their absence rendering other states more ethnically and religiously cohesive. If they hang around here, come the crisis, the elite will blame the Jews, as usual.

        If you are worried about the problem that Jews are undermining elite cohesion here, you should support Jews doing what it takes to make Israel safe for Jews.

        • Handle says:

          If only American Anglos could go make England safe for the English. Ditto for any European country. Alas, those countries aren’t at war with the emigrating countries.

          • jim says:

            Lack of will makes England unsafe for the English.

          • B says:

            American Anglos are quite busy making Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Uganda, Mali, Mauritania and every other shithole safe for democracy, as you must have noticed. Using their amazing multitasking abilities, they are simultaneously focusing on making my neighborhood safe for the Arabs by pressuring my government to ethnically cleanse me out of here. Once that happens, they will get around to Baltimore and D.C. and then England is sure to follow.

            The Jews just have a shorter task list, is all.

          • Magus Janus says:

            right. cuz that’s equivalent, what with the US not having been an anglo colony or anything.

            Handle is pretty good at most stuff, but has a huge chip on his shoulder when it comes the Jewish question. Understandable I suppose, but still very tiresome.

        • fnn says:

          The Gaza withdrawal proved that there is no solution but to kill Arabs till they are discouraged from killing Jews…

          Do you propose something similar for American blacks?

          • jim says:

            I have fairly regularly argued that blacks are better off with harsher and simpler laws, more restrictive, and more severely enforced, than are appropriate for whites.

    • jim says:

      Relatively few Jewish progs hate Israel-otherwise there would be more visible support for the Palestinians in Hollywood.

      It is not visible enough for you? How about “Munich”, with its sane and non villainous terrorists? How about “five broken cameras”?

      I am sure B. would find the proposition that Sharansky and Kristol are ultra right amusing. Or even right. Or even moderate leftists. Raving moonbat leftists more like. Sharansky supported the Arab spring.

      According to Sharansky, what Israel needs to make peace are democratic Arabs.

      Arabs do not need, and cannot handle, democracy, and democratic Muslims cannot be a peace partner for Israel. What Israel needs as peace partners are Arabs who fear that war might have bad consequences.

      • Handle says:

        Fanatical Islam is a decent strategy to minimize the perceived fear and deterrence value of bad consequences. You need the holders of Arab military power or other forms of violence to not be fanatical Muslims. Or else you actually have to smash them constantly because the effect wears off in a fraction of a generation.

        • fnn says:

          Yes. One can support the Arab Spring for the same reason that Israel supports the Saudi-backed jihadis in Syria who are exterminating the Syrian Christians. But now everyone knows of the close relationship between the Israelis and the Saudis.

      • fnn says:

        According to Sharansky, what Israel needs to make peace are democratic Arabs.

        No one with a realistic appreciation of democracy will be allowed any public forum. Of course you know that. Some renegade billionaire with a lot of courage should launch a lavishly funded campaign for democracy in KSA to help expose the absurdity of the democracy fetish.

  16. jim says:

    Well, that is pretty much the definition of Judaism, orthodox Judaism. But our problem is progressive Judaism, which rather repeated progressive memes.

  17. peppermint says:

    what we need to think about is, how does collective action work? It’s pretty clear that the Cathedral is all about sanctimony.

    Progressive memes are not intelligently designed, but evolve in a Darwinian process.

    If the Cathedral can be a distributed conspiracy held together by repeating progressive memes to each other sanctimoniously, why can’t the Jews have a distributed conspiracy held together by repeating certain memes to each other?

    • Aldrich says:

      Dont talk trash

      – what do you think all the faux-Jew Gangster-Murderer Oligarchs are – 90%+ Jew,

      who steal most of Russias wealth (whilst Millions of Orthodox Christians starve and freeze to death due to non-income pensions after communism), whilst becoming Billionaires!

      Some Animals are more equal than others – here rings very true!

  18. Red says:

    The secular Jewish relationship with the cathedral is that of 2 parasites using each other. The Cathedral uses the Jews as the propaganda agents, legal system gate keepers, and banks to fund the system. The secular Jews use the Cathedral to get rich, trash Christians and exploit the lower, working, and middle classes. In the long run secular Jews will probably die from contact with Cathedral but that doesn’t mean that they are not causing massive damage right now. The elites having a pawn to keep their own hands clean doesn’t cancel the damage the pawn is doing.

