Jews played a large part in Roman and Medieval politics and economics. Speaking of the first century of the Christian era, M. Cary in his History of Rome tells us:
In the eastern Mediterranean the chief area of disturbance under the early emperors lay in Palestine, where the Jewish population remained permanently restless under Roman rule. Under the terms of Augustus’ settlement the Roman governors of Judea had instructions to make allowance for the people’s religious susceptibilities. . . . But the Jewish people in general . . . clung to the belief that the day of deliverance from Roman rule might be at hand. The belief was rife that the promised Messiah would be a liberator like Samuel and David, and not a few sought to prepare the way for him by preliminary insurrections. . . . (p 542)
. . . The Jews partly healed their internal feuds and combined to repair the multiple lines of fortifications round Jerusalem. In 70 Titus, taking over his father’s command, closed in upon the city and reduced it after a siege of six months, which for sheer hard fighting recalled the investment of Carthage by Scipio Aemilianus. . . . The Temple, which had been burned down in the siege – whether by accident or design is not certain – was not allowed to be rebuilt.” (ibid., p 614)
Usury, the lending of money at interest, was a sin that Christians largely avoided. It was also a sin for Jews, to judge at least from the Book of Ezekiel. In general, though, the Jews were willing to fill the gap. The pages of medieval history are filled with the misery that this practice led to, as borrowers started down the road to financial ruin. From Jocelyn of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of St. Edmund’s (1173-1202), Ch 1:
Our parlour was destroyed, and it was given in charge to William the sacrist, will he, nill he, that he should restore it. He privily borrowed from Benedict the Jew forty marks at interest, and gave him a security sealed with a certain seal, which used to hang at the shrine of St. Edmund, wherewith the gilds and letters of fraternity were wont to be sealed: a seal which later on, but alas! too late, was broken by order of the convent. Now, when this debt had increased to one hundred pounds, the Jew came bearing a letter from our lord the King, touching the debt of the sacrist; and then it was that all that had been secret from the abbot and convent was laid bare.
The abbot waxed exceedingly wroth, and wished to depose the sacrist, alleging that he possessed a privilege of our lord the pope, giving him power of deposing William, his sacrist, whensoever it pleased him. Howbeit, some one went to the abbot, and excusing the sacrist, so wheedled the abbot that he permitted a security to be passed to Benedict the Jew for four hundred pounds, payable at the end of four years, namely, for one hundred pounds, which had then already accrued for interest, and also for another hundred pounds, which the same Jew had advanced to the sacrist for the use of the abbot. And the sacrist in full chapter undertook for the whole of that debt to be paid, and a deed was drawn up and sealed with the conventual seal: the abbot dissimulating, and not affixing his own seal, as if that debt was no concern of his.
But at the end of the four years, there were no means of discharging the debt; and then a fresh deed was executed for eight hundred and eighty pounds, payable at set terms, at the rate of eighty pounds a year. Moreover, the same Jew had many other securities of smaller account, and one which was for fourteen years; so this debt alone came to one thousand and two hundred pounds, besides the interest that had accrued.
A great deal of disinformation about Israel is spread around. Many people fall for the myth that the Jews were the first people to live in the area that is now called Israel, and that the Muslims came along later and tried to take it away from them. Basically, however, the entire Middle East has been occupied for at least five thousand years, but probably much longer, by various societies speaking Semitic languages, all related to Arabic and Hebrew. Anyone who wants the general picture can just read the Old Testament – all the (largely mythical) stories about Joshua and the walls of Jericho, all the stories of Philistines and so on. Of course it’s all written from the Israelite point of view, but the Old Testament is not bad as a sort of historical novel.
Jews and Muslims
Then there’s the important distinction between linguistic groups and religious groups. Linguistically, as I just implied, Jews and Arabs are just two of a number of Semitic cultures who wandered around in the Middle East. When I was living out in the desert of Oman for three years, I saw many remains of old settlements, some of them dating back to the Stone Age, others more recent, and some just the final stage of mud-brick architecture, before the development of the ugly cinder-block houses of today.
In terms of religion, though, obviously by definition (the birth of Mohammed) it’s true that the Muslims arrived in Jerusalem after the Jews. But we shouldn’t confuse the two issues, religious groups versus linguistic groups. Or does anyone really imagine that Jerusalem was totally uninhabited before the Jews claimed it as a sacred place?
