President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger discussing Indians:

Kissinger: They are masters at flattery… their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions.

Nixon: Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women… the most sexless people. pic.twitter.com/rUQvU9ltRR

— Independent American 🇺🇸 (@MAGAX1776) December 25, 2024

Richard Nixon recorded all of his talks in his office while he was president, and the Nixon tapes are a treasure trove of hilarious material, all of which is true (except for his opinions on the Irish, which are completely false and slander).

He was spot on about Indians though.

Most right-wingers dislike Henry Kissinger, and I understand the reasons why, but I also can understand why he was the only Jew Nixon would allow in his orbit. His voice is funny and he agrees with everything you say. He’s a good sounding board.

In a conversation with Kissinger, Nixon expressed his views on Indian people.

Nixon: What do the Indians have? [Says something about the Ambassador to India Kenneth Keating]

Kissinger: Yes, it’s pure flattery, Mr. President, they are masters at flattery. Masters at subtle flattery. That’s how they survived 600 years.

Nixon: That’s all they got is flattery. I mean.

Kissinger: They suck up. Their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions.

Nixon: Undoubtedly, the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women. Undoubtedly. I’ve never seen one – oh, I’ve seen a couple. The most sexless, nothing, these people. I mean, people say “what about the black Africans?” Well, you can see something, a vitality there. I mean, they at least have a little animal-like charm. But God, those Indians, ack. Pathetic. Uck.

When he said “I’ve seen a couple,” he was likely referring to their news hosts.

Hem Kaur Saroy wouldn’t have been born yet, but maybe he caught a look at her grandmother or something.

On the whole thing, while there are some individual Indian women I’ve seen that are more attractive than the most attractive black African women, on average, I would agree with Dick that black African women are more attractive than Indian women, as they can be charming and friendly, like a kinder version of monkeys. Most Americans won’t believe it, but if you go to Africa, most people are very friendly. They commit crimes but it’s more like “stealing from the cookie jar” if they murder or rape. It’s a child acting up.

I like the Africans.

These Indians however, we cannot tolerate, and we cannot tolerate people like Donald Trump and Elon Musk who think they are superior and want to replace us with them. This is intolerable.

If we have to have a president, we should use genetic science to clone Dick Nixon.

G. Gordon Liddy, former FBI agent held responsible for the Watergate break-in, died on March 30 at 90 years of age.

As is well-known, I’m not a big fan of the feds. However, the reason I am not a fan of the feds is because they hate America, and are working to destroy this country. There was always a problem with instilling these various federal intelligence agencies with the amount of power they were instilled with. However, not all of them used the power for evil.

G. Gordon Liddy was a good and honest man who loved his country, and fought against Jewish agendas of drugs, communism, and journalism. He was a great man, and should be studied and learned from.

Liddy was born in Brooklyn, to working class Irish-Italian family, in 1930.

In 1957, Liddy entered the FBI at age 27, and by 29 he had become the youngest ever Bureau Supervisor at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. He then became J. Edgar Hoover’s personal head of staff. He left the FBI in 1962, and after working with his father in a private law practice for a while, took a job working for the prosecutors office of Dutchess County, New York.

In 1966, he led a raid on the Hitchcock House, at the time occupied by the intelligence-linked drug guru Timothy Leary.

He also led a 1969 raid of Bard College, wherein the Jews of Steely Dan, Donald Fagen and Walter Becker, were caught. They later wrote the song “My Old School” about the incident. In the song, they refer to Liddy as “Daddy Gee.”

(For those who don’t know, Steely Dan are some of the very few Jew hippies, or for that matter boomers of any kind, who I defend. My Old School is a great song.)

During this period, he was reprimanded for pulling out a revolver in court and shooting it at the ceiling.

He then ran successfully for District Attorney, and unsuccessfully for Congress, before serving on Richard Nixon’s campaign. After Nixon won, he received an appointment as a special assistant fighting drug programs (all of which we now know were run by the CIA).

After serving in several positions for Nixon, he was moved in 1971 to the committee to reelect Nixon. In 1972, he was moved to the White House Plumbers, which was the clandestine group who worked as Nixon’s secret police against invasive Jewish journalists.

While working for the Plumbers, he was the mastermind behind Operation Gemstone, a series of hilarious pranks. Among other awesome ideas, he proposed kidnapping Democrats and holding them in Mexico until the Democrat convention had finished.

White House counsel John Dean later described Liddy’s agenda to the president on March 21, 1973, during the “Cancer on the Presidency” conversation (from the Nixon tapes): “So I came over and Liddy laid out a million dollar plan that was the most incredible thing I have ever laid my eyes on: all in codes, and involved black bag operations, kidnapping, providing prostitutes, uh, to weaken the opposition, bugging, uh, mugging teams. It was just an incredible thing.”