    Our current elites are rather bad at propaganda and are very reliant on Jewish propaganda creators to keep their narrative alive. Jews has been their main mass propaganda source since FDR. Mass media is where all those years of selection for high verbal IQ has served the Jews and the cathedral well. The culture that mostly Jewish Hollywood is exporting to the world is more toxic that Fukushima bottled water. What you see on PBS is what our elites would put out as popular culture if they had to make propaganda for the masses. A public that that’s 100% boring progressive PBS would be much better than a public that’s eating up the slop that’s being poured out from Hollywood.

    Nor are Jewish crimes in the fiscal crisis minor. The federal reserve is killing the middle class by re-inflating these bubbles while wages continue to fall. Yes the amount stolen by the cathedral is much larger than that stolen by jews, but I’m talking damage in human lives, not the amount of cash stolen. Jewish rent a center, pawnshops, and credit card companies wreak havoc on people not smart enough to realize that they’re a scam. I’ve spent some time around the American poor(black and white) which made me realize that poor are not equal to their betters. But I don’t hate them for their dysfunction. What I do hate are people who’s entire focus is on ripping off people to dumb to know better. We need to protect and guide them, not toss them credit sharking wolves or people who tell them they can be everything they want to be if they only buy product X. These people get crushed by our bullshit system of credit and usury and they’re much worse off for it. I know that neo-reactionaries are not real big on supporting the lower classes. But when push comes to shove it’s the middle and lower classes that makes up the bulk of your military forces. You need them in the long run. Things are more complex than just the elites.

    Not to forget our insane legal system where regular people can’t afford to hire a top end mostly Jewish attorney is fucked and businesses can expect to get sued by at the drop of a dime by mostly Jewish lawyers to enforce that cathedral’s every regulation. I get it that the Jews love the Torah, but the forcing the US legal system to resembled Torah is a nightmare for simple Anglo Saxon stock and business owners alike.

    The cathedral has a command and control and it’s a proper conspiracy. I watched white privilege from it’s earliest days being talked about in university circles to it’s flowering in a mass media form. Jewish behavior on the other hand is that of a people who’s adapted to parasite off host populations. It’s not a command and control behavior as much as it’s the nature of the organic community. And as a community Jews have done a tremendous amount of harm to regular Americans. Yes the cathedral has done much more and probably blacks as well. But none of it happens without the Jews being able to talk white Americans (and south Africans) into believing the retarded cathedral religion. The Protestant movement never would have won without bankers and usury(mostly non Jewish banks at the time) and the Cathedral would be a dead duck right now without it Jewish propagandists.

    With all that said, I don’t think white nationalism is a good movement. It’s the white elites indirectly ruining non white elites and kicking all jews and blacks out wouldn’t stop our elites from importing new classes of parasites. But the proper study of middleman minorities should be part of the work of neo-reaction. Jews are not the only middle man minority in America. The Mormons and some groups of Asians are filling those roles as well. White neo-reactionaries have to be realistic that our race is prone to religious elite insanity and Jewish neo-reactionaries need to understand that they’ve been shaped as a parasitic people that’s not healthy for their host populations and in the long run, probably not healthy for them either.

    • jim says:

      Quite so. Cannot disagree with any of that, other than that you overrate Jewish propagandists.

    • spandrell says:

      Middleman minorities are the solution to the coordination problem. They profit from undermining asabiya in the populace, which suits the government, who pays them well.

      • jim says:

        Supposing that to be true, and it is true in the sense that Hollywood movies undermine asabiya, not a solution to coordination problem, but rather makes it worse.

      • B says:

        Peasants don’t have asabiya beyond village level, except for synthetic asabiya created by the government. Nomads and transhumanists have asabiya, but merchant minorities don’t particularly bother nomads and transhumanists-they bother farmers, who live on credit. Not the good farmers, either. The kind of farmers who take out loans and then, instead of honoring them, form a mob and come after their creditors with pitchforks. Coming from a different race of people, this kind of thing is called TNB, but if the Ukrainian or Spanish peasants are doing it, it’s obviously a valid racial grievance, man.

        Of course, the standard Euro hypocrisy is on display here: hey, let’s shut off the regular routes of advancement to you people, then condemn you for playing the game by our rules and advancing! How it happened that a third of the American population turned on another third during the Revolutionary War, while the last third stood by idly, without any Jews undermining asabiyyah doesn’t bear thinking about. Why the Cathedral, which did ok during the English Civil War, the American Revolution and Civil War, WW1 and (mostly) WW2 would suddenly collapse without its Jewish propagandists doesn’t need to be spelled out either.