The Jewish language and the Arabic language are closely related. To some extent a speaker of one language could understand the speaker of the other. But all the above confusion is largely because the above-mentioned myths have been promulgated by the Jews in order to further their own agenda in the Middle East.
And to add a few more semi-relevant details: the Jewish claim to Israel is further weakened by the fact that the Jewish population there was very sparse for about two thousand years, only increasing significantly after the Second World War. Through a program of violence (roughly the same methods used later by Muslim mujahideen), they managed to thoroughly frighten the British and take over the land. – No, what I just said doesn’t match the common perception of that period. But Israel wasn’t “given” to the Jews, they took it in the 1940s with bullets and bombs, as David Hirst describes in The Gun and the Olive Branch. Regarding legitimacy, it should also be pointed out that even the Jewish language is somewhat bogus as a cultural trait – the language had been virtually extinct for centuries until it was revived in the 1940s. One could even question any genetic claim of Jews to that land, after centuries of wandering and intermarrying with other cultures.
Leaping into a much bigger topic – it’s often said that since the Jews constitute less than 0.2 percent of the world population, it’s not possible that they have a great deal of control, in the US and elsewhere, of the government, the news media, the entertainment (propaganda) industry, the banking industry, and the educational establishment. But why can this not be the case? Consider the British, to pick an obvious example – it used to be said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” Yet the British themselves were vastly outnumbered by the native people of that empire.
Israel and the US
Over the past few decades, the US has devastated many parts of the Middle East, and the main effect for the US has been the loss of billions of dollars that could have been spent more wisely. The country that has gained the most from all this destruction is Israel, which is now the most powerful country in the Middle East. The main enemy of Islam is Israel, not the US. Israel is determined to expand until it reaches from the Mediterranean to the entire west bank of the Jordan River or beyond, and with every passing year it pushes further, although it has no moral or legal basis for taking this land. The US never complains, and in fact the US has virtually never opposed anything done by the state of Israel. Israel even has nuclear weapons, but nothing has ever been questioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
As Mearsheimer and Walt point out in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, the US runs the world, and Israel runs the US. (Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi had said the Jews should control “powder, gold, and ink’’– armaments, finance, and the news media.) It is a well known (though rarely mentioned) fact that supporters of Israel control the US Congress and the banks. But they also control the news media and the related entertainment industry, which means they control public opinion and public attitudes. How often does the (pro-Israeli) entertainment industry depict and even glorify behavior that most psychiatrists would consider deviant and socially harmful? Why do we allow our children to be corrupted by these people, who have always been outsiders? What might be the long-term effect of exposing viewers, especially younger ones, to the portrayal of such behavior? Think of the “cardinal virtues” of justice, prudence, fortitude, and temperance. Think of the “theological virtues” of faith, hope, and charity. Is there something missing in the world in which Western children are now growing up?
The US is in debt for several trillion dollars. To keep itself afloat, the US must do anything to appease China and other countries, in the vain hope that such an insane debt can be kept alive. Yet of the $15 billion spent on US foreign aid every year, $3 billion goes to Israel, along with other funds – again, money that could be far better spent on other things. What has Israel ever done in return for that money?
The Jewish Threat
Consider also that the present problem of Muslim mass immigration into Europe is focused largely on Germany. The government of Germany supports the Muslims. So in part that’s where the trail leads. If anyone should be found “guilty,” in any hypothetical court, of ruining Germany, perhaps it should be the German people. However, we must consider Wiedergutmachung, “again-good-making,” atonement – guilt feelings about the Second World War, constantly rubbed into the flesh of the Germans by the Jews. (Cf. the Catholic Latin mea culpa, “my sin.” Many Germans are Catholic.) It is Wiedergutmachung that serves as the actual mechanism for keeping the Germans pressured by the Jews.
Actually, “white guilt” is a fairly recent phenomenon – it dates back less than a hundred years, probably far less than that. Rudyard Kipling (in the nineteenth century) would never have felt “white guilt.” “The White Man’s Burden” is the title of a poem he wrote – “burden,” not “guilt.”