He had bugging teams, he had mugging teams, he was bugging the mugging teams – the man was a genius. Most of his plots involved the strategic use of prostitutes.

In 1971, Nixon did approve his plan to break in and steal files from Jew journalist Daniel Ellsberg’s Jewish psychiatrist. The intention was to get the motherlode about Ellsberg’s kooky Jew neurosis to discredit him.

Then, at some point, for reasons which to this day are still unclear, Liddy was given a greenlight to break into the Democrat offices at the Watergate complex. That, as we know, turned out badly. However, the reason we still don’t know what the agenda of the break-in was is that Liddy refused to rat out Nixon, at all, and instead just did his time. Liddy is often described as reckless and unhinged, but he had a diehard loyalty to Nixon and to the right-wing cause of protecting America from the forces of communism and Judaism.

His sentence was commuted by Jimmy Carter, and he only ended up serving 4 and a half years. However, he did not go back into politics or law enforcement after that, and spent the rest of his life involved in writing, acting and as a radio host. He was successful in all of these endeavors.

He was great on Miami Vice.

Liddy at points appeared in public debate with both Timothy Leary and Hunter S. Thompson.

I have always wanted to see the Hunter S. Thompson one, but it was apparently not recorded. I have read the transcript, which I cannot find. They had a lot of common ground, given that they were both nutty gun fanatics, and both real American patriots. They both believed in living fast and sucking the last drop out of life.

They are two figures that I admire greatly, mostly for different reasons. In the longer scope of things, I think Thompson was smarter and more influential than Liddy, and probably someone I’ve learned more from.

The Leary debate was filmed, and there is something quite interesting in that.

(I’m not sure if this is the full video or not.)

Leary was almost certainly a shill (he later worked for the FBI), sent out to get children using drugs as part of a Frankfurt School cultural transformation agenda. He was a really disingenuous man who primarily seemed concerned about getting laid, rather than any kind of higher ideal at all. All of his material is very shallow, and basically just boring. (Most drug oriented stuff ends up being boring – Thompson was the exception that proved the rule.)

During the debate, Leary framed Liddy v. Leary as “Traditionalism v. Futurism,” which is accurate. At one point Liddy said, “we’re both convicted felons, and it doesn’t matter what either of us say.” He also said that he believes in freedom, just a different kind of freedom – giving the example that he thinks people have a right to kill cops if they enter their property. Leary was of course defending the cops.

Liddy’s philosophy, expressed in his book “Will,” is overall something I agree with a lot. He believed in personal responsibility, in hierarchy and loyalty, and probably most relevantly, was a kind of pioneer in what became the self-help movement, stressing the importance of believing in yourself and pushing yourself to your total limits.

He wrote and spoke a lot about pain, and the need to experience pain in order to develop personally and to compete with others. Liddy was not ultra-jacked, but he was a big time fitness guy (virtually the opposite of the other recently deceased right-wing figure, Rush Limbaugh, who was a glutton, and didn’t really seem to truly believe in much of anything beyond the sound of his own voice).

Here’s a quaint clip from “Blind Ambition,” a TV miniseries about Watergate, which features Liddy talking about strength and pain.

Liddy continued to be involved in media, doing talk radio and appearing on shows to talk about things like Obama’s birth certificate. These were not his finest hours (his finest hours were probably Miami Vice, and planning clandestine criminal operations for Nixon), but I assume he needed the money.

NPR this week, following Liddy’s death, released a segment denouncing him as an “unapologetic criminal.” That is not an untrue characterization, technically, though the framing was very dishonest. Criminals who commit crimes because they believe they’re doing the right thing are a very specific kind of criminal (see my thing on Robin Hood).

He was definitely unrepentant, however. He got a custom “H20GATE” license plate for his Corvette.

In other popular culture, the character of the Comedian in the Watchmen comics was largely based on Liddy, according to author Alan Moore.

The “ironic lunacy” of the character does fit Liddy, who did seem to be actually somewhat unhinged.

Regardless, the real lesson of Nixon and Liddy and that whole era is that we never should have allowed for this kind of power to be concentrated in the intelligence agencies, because it was bound to be corrupted at some point. Liddy wanted to set up Democrats with hookers, to kill journalists and so on, but this was during the J. Edgar Hoover period, when the cops were grabbing all of these new powers, which they retained and then used to hurt America.

Liddy was a man of action, and I believe a good man, and a patriot, who genuinely just wanted to destroy communism and protect the people. But this is a great example of “even the best intentions.”

Now, this secret police power is not in the hands of patriots, but instead in the hands of people who are literally possessed by actual demons.

When we have a new government, there needs to be a “not even for the good guys” rule when it comes to secret operations.