        How the Jewish propagandists of the Confederacy and its highly placed Jewish officials failed to save it is also probably not worth giving too much thought-maybe they didn’t Jew hard enough or something.

        Naturally, the convoluted legal system of the US, which came into being via colonial shysters shamelessly jailhouse lawyering legal fictions to predetermined conclusions, is most directly attributable to…the Jewish love of the Torah. Also, the Jews will sour your milk with their witchcraft if you leave it uncovered overnight.

        Now if you excuse me, I must go-while I was typing, the Jews seem to have shit my pants.

        • jim says:

          I think “Jewish propagandists” is a conceptualization of elite diversity undermining elite cohesion, and making it easier for the elite to be hostile to those its own race that it governs.

          But reading stuff from 1890, when Jews could not join the right clubs, nor go to the correct universities, I see plenty of elite hostility to their own nation. Elite diversity is consequence, rather than a cause, of elite self hatred. Ruling class WASPs started hating WASPs, and then they let Jews join them, not the other way around. And they preferred those Jews that already hated Jews the way they themselves hated WASPs, and found no shortage of such Jews.

          Criticism of Jews is usually factually correct, in the sense that if you write a big book covering every bad thing some Jew did since the execution of Jesus, you will find sufficient material for a really big book, however it distorts the picture, since it is a rationalization that our elite is just fine except for a small group. Our elite is not just fine, and Jews are not the major part of what makes it wrong.

        • spandrell says:

          You’re not supposed to give credit to Christians. And much less to peasants. There’s a reason nobody did it, but Jews. Which had the royal prerogative of farming taxes, which for some reason they couldn’t do themselves.

          The Chinese empire had its own bureaucracy. Didn’t rely on an endogamous international trading ethnicity to run its finances. Medieval states sucked so much that the only way of solving the coordination problem was hiring a foreign tribe. The Radhanites were loaning the money they made by selling slaves on the best run trade network in the world. Slaves bought and used by everyone else of course.

          Let’s shut the regular routes of advancement! Jews had as much chance of becoming a farmer while being Jewish, as others had of being a slave trader while being a Catholic. The Medieval world is not about freedom. It’s about guilds, niches. You guys had the most profitable and best run. Spare me the victimism.

          • B says:

            Who says you’re not supposed to give credit to the Christians and to peasants? Farmers live on credit. This is true in all times and all places. Someone closer to their realities is generally a better source of money because he can avoid lending to the untrustworthy and thus provide a better deal to the trustworthy, i.e., he sees the economic landscape with more granularity and can be more efficient.

            The reason nobody did it but the Jews was that the Christians were forbidden from doing it, except for a few exceptions like the Lombards. How they got around it in the long run is a whole separate story.

            If you want to understand why the local aristocracy saw a percentage in farming taxes out to the Jews vs. doing it themselves, I recommend Netaniyahu Sr.’s massive brick of a book on the Spanish Inquisition. In general, the aristocracy was a series of invaders with different languages and customs than the peasants, and were not very good at efficiently collecting taxes. Anyone they would subcontract to would be at a moral hazard of colluding with the peasants. The Jews spoke the local language, were well acquainted with the local realities and human landscape, and could collect a larger fraction of what was owed, while being reliable. Eventually in Spain the aristocracy consolidated with the peasants and merchants linguistically, culturally, etc., and the Jews became the king’s trusted middlemen when dealing with the rest. Unfortunately, this meant being a chip to be cashed in to get the favor of the people at strategic times.

            Jews were not allowed to own land and were banned from many trades, guilds, etc. The Catholics did ok slave trading-the Genoese, for instance.

            In the short term, being the moneylenders and tax collectors is immensely profitable. In the long term, it is a very dicey proposition-having the king and aristocracy owe you money, for instance, creates a constant temptation to disavow all debts, steal all your stuff and kick you out. Unfortunately, to get to the long term, you have to make it through the short term. As for victimism, I hear lots of crying from non-Jews about how the Jewish propagandists have turned the brains of the white race inside out, stopped it from reproducing, stolen all its money, imported a bunch of Muslims into Europe (the Jews are very clever like that) and so on.

            • jim says:

              As for victimism, I hear lots of crying from non-Jews about how the Jewish propagandists have turned the brains of the white race inside out, stopped it from reproducing, stolen all its money, imported a bunch of Muslims into Europe (the Jews are very clever like that) and so on.