Muslims and Jews both want to take over the world, and have wanted to do so for centuries. But each does it in a separate manner. Muslims are rather vulgar – they chop off people’s heads. Jews prefer some complex psychological devices. And Israel sends its thanks for every Euro that those sinful Germans pay up. It’s the actual amount of money that’s astonishing – it was $70 billion even back in 2012, when a calculation was made. And I’m not sure how a five-year-old German child of today can be guilty of something that happened almost a century ago, but don’t press me for details.
One of the founders of the Federal Reserve System, and its “dominant and guiding mind,” was “Paul M. Warburg, a [Jewish] partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company [and] a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England.” (G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, pp 5, 17).
Federal taxes now take more than 40% of our private incomes. State, county, and local taxes are on top of that. Inflation feeds on what is left. We spend half of each year working for the government. Real wages in America have declined. Young couples with a single income have a lower standard of living than their parents did. The net income of the average household is falling. The amount of leisure time is falling. The percentage of Americans who own their homes is falling. The age at which a family acquires a first home is rising. The number of families counted among the middle class is falling. The number of people living below the officially defined poverty line is rising. More and more Americans are broke at age 65.
None of this is accidental. It is the fulfillment of a plan by members of the [Council on Foreign Relations] who comprise the hidden government of the United States. Their goal is the deliberate weakening of the industrialized nations as a prerequisite to bringing them into a world government built upon the principles of socialism, with themselves in control” (ibid., pp 535-56)
I was once about halfway through Robert Fisk’s 1,368-page Great War for Civilization, not realizing the title was meant in jest, when I began to wonder if to some extent I’d been (verbally) fighting the wrong enemy. I eventually came to understand that, in terms of politics, the most important conclusion one can draw is that Jews (including Zionists, Neoconservatives, etc.) are now largely in control of the world, even though there are only fifteen million of them.
In fact many other discoveries are likely to involve their obfuscations, such as the supposed guilt of white people for “demographic winter,” which is then said to justify higher immigration levels. Although there are some major exceptions, the basic fact is that women renounce childbirth, not so much out of selfishness, but because “this is not a good world in which to be raising children,” as an astute young woman once told me.
A similar distortion in general is that of the race war (politely referred to as multiculturalism), along with the immigration flood that accompanies it. We think it’s a matter of good versus evil, but it’s really designed to keep us off balance, struggling to survive, and failing to recognize the real opponent.
The Jews and the Palestinians fight as the borders of Israel stretch further and further, yet the Jews are the only ones fighting with the best of military technology and with unlimited money. Far more Palestinians are killed there than Israelis (as noted by Max Fisher on Vox, July 14, 2014). So which side is really the oppressed?
Similar points about technology and money apply to “9-11,” that astonishing epitome of false-flag operations, resulting in the murder of three thousand innocent gentiles, all for the sake of initiating a far more deadly “War on Terror.” As Paul Craig Roberts said on his website on Sept. 11, 2019: “Four hijacked airliners are alleged hijacked, all at airports served by an Israeli security company. All four airliners allegedly crash. Two into the WTC towers, one into a field in Pennsylvania, and one into the Pentagon. Yet no airliner debris exists. The Pentagon’s lawn is not even scratched.” Christopher Bollyn covers more of the story in Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World.
The Jews have alienated themselves from the rest of mankind for thousands of years, as one can see clearly even in the Old and New Testaments. Nobody has a “Judeo-Christian heritage”: a person can have one, but not both – even by definition. But they’re richer, stronger, and above all smarter (or trickier) than we are, so we don’t realize that they’re always several moves ahead of us. We lack forethought: we think of it as a game of checkers, but it’s more like a game of chess.
Western right-wingers need to start understanding how the present develops from the past. A policy of mass immigration does not pop out of thin air. Greg Felton, in The Host and the Parasite (p 3), describes it thus:
For a police state to take hold, the U.S.’s political culture had to have been weakened to the point where it could not defend itself, much as a person with a weakened immune system becomes susceptible to diseases it used to be able to resist. . . . This disease consists of . . . neo-conservative economists, evangelical Christians, and Zionist Jews.
Jews support liberal immigration because it means a pluralistic society, rather than a homogeneous one. Hence there is little chance of a unified opposition to Judaism.