Ironically, George Soros’ term “an open society” is a good term. Of course, his organization is the opposite of that, but the concept is correct: society should be open. There should be transparency in government, in the corporate world, and most importantly, in media. The reason media transparency is so important is that they are the ones who are intended to hold government and corporate power accountable – effectively the opposite of what they currently do. The fact that they are able to get away with what they are currently getting away with is a direct result of a lack of transparency.

The fact that we now understand that everything that Liddy was himself fighting – drugs, communism, hippies – was actually being run by other secretive government “law enforcement” agencies should make the need for transparency crystal clear.

Nonetheless, Liddy was not personally responsible for the way American law enforcement and intelligence spun out of control, and as a historical figure, as an American icon, he should be remembered fondly, while we also remember the context.

Gavin McInnes used to go around making the claim that Moslems are violent and stupid because they’re inbred. I always thought it was kind of a dumb claim, but what is crazy is that he was allowed to say that as a semi-mainstream figure just a few years ago.

As far as I’m aware, the Arabs have a tradition of marrying their second cousins, which probably doesn’t cause very serious problems most of the time.

However, with Pakistanis? Inbreeding is presumably why their faces look like they do.

PTI:

MNA Shandana Gulzar has urged the government to address the root causes of rapes, saying at least 82 per cent of rape perpetrators are family members, such as that include fathers, brothers, grandfathers, and uncles, of the rape survivors.

Speaking on a TV show, MNA Gulzar quoted figures by the rights group War on Rape (WAR) said the most family members are involved in the rapes of the girls.

Really hope that the holier than thou who hate when feminists take to the streets can listen to a PTI representative saying this. This is the society women live in Pakistan.

pic.twitter.com/dnbFXfNA2D

— Tooba Syed 🍞🌹 (@Tooba_Sd) September 15, 2020

According to the lawmaker, the girls who get pregnant after being sexually assaulted by their family members do not approach the police, but rather go to the gynecologists for abortion. The mothers of these girls do not go to the police as they say that they cannot leave their husbands, she added.

She called it one of the worst facets of society and added that no one is willing to talk about it even though she has been advocating this cause for three years.

She said if the government was willing to address these causes of rapes, then the society will evolve and resist the male-dominated culture that perpetuates crimes against women.

You know, I usually defend men on principle, even nonwhite men, who are accused of rapes that don’t involve violence. I actually think it’s complete bullshit, this idea that women do not have the strength in their legs to force a man’s penis out. They absolutely do have that strength, they can also claw and bite and so on – so in order to commit an actually forced sex act, it means that a man would have to either threaten the woman with a weapon, or beat her into submission.

However, when it comes to a father or a brother – that is hard to defend, even if it isn’t true rape.

I don’t think we should allow these people to come to our countries. It is obvious that they are completely physically deformed from inbreeding, and who knows what is going on with their brains.

With regards to McInnes’ claims though – it doesn’t really have anything to do with Islam, because Hindu Indians have the same issues. The Indian government is probably smart enough to not release data about interfamilial sex, but it probably happens just as often, and that’s probably why India is the most conservative society on earth with legal abortion.

The only Pakistanis and Indians who aren’t repulsive are the rich, and they probably have like, rap songs in school that teach them not to have sex with their relatives.

Like those motherfuckers who did that fucking badass grimy fucking slice-ass killer shit rap about not fucking cussing.

Like, the British probably run their schools, and spam them with wholesome rap song that’s like:

Listen up Pakistan, to what I’m sayin’
I got a word or two, and I ain’t playin’
There’s a bad habit round here and it’s called incest
And if you do it, you won’t pass the test

You see I got a little story about a man name Mo’
He had a real pretty daughter and she dressed like a ho
When she came home from school, he would feel a bit sketchy
And down in his trousers was a big ol’ erection

So one day Mo’ was feelin’ a bit randy
He creeped in his daughter’s room and removed her panties
He had a real fun romp, it was quite a ride
But soon he found out, there was a baby inside

Nine months later when the baby came out
He took a look at it and he wasn’t proud
What he saw was a cross ‘tween a toad and a sheep
For the rest of his life, he’d never get sleep

Because the baby was ugly, but that wasn’t it
He was stupid and slow, without one wit
He would yell all night, make an awful noise
Forty years later, and he still plays with toys

Inbred deformities are serious, nothing mysterious
Look at the signs, and think with your mind
I know your daughter’s hot, but don’t lose the plot
If your daughter grabs your schlong, remember this song

The rich also probably have access to PSA videos, like those ones that the white Australians make for their natives about how you shouldn’t sleep in the road after huffing gasoline, because you might get hit by a car.

They also get informative songs about how you shouldn’t huff gasoline.

Normal Indians and Pakistanis don’t have access to this kind of educational material, so their thinking is, “why wouldn’t I have sex with my daughter? She’s right here!” (Sort of like the Homer Simpsonism, “why pay the piper when they’ve got free piping down the street?”)

They get no anti-incest education.

And they all end up looking like those mug shots from Rotherham:

They look like literal swamp mutants.