              As I said earlier, if you produce a book listing all bad things done by any Jew since the death of Jesus, it will be a mighty big book, but the brains of the white race started turning inside out with feminism in 1820, and anti colonialism not long after, which is well before the overclass allowed the Jews to join the right clubs or allowed too many Jews to go to the right universities.

              Affirmative actioning Hasan to Major is a logical progression from not allowing the British army to defend itself against grievance mongering Muslims in 1906.

              In 1906 it was revealed that the British army could defend itself against Muslims with guns, but not against Muslims armed with guns and pious moral outrage. The white guilt of the overclass in London defeated the British Army in Egypt. Not only were Jews generally not allowed into the overclass at that time, but Jewish radicals had not yet discovered anti colonialism. They were still working on the proletariat.

          • peppermint says:

            In general, the aristocracy was a series of invaders with different languages and customs than the peasants, and were not very good at efficiently collecting taxes.

            population replacement doesn’t real, because it would be sad if it did, and no one has ever committed genocide before the Whites started writing about it. Also, race doesn’t even exist, and all children are above average. — Franz Boas

          • B says:

            Population replacement probably happened in prehistory. Since at least the Assyrian Empire, it hasn’t been the general case. Large-scale population transfer happened, but exterminating conquered populations is economically inefficient. In the case of Spain and the rest of Western Europe after Rome’s fall, successive waves of small, cohesive invaders, tens of thousands or low hundreds of thousands at a pop, would replace/merge with the previous aristocracy. They would then treat the existing population as a source of income, not as competition to be wiped out. If you want a point of reference, take the Russian Viking-descended aristocracy after the Mongol invasion; they cut deals and submitted. As a result, in the early 20th century you saw lots of Mongol-Tatar descended Russian nobility, outnumbered by Euro-descended nobility, with very little admixture from the Horde among the lower and middle classes.

            • jim says:

              Population replacement of inferior races was fairly normal in the nineteenth century. American Indians, Australian aboriginals. If it was not for welfare, would still be happening. In Africa, pygmies were undergoing slow eradication by Bantu. Tutsis farmed Hutus like they were cattle, Tutsi population expanded, Hutu population declined.

          • B says:

            By the 19th century America mostly moved to a population resettling policy rather than outright replacement. And this was for cases where the replaced or displaced were not capable of functioning productively in the framework of civilization. Definitely not the case in Europe for a long time.

        • spandrell says:

          So we agree that the Jews had it coming when the European states finally established themselves.

          Then what’s that crap about “the European hypocrites cutting off regular routes of advancement”. Why on earth had European medieval society the duy to allow a religious minority access to regular routes of advancement? In a time when carpenters could be scapegoated into societal exclusion just for a whim of the peasants?

          You could fucking convert. Plenty of Jews converted and enjoyed access to regular routes of advancement. Which the Spaniard weren’t amused by. You don’t switch tribes just like that. But it still happened a lot.

          But no, you want to keep your tight-knit tribe while having access to all the others. Have everybody’s cake and eat it too. Well it doesn’t work like that.

          The Jews did well for themselves, and it was obviously in their interest to undermine the cohesion of European society. Nobody’s saying it isn’t a rational strategy. But for people who actually care about the cohesion of European society why the hell are we supposed to like the Jews? Even if Jews aren’t the root of all evil it’s pretty clear that the survival strategies are adversarial.

          • jim says:

            The Jews did well for themselves, and it was obviously in their interest to undermine the cohesion of European society

            A cohesive elite will exclude outsiders, and give them non elite jobs appropriate to their talents – which jobs, though lucrative, were apt to get Jews killed.

            The anglosphere elite did not allow substantial numbers of Jews in until the mid twentieth century.

            Admission of Jews into the elite really should be understood as conversion, progressive Jews should be understood as conversos, the progressives doing to Judaism what they did to Christianity.

            But no, you want to keep your tight-knit tribe while having access to all the others.

            But progressive Jews are not in fact a tight knit tribe. Observe the progressive Jewish reaction to the Crown Height pogrom. Progressives do not want progressive Jews to be tightly knit, and are having considerable success in fixing the problem.

            It is not so much that our elite became incohesive and diverse because of a Jewish conspiracy, but rather, progressivism is universalist and entryist, and progressives want to convert everyone, more of a progressive conspiracy against Judaism, than a Jewish conspiracy against progressivism.

            You are accusing Jews of being entryist, an entryist being someone who claims to belong to group X, while in his heart belonging to group Y, hostile to group X.