The Culture of Critique
From Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique:
Ethnic and religious pluralism . . . serves Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. . . . Jewish activism on immigration is merely one strand of a multipronged movement directed at preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Western societies. . . . (p 241)
. . . It is probable that the decline in evolutionary and biological theories of race and ethnicity facilitated the sea change in immigration policy brought about by the 1965 [Immigration and Nationality Act]. . . . (p 251)
Jews played a very prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. . . . Jews organized African Americans for their own interests rather than in the best interests of African Americans. . . . (pp 254-55)
Making the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal beginning in the nineteenth century. . . . (p 259)
Restrictionists [regarding US immigration in the 1920s and 1930s] often pointed to evidence that over 90 percent of American Communists had backgrounds linking them to Eastern Europe. . . . (pp 281-82)
Richard Avens noted, “One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the [restrictionist McCarran-Walter] act is ‘discriminatory’ . . . is that they oppose admission of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of . . . Israel.’ . . . (p 288)
Particularly important is the provision in the Immigration Act of 1965 that expanded the number of immigrants. . . . Jewish spokespersons had been in the forefront in attempts to admit family members on a nonquota basis. . . . (p 293)
The family-based emphasis of the quota regulations . . . has resulted in a multiplier effect that ultimately subverted the quota system entirely by allowing for a ‘chaining’ phenomenon in which endless chains of the close relations of close relations are admitted outside of the quota system . . . . (p 294)
. . . The Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will no longer be a majority of the population of the United States. . . . (p 296)
It is remarkable that the sea change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at approximately the same time (1962-1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of the elites rather than the great mass of citizens. . . . In neither Australia nor Canada was there ever any popular sentiment to end the older European bias of immigration policy. . . .” (p 301)
Murray’s Strange Death of Europe
Douglas Murray’s Strange Death of Europe is one of the best analyses of the destruction of so much of that continent by so-called refugees and other migrants. But his story doesn’t entirely add up. The crisis began roughly in 1945, after the devastation caused by the Second World War, as Murray himself says. But that was about three quarters of a century ago. Are we really supposed to believe that in all that time, and especially at the beginning, no one thought of instituting a few laws to control and regulate this ever-growing crowd of millions of people, mostly young Muslim men, heading ever north and west? And even if by some bizarre mischance virtually all politicians have failed to see the danger, that in itself would not explain the great hostility with which those same politicians react to anyone who expresses concern over what is happening.
Why does it seem so hard to make sense out of all the conflicting theories of “what’s wrong” with Europe? Perhaps political events are just tiny bubbles on the surface of a vast ocean, something we have not been able to name. The movements of the individual bubbles might be just random and uncountable, not worth dwelling on anyway. But I don’t think so. I think that we can indeed describe that ocean, if we are willing to make the attempt.
Murray’s book somewhat loses momentum about two thirds of the way through, roughly at a chapter appropriately entitled “Tiredness.” From there to the end of the book, there are a great many pages that are nothing more than musings, certainly not worth putting in print. Modern art, we are told, is meaningless trash but we should examine it closely. We should be Christians even though God doesn’t exist. And so on. Some interesting points, but often just notes that lead nowhere.
The title of the book is itself “strange.” It seems Murray’s final judgment is that Europe has had such a “strange” death for one terribly mundane reason – the same reason, I suppose, why countries outside Europe could also be killed so easily. Europe, he seems to say, just grew tired of itself, tired of its civilization, tired of its own politics, tired of its supposed greatness, tired of its own hypocrisy. Tired. Like the author himself. It is only on page 218 that he seems to show a little fighting spirit:
Perhaps in one country a party of the kind previously described as ‘far right’ will come to power. Perhaps a party even further to the right will then come to power at some point later. . . . If you pretend for long enough, in the face of clear evidence, that all the arrivals into the continent are asylum seekers, you will eventually spawn a movement that believes that none of them are. . . .
In some ways it is amazing that such a movement has not kicked off in earnest already.
Yet there is no reason why the past three quarters of a century in Europe should be regarded as an insoluble mystery. A rather large book would be required to outline the big plan, but a quick sketch might be as follows. Whites ask for too much money, and for too much freedom. Non-Whites must be allowed to push out Whites. Non-Whites reproduce quickly, they work for low wages, they are uneducated (so they don’t ask questions), and they have many centuries of obeying orders. The Jews will be the ruling class. The profits will be enormous, and disturbances will be few.