Based on the basic nature of sexual selection, it’s impossible that any people could look like this for any reason other than mutations.

Because like Richard Nixon said: even the Negroes have an animal-like charm.

I’d be highly suspicious of anyone who disagreed with Richard Nixon’s conclusions on these matters.

Global Village Space:

Newly declassified tapes from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum have revealed the deep mistrust with which former United States president Richard Nixon viewed the people of India, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

According to the tapes, recorded when Nixon was leading America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the late American president staunchly backed Pakistan as it tried to stop the Indians from interfering in what was then East Pakistan.

“Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women,” said Nixon in a conversation with his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger. “Undoubtedly,” he repeated, with a venomous tone, the tapes reveal.

Read more: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh: What went wrong?

“The most sexless, nothing, these people. I mean, people say, what about the Black Africans? Well, you can see something, the vitality there, I mean they have a little animallike charm, but God, those Indians, ack, pathetic. Uch,” he adds.

‘They are repulsive, it is easy to be tough with them’

According to The Times, Nixon tried to persuade then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of the dangers of going to war with Pakistan as the East Pakistan crisis escalated. He had sparring matches with Gandhi on the matter, the American publication claimed.

“To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry? Tell me,” Nixon says in another conversation about Indians to Kissinger. “They turn me off. They are repulsive and it’s just easy to be tough with them.”

The New York Times has documented several other instances where Nixon insulted the Indians. For example, in November 1971, while discussing Pakistan and India with his staff, Nixon remarked sarcastically that he didn’t know how Indians reproduced.

‘Their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions’

Back in June the same year, while Kissinger was angry at the Indians for their handling of the East Pakistan crisis, Nixon blamed Delhi for causing trouble in East Pakistan and sponsoring the Bengali insurgency to destabilize Pakistan.

He then condemned Indians as a whole, his voice oozing with contempt, “They are a scavenging people,” he reportedly said. Even Kissinger joined Nixon in loathing the Indians, saying they were masters of flattery and little else.

“They are superb flatterers. They are masters at flattery. They are masters at subtle flattery. That’s how they survived 600 years. They suck up — their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions,” Kissinger reportedly said to Nixon at one point.

That bitch who was in the first Planet of the Apes remake was the top representative of the race.

She sure isn’t anything special. If she’s the number one representative of your race, you’ve got a serious problem.

Richard Nixon was our last great president, and he was run out of office for a crime that was minuscule in comparison to the crimes that have been committed by presidents since then.

Just compare Watergate to the situation with Barack Obama spying on Donald Trump.

Speaking of Donald Trump: he could be the New Nixon, if he would man up and deal with the fiends that surround him and make it impossible for him to get his agenda through.

Cuckservatives are in shock as a recently released tape proved their hero Ronald Reagan to be a nigger-hating racist.

In a call with Richard Nixon, Reagan referred to black people as “monkeys from those African counties” and said “they are still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConell said: “My chink wife and I respected Ronald Reagan so much we got married on his birthday. But this monkey comment invalidates everything else that Ronald Reagan did. I now dissociate myself from Ronald Reagan entirely. I reject Ronald Reagan. I denounce Ronald Reagan. My wife and I are now seriously considering getting divorced then re-marrying on Harriet Tubman’s birthday instead.”

Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL declared: “Across America, streets are named after this racist; statues are raised to honor this racist’s memory; institutions and facilities are named to glorify a racist. This shames America, and it will not stand.”

Greenblatt suggested that the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan be renamed the USS Leo Frank to commemorate a Jewish rapist and murderer who “should have got off fair and square” when Jewish power was used to secure his liberation. “This plan failed because of racists like Ronald Reagan,” said Greenblatt, with some bitterness.

He also proposed that Reagan National Airport be renamed “Levison National Airport” in honor of Stanley Levison, a friend and adviser to Martin Luther King Jr., who, according to Greenblatt, “wrote all of King’s speeches, told him what to say and do, and ran his whole operation. The Jews deserve the credit for this. It’s time the truth was told.”

British Cuckservatives are reeling from a similar blow when a recent BBC documentary revealed that Winston Churchill planned to run for re-election in the 1950s under the slogan “Keep England White.”

Asked for comment by the Daily Stormer on the recent revelations about Churchill and Reagan, British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said: “The ethical standards currently championed by elite classes within our culture are ones which almost no person born outwith the last few decades is capable of meeting. One thinks, for example, of Elizabeth [the First, Queen of England] who ordered ‘blackamoores’ to be rounded up and ‘sent forthe of the lande.’ Almost all the great men and women of our past would fail the ‘Woke Test.’ So either our entire previous civilization is invalid or our current ethical standards are. I’m afraid one of those things must be true.”

Adam Schiff the Jew Congressman who has been one of the main Democrats pushing this Russian kook crap, is simply incapable of telling the truth. He just went on national television and flat out lied about presidential pardon powers.