            But religious Jews are forbidden to be entryist. They are supposed to be visibly Jewish. If you look at the most infamous group of progressive entryist Jews, the civil rights movement, yes, entryist, in that they are apt to bleach their hair orange, etc. But that means that they stop being Jewish, as manifested by high rates of intermarriage. In a generation or two civil rights will stop being Jewish for lack of Jews.

            It is progressives, not Jews, that are characteristically entryist, and to the extent that Jews become entryist, they are conversos.

          • B says:

            “Had it coming” to the same extent that you have it coming if the cops ever throw you in county jail and you get gangraped, or that a shopkeeper “has it coming” when merchandise is looted by his welfare recipient customers. Right, that’s what you get for not being an Orc. Why you reading that, you a fag or something?

            It was not anybody’s duty to allow the Jews anything. However, when you shut off routes of advancement not involving money lending and tax farming, it is the definition of chutzpah to accuse people who turn to…money lending and tax farming.

            Conversion is 1) inimical to our purpose for being, 2) not effective-you are still a Jew, just a less trustworthy one-if you betrayed your own G-d and people, what won’t you betray? And so you have the Inquisition, which was directed purely against conversos. By the same means, I could ask you why you don’t go become a Buddhist or Confucian-you’d still be a gwei lo.

            >The Jews did well for themselves, and it was obviously in their interest to undermine the cohesion of European society.

            Assuming “doing well” involves periodically being massacred, robbed and having the survivors expelled. There is a reason the Ashkenazi community reflects founder effect so strongly-it went through a very narrow bottleneck.

            I have no idea what cohesion you are talking about, since a closer look at even the peasants of every European country reveals that from one valley to the next they have completely different identities, customs and dialects. And why would it be in the Jewish interest to undermine such an identity is beyond me. What was actually in the Jewish interest at each and every point was to identify the king/elite and reach a Pareto-efficient agreement with them. Unfortunately, when you make an agreement with a king/elite, you have no recourse when they choose to abrogate it.

          • josh says:

            “You are accusing Jews of being entryist, an entryist being someone who claims to belong to group X, while in his heart belonging to group Y, hostile to group X.

            But religious Jews are forbidden to be entryist. They are supposed to be visibly Jewish”

            No, Jim, you are wrong. In the 15th century Rabbi’s created the concept of anusim, which distinguished between coercive and voluntary conversion, with the nature of the coercion left vauge. Anusim were not barred from the synagogue. This increased the trend of false conversions of people who continued to privately practiced Judaism. By the time the Marranos had left for Holland they had mostly dropped the charade. However, crypto Jewish communities continued to exist until the end of the 20th century. Interestingly Fidel Castro acknowledges Marrano origin.

            Later on the followers of Zevi Sabbatai would falsely convert to Islam (and go on to take over Turkey) and the followers of Leo Frank would falsely convert to Christianity. There were even (many) Crypto-Jews involved with early Calvinism.

            What with your harping on about country clubs? Jews were Freemasons from the get go (possibly even before the Christians depending on how one interprets this:

            • jim says:

              What is this stuff about the followers of Leo Frank?

              That is the problem with coercive conversion. You manufacture entryists.

              Marrano Jews only seem to have existed where they,or their ancestors, were subject to the most extreme coercive pressures. Famous entryist religious Jews, for example the followers of Zevi Sabbatti, converted under threat of death. They were not being sneaky, except as necessary to stay alive.

              One good solution to that problem is coercive pressures targeted only at the lower classes, where you don’t care about entryism, which tactic, applied in Europe, selected Jews for smarts.

          • josh says:

            heh. I mean Jacob Frank. Freudian typo.

          • josh says:

            Entryism started before forced conversions, btw. But the important thing is the can of worms that was created by the double-life/secret-society stuff.

            You should peruse this oldish book. It’s not anti-semitic.


            • jim says:

              How do you know? Forced conversions go back a mighty long way.

              I am not frightened of anti semitic thought, rather, the problem is that anti semites are obsessive. Judaism is not the most important thing in the world. Jews are not responsible for everything that happens in the world. Orthodox Jews are cohesive, but does anyone think that orthodox Jews rule the world? Progressive Jews, far from being cohesive, suffer all the pathologies characteristic of progressivism.

          • josh says:

            I’m actually a half-semite myself, certainly not an anti-semite(
            my father is a wonderful man, though an eminently googlable Cathedral operative). I’m also not obsessive. I just think some their is too much obtuseness on the topic among reactionaries based mostly on Moldbug’s say-so.