NY Post:

The top Democrat on a House panel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election said President Trump’s power to pardon is limited and he can’t use the action to try to obstruct justice.

“I don’t think the president’s power is all as, that absolute, as people have been suggesting,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told ABC’s “This Week.”

“The president cannot pardon people if it’s an effort to obstruct justice, if it’s an effort to prevent Bob Mueller, others, from learning about the president’s own conduct,” said Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, referring to the special counsel who is probing Russian meddling in the presidential election.

The question of Trump’s ability to pardon came up after CNN reported on Friday that Mueller’s investigation is expected to announce its first indictment as early as Monday.

He said if Trump had unlimited power to pardon, it would “nullify vast portions of the Constitution.”

This kike is full of crap.

Let’s look at the President’s pardon powers as described in the Constitution.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

It’s pretty cut and dry. The President has the power to grant pardons for crimes against the United States with the only exception involving impeachment. There are no other exceptions. It certainly doesn’t contain any exceptions that this Jew is describing.

We also have the historical precedent of Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon for any and all crimes he may have committed during most of his presidency.

The President’s pardon power has historically been considered to be a very broad discretionary power that is at the disposal of the office holder. It is interesting that Schiff is trying to reinterpret the pardon power at a time where its reinterpretation is politically convenient for his subversive agenda. He wants to put out this idea that if Trump pardons anyone who is indicted in this insane witch hunt, that it would be controversial for him to do so.

Truth doesn’t matter to kikes like Schiff. All these kikes care about is selling lies to the stupid goyim.

These Jews are a curse on us and need to be removed.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

“I am probably the epitome of everything the Nazis hated: the Jew pornographer who besmirches the pure morals of the white Aryan world. Hitler would have thought of me as the Devil incarnate.” – Al Goldstein¹

As we saw in part 8, explicit pornography began seeping up out of the underground and becoming widely available in America by the late 60s – early 70s, due to various Supreme Court decisions.

Predictably, this caused nationwide controversy, so Lyndon Johnson assembled a President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, ostensibly to study its effects on society.

The Commission, though claiming to be “neutral,” was stacked with members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had been the foremost organization fighting to loosen obscenity laws in America since the 1920s (see part 1). Even its chairman, William Lockhart, was a known member.

This outrageous conflict of interest made a liberal outcome a foregone conclusion. Indeed, their final report claimed that not only is access to pornography not harmful to society, it might even be beneficial, in that it will make people more “liberal” and “tolerant.”

Furthermore, they urged that all laws against pornography, except those which protect children, be repealed, and a “massive sex education be launched.”²

The panel relied very heavily on the findings of just one Danish Jew, Berl Kutchinsky. In 1967, Denmark had become the first country to legalize hardcore pornography, so Kutchinsky was commissioned to study the results and report his findings back to the Commission. He concluded that sex crimes had not increased, but rather had decreased, therefore pornography is safe.

(((Berl Kutchinsky)))

The Chief Counsel of the Commission was the Jew Paul Bender, also an ACLU member. Bender, who’s been called the “architect of the Commission’s report,” would later go on to be an outspoken defender of child pornography.³

In 1977, he testified to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that strict anti-child pornography laws are not morally justifiable because “the conclusion that child pornography causes child abuse involves too much speculation” and “most kids who act on these films probably are doing these acts aside from the films anyway.”⁴

Child pornography defender and Chief Counsel to the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, (((Paul Bender))).

A 300 page dissent from Charles Keating, which had been largely ghostwritten by a young Pat Buchanan, was attached to the final report.

When Nixon had come into office in 1969, he filled the one empty slot on the liberal-stacked commission with Keating. Keating was at the time the head of the Citizens for Decent Literature (CDL), which had been the premier group fighting against pornography since its founding in 1958.

From the beginning, Keating had been recommended for a seat on the commission by hundreds of people including governors, judges and congressmen, but a Jewish aide to Johnson, Ernest Goldstein, had successfully advised against it. He argued in a memo that “having Mr. Keating on the Commission will be a mistake.”⁵

(((Ernest Goldstein)))

The findings of the Commission were overwhelmingly rejected by Congress. The Senate rejected them with a 60-5 vote. One senator quipped that they “might just as well have asked the pornographers to write the report, although I doubt that even they would have had the temerity and effrontery to make the ludicrous recommendations that were made by the Commission.”

Nixon, for his part, also categorically rejected what he called the “morally bankrupt conclusions and major recommendations” of the Commission.

I will quote Nixon’s statement on the matter at length, due to its refreshing clarity:

The Commission contends that the proliferation of filthy books and plays has no lasting harmful effect on a man’s character. If that were true, it must also be true that great books, great paintings, and great plays have no ennobling effect on a man’s conduct. Centuries of civilization and 10 minutes of common sense tell us otherwise.

The Commission calls for the repeal of laws controlling smut for adults, while recommending continued restrictions on smut for children. In an open society, this proposal is untenable. If the level of filth rises in the adult community, the young people in our society cannot help but also be inundated by the flood.

Pornography can corrupt a society and a civilization. The people’s elected representatives have the right and obligation to prevent that corruption.

The warped and brutal portrayal of sex in books, plays, magazines, and movies, if not halted and reversed, could poison the wellsprings of American and Western culture and civilization.

The pollution of our culture, the pollution of our civilization with smut and filth is as serious a situation for the American people as the pollution of our once-pure air and water.

And Nixon was well aware of exactly who it was behind the proliferation of pornography.

In a tape recorded conversation from February 1, 1972, with Reverend Billy Graham – the most powerful preacher in the country at that time – Graham is heard telling Nixon that the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media “has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.”

“You believe that?” Nixon replies. “Oh, boy. So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

“And they’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Graham goes on to say, to no objection from Nixon.

In another taped conversation from February 21, 1973, Graham refers to the Jews as the “Synagogue of Satan,” and again accuses them of being “the ones putting out the pornographic literature” and “these obscene films.” Nixon, again, offers no objection.

Therefore, two of the most powerful people in the country knew it was the Jews behind the spread of nation-wrecking pornography, yet they felt that they could do nothing about it because of the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media. Pretty incredible.

Billy Graham and Richard Nixon

Nixon is heard discussing the pornography question in a January 2, 1973 taped conversation with his newly appointed Chief Justice, Warren Burger. They both mock the ridiculous “socially redeeming value” rule of the Roth decision, which had been the reigning obscenity precedent since 1957 (see part 3). Burger calls it “one of the biggest frauds ever.”

“That’s a phrase that emanated from some of the campuses in this period,” he says. “You know this means if they have one of these outrageous orgies, then if they mention Vietnam or the condition of the ghettos, that ‘redeems’ the whole thing.”

Ultimately Nixon was able to appoint four conservative justices to the Supreme Court (the other three being Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist). Concerned citizens across the nation waited breathlessly for them to do something about the liberalized obscenity laws.

The case in which they finally attempted to scale them back was Miller v. California, which again had a Jewish defendant, Marvin Miller. Miller had been convicted for mailing pornographic advertisements for his “Adult Entertainment” business to random people in California. A mother complaining about how her child had opened one is how the case had been initiated.

The Burger Court upheld Miller’s conviction by a 5-4 vote on June 21, 1973, and the decision resulted in a new obscenity “test,” called the Miller test.

The Miller test superseded the previous Roth test, but it was very similar. Really, only a few words had been altered here and there. Most significantly, though, it shifted the legal responsibility away from the national standards that had been set during the 60s (see part 4), back to “contemporary, community standards.”

Once Miller became the new precedent, it put a stop to there being any more nationwide theatrical hits such as Deep Throat (see part 8), and the authorities quickly moved against several high-profile porn figures, including the Jew Al Goldstein, who was probably the most subversive and disgusting pornographer in the entire country.

Goldstein had begun his pornographic magazine, Screw, in New York in 1968. He beat 19 obscenity charges within the next two years.⁶

It was arranged for Goldstein to be tried in Wichita, Kansas, where public sentiment was thought to be more conservative than New York, now that local rather than national standards were the criteria again (a law official in Wichita ordered an issue of Screw, and once it was mailed, the charge was made).

After three high-profile, very expensive trials, Wichita failed to get a conviction for Goldstein.

Part of the reason Goldstein was not convicted is the fact that by this time the Jewish cultural revolution (see part 5) had been largely victorious. As Whitney Strub wrote in Obscenity Rules:

Miller seemingly made prosecutions easier, but in fact this cultural drift made convictions harder to obtain. Juries were tougher to shock, more reluctant to send people to prison for obscenity. A more liberal culture reigned in the more conservative doctrine.⁷

Another reason Goldstein was not convicted is that he and his team of lawyers exploited one particular phrase in the Miller test: “appeals to the prurient interest.” This line was also in the Roth test, and forcing the court to take it literally is a tactic that lawyers of obscenity cases had been using for years.

In one of Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce’s numerous trials (see part 4), for instance, a Jewish lawyer exploited the “prurient interest” line by asking: “Anybody at that show, after hearing Mr. Bruce, did they masturbate?”⁸

Carlos Porter gives us some background on this curious bit of Jewish trickery:

It was finally decided that “obscenity” meant “appeal to prurient interest”. So in every obscenity trial, the defense lawyer simply asked the prosecution witnesses whether the material appealed to his/her “prurient interest”. The question always went something like this: “How do you feel about this material personally, do you find it stimulating?” (Remember, these are prosecution witnesses being asked the question, the people who brought the complaint.)