            Modern reform Jews *are* somewhat cohesive, but pre-modern and early modern Jews were obviously moreso. Modern ethnic Jews are certainly more cohesive than modern WASPS and you seem to have no problem pinning 100% of modernism on them.

            • jim says:

              If one is going to argue that the Jews are very important, then one is going to argue that things were fine until 1930, 1950 or so. If, on the other hand, one is going to argue that female suffrage was a bad idea, that “all men are created equal” was a bad idea, then the Jews pretty much drop out of sight.

              In the history of left singularities, Jews jump aboard the bandwagon when it is already rolling mighty fast and is rapidly approaching disaster.

          • josh says:

            Or maybe your “Jews weren’t important until the 1930s” idea is just plain silly. I have no idea if Paul Warburg joined any country clubs, but I’m pretty sure he mattered.

            • jim says:

              Paul Warburg? Who is he?

              (Looks up Paul Warburg)

              Paul Warbug was a Jewish banker who lobbied for the Aldrich bill – which failed to pass. However the Owen Glass Bill, which was influenced by the Aldrich bill did pass.

              So Paul Warburg, a Jewish banker, influenced Aldrich, who influenced Owen and Glass, who actually passed a bill, which bill benefited bankers in general and Paul Warburg in particular

              You are looking too hard for Jews.

              The Owen Glass bill set up the central bank, and, unsurprisingly Jewish influence was important in setting up the central bank. But central banking was not a disaster until FDR stole people’s gold, and Nixon closed the gold window. So you are still saying, back to 1930 or 1950.

              Women’s suffrage and the destruction of marriage, however, was a disaster all the way back to the nineteenth century.

          • B says:

            Anthony Sutton discusses Warburg here, among other places.


            The overall takeway is that Warburg was a part of the Wall Street/American elite inner circle, but not a crucial part, compared to, say, Sosthenes Behn of ITT.

          • josh says:

            If you think I’m stretching to find one of the F-ing Warburgs, you are clearly not looking *hard* enough. I’m not suggesting some kind of secret Cabal banker conspiracy or even that the Warburgs were the most powerful Jews of the time period, but Jews were certainly part of the global power elite before the time you suggested. Chernow thought the Warburgs were interesting enough:


            He also wrote the essential mainstream bio of JD Rockefeller and the House of Morgan.

            Anyhoo, the genesis of the Federal Reserve is often attributed to Paul Warburg in particular more than any other individual.

          • josh says:


            I don’t see where Sutton discusses Paul Warburg. He discusses “Sydney Warburg” which was a pseudonym for whoever wrote “Hitler’s Secret Backers” and he discusses James Paul Warburg, Paul Warburg’s son, who is basically what you say. Paul Warburg was part of different, more specifically Jewish clique (lot’s of people seem to have had middle name/last name combinations made up of Warburg, Rothschild, Kuhn, Loeb, and Schiff), I think centered around the Kuhn Loeb. My extremely broad take on the period is that these guys ended up partnering with the Rockefeller faction to take down the House of Morgan. These were the people Charles R. Crane was talking about when he said:

            “Well, now that Taft is President, I suppose that Jake Schiff and his Jew crowd will have a great deal to say in our national affairs.”

            Apparently there was such a thing as the Jew crowd and lo they wanted some say in our national affairs. And of course they didn’t just spring up out of the ether in 1910 either.

            • jim says:

              OK, there were a bunch of Jewish bankers, and they sometimes got their way in banking regulation. But if you are looking at the general movement left, and view it as a disaster, this is imperceptibly tiny. It also does not fit with the interpretation of Jews as a cohesive group pursuing the interests of Jews, since Jewish bankers pursued the general interest of bankers, and the particular interest of particular bankers at the expense of other, often equally Jewish, bankers.

              Far more important than that bankers are disproportionately Jewish, is that commies are disproportionately Jewish, and commies have had a great deal of influence on the anglosphere left. But Jewish commies are grossly anti semitic and always have been, and proceeded to purge each other out of the communist movement whenever they had the power.

              Further, there was a power struggle between the puritan descended anglosphere left, and the Jewish descended commie left, which the anglosphere left won, and the commies lost.

              The story of disproportionate Jewish influence by a distinctly Jewish faction is true enough in early twentieth century Germany. It is not true in the Anglosphere until the distinctly Jewish civil rights movement, for by the time the commies had disproportionate influence in the Anglosphere, the Jews had well and truly purged each other from the mainline communist groups.

              We just don’t see any left wing movements that are effective and distinctively Jewish in the Anglosphere until the civil rights movement.

Leave a Reply