The answer was always, “No, I think it’s disgusting”, or, “I think it’s boring”. Then, since nobody would ever admit that the stuff turned him/her on, it was argued that it didn’t appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest”, and was therefore not obscene!

In one Supreme Court case (U.S. vs. Cohen), it was held that the words “Fuck the Draft” did not appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest” and were therefore not obscene; a long series of other cases then held that expressions such as “mother-fucking racist pig cop” did not appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest” either, so nothing was ever obscene, so everything had to be legalized! (See footnote for Porter’s sources.)⁹

This is how Goldstein himself put it in his book I, Goldstein: My Screwed Life:

The big threat of obscenity was whether it ‘appealed to prurient interest.’ Aside from being dirty, morbid, and offensive, the contents of Screw were only deemed criminal if it was sexy enough to, in the words of legalese ‘create an erection in a male or a moist vaginal area in a female.’. . . Put in the position of having to admit to a boner on the stand, expert puritans waxed apoplectic. Thus, the prosecution would crumble on the matter of ‘prurient interest.’¹⁰

Goldstein’s trial, coupled with the other two unsuccessful high-profile obscenity cases of the time (one for the sleazy Hustler pornographer Larry Flynt, and the other for the Jewish actor of Deep Throat, “Harry Reems”), took much of the wind out of the Miller precedent.

In a video in 2013, Goldstein eloquently boasted:

I give my very fucking best. When I eat pussy, when I lick asshole. I try to be a good hump. I try and give you the best writings and insight. What makes Al Goldstein? Al Goldstein’s a fucking legend. How many people legalized pornography? I mean fucking Fishbein is coasting, and Ron Jeremy is coasting. I changed the law.

Goldstein didn’t actually “change the law.” Rather, he beat the law. His trials sent a message: If even the most filthy and brazen pornographer couldn’t be convicted in a supposedly conservative area such as Wichita, Kansas, who could?

Thus began what is known as the “Golden Age of Porn.” The rest, as they say, is history. Our country has been flooded with all manner of perverted filth ever since.

(((Al Goldstein)))

The Jewish domination of porn is so well-documented – and admitted openly by so many Jews – there’s not a whole lot that needs to said about it.

Luke Ford, for instance, who is not racially Jewish but is a convert to Judaism, writes in his book on the history of pornography, A History of X:

Though only 2 percent of the American population, Jews dominate porn. Most of the leading male performers through the 1980s had Jewish parents. Leading Jewish pornographers include Wesley Emerson, Paul Fishbein, Lenny Friedlander, Paul Norman, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Hank Weinstein, Fred Hirsh and his children Steve and Marjorie, Steve Orenstein, Theodore Rothstein, and Rueben Sturman.¹¹

(((Luke Ford)))

Jewish scholar Dr. Nathan Abrams documented the extensive Jewish role in pornography in an article for the Jewish Quarterly titled “Triple-exthnics.” It begins with the following:

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.

Reuben Sturman, whom Dr. Abrams calls the “Walt Disney of Porn,” and Ford calls the “Godfather of Porn,” was the foremost distributor of porn in America throughout the 70s and 80s.

“You wanted to know how the sex industry started,” Sturman said to his biographer, Eric Schlosser, “well you’re looking at the person who started it.”¹²

(((Reuben Sturman)))

The empires of Sturman’s three closest competitors, according to Schlosser, “were easily dwarfed in size” by his.¹³

“In 1991,” Fredrick S. Lane notes in his book Obscene Profits, “Time estimated that Sturman’s empire grossed roughly $1 million per day ‘from the sale of lewd magazines, videos and marital aids.’”¹⁴

All that porn money apparently wasn’t enough for this greedy Jewish gangster, so he constantly cheated on his taxes. It was a point of pride for him. It took an agent tracking him full-time 14 years to finally bring an indictment. In 1989 he was sentenced to 10 years and millions in fines for his tax evasion.

He later earned an additional 19 years for extortion. In 1992, he managed to escape from prison via helicopter, but was recaptured shortly after. He finally died in prison in 1997, while facing yet another charge for conspiracy in a bombing.

The ”contemporary incarnation of Sturman,” writes Abrams, “is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno.’”

(((Steven Hirsch)))

Even Playboy magazine, which was founded by the gentile Hugh Hefner, has unsurprisingly operated under heavy Jewish influence since day one.

Josh Lambert, in an article for the online Jewish journal Tablet, quotes a former top Jewish Playboy editor, Nat Lehrman, as saying: “The whole staff, practically, was Jewish. We were the dominant, probably the brighter ones.”

In 1980, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) presented Hugh Hefner with a “Freedom Award.” This just goes to show the almost monolithic Jewish support for pornography, as the ADL is one of their main official organizations.

Abe Foxman, the long time director of the ADL, once claimed that the “Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.”

(((Abe Foxman))), former director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

Again, there’s no real reason to belabor this point, as saying the pornography industry is Jewish is like saying the sky is blue.

The real question is: why? Why are the Jews so prominent in pornography? Pornography is an extremely profitable business, of course. But are the Jews only motivated by money when they produce and distribute porn?

“The adult industry was pretty much founded by the Jews,” says Mike Kulich in a 2015 filmed interview. Kulich, who is now deceased, was the Jewish owner of “the biggest porn company in the world,” Monarchy Distribution, when the video was recorded.

Kulich explains that most of the male porn stars since the 70s have been Jewish, while most of the female performers have been Roman Catholics. He says when he asked many of these male Jewish performers what their motivation for doing porn was, their answer was always because they get “to fuck Roman Catholic chicks” and “fulfill like every fantasy that every Jewish boy has ever had” (“Roman Catholic,” in this context, is basically just a euphemism for “White gentile”).

Mike Kulich (right) with “conservative” Jewish homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos.

Kulich specifically named Ron Jeremy, the repulsive Jew who has been turned into a sort of folk hero by the Jewish-dominated media, as being one of the porn stars who told him this.

Kulich’s statement parallels what Harvey Cohen had allegedly told “undercover Jew” Adam Goldstein: “As you’re aware, it’s Jewish fantasy to screw gentile women…Besides, why would Jewish pornographers care about gentile fantasy?”

Dr. Nathan Abrams also says the same of the Jewish male/White female porn star dichotomy: “The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.”

“Shiksa” is a derogatory Yiddish term Jews use for White women. It translates to English, according to Lambert, in his book Unclean Lips: Jews, Obscenity and American Culture, as: “‘unclean creature,’ reptile; abomination, detestation, uncleanliness.”¹⁵

Gross Jew Ron Jeremy has become rich and famous by fulfilling his fantasy of “schtupping the shiksa.”

When Al Goldstein was asked by Luke Ford why there were so many Jews in porn, he replied: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

Here is one final quote in regard to the Jews’ motivations for producing and promoting pornography. It again comes from Dr. Nathan Abrams, and is probably the most revealing and shocking of them all:

Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast.’ Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.

(((Dr. Nathan Abrams)))

It doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.

Let’s recap, in case that didn’t sink in. Pornography – by the Jews’ own admission – is an opportunity to weaken our culture through “moral subversion,” denigrate Christianity, and defile our women – who, I repeat, they refer to derogatorily as “shiksas.”

They admit all of this openly, with nothing but contempt for us “goyim.”

How does that make you feel, dear reader?

Conclusion

The logical and reasonable response to Jewish behavior is to organize politically and remove them from society entirely, as populations have had to do repeatedly for thousands of years.

Understanding this possible outcome, naturally the Jews do whatever is in their power to prevent it from happening again. Most of their policies – such as pushing for mass immigration and “rights” for various minority groups – are geared towards making this potential eventuality less likely or impossible.

Same goes for all of the considerable media they have brought under their control. They use it to brainwash and socially engineer society in a way that makes them feel more safe and comfortable. The majority demographic, Whites, are generally portrayed as evil oppressors, while Jews and other non-Whites are portrayed as our hapless victims.

This serves the dual purpose of making Whites feel guilty, while simultaneously giving minorities a burning hatred toward us. In short, it is conditioning for our genocide.

We’ve also seen a phasing out of traditional White heroes from television and Hollywood movies. Even TV commercials now put out a consistent anti-White message, with White males frequently being portrayed and weak and incompetent pussies, and non-Whites – mainly Blacks – being portrayed as intelligent, alpha males.

An atomized, weak, and passive populace poses much less of a threat to a highly-organized, hyper-ethnocentric hostile minority. It’s as simple as that.

Thus the Jews have a vested interest in neutering and emasculating the men of their host societies – in this case, us – because strong men are the only ones who will be willing and capable of rising up against them and kicking them out – not a bunch of emasculated beta males, sitting around jerking off to porn.

“Best you and your hook-nosed tribe of filth merchants get outta town before there’s trouble.”

This phenomenon has reached a fever pitch. “Transgender” people are now put up as heroes, tearing down “toxic masculinity” is an explicit goal that is worked towards in our colleges and universities, and our society is completely saturated with pornography and sexualized imagery.

Whether or not the Jews, in sexualizing our culture, are doing it to deliberately cause us harm, or are just acting on instinct (or, the most likely: some combination of the two), doesn’t matter one bit. The outcome is the same.

Masturbation to pornography is emasculating not just spiritually and emotionally, but also physically. Conversely, quitting porn results in a process of remasculation, as recent revelations by tens of thousands of men who have been addicted to it and then found the will to reject it have unequivocally shown.

This issue of masculinity cannot be stressed enough when dealing with the question of pornography – which is why I am pressing it so strongly.

Pornography is comparable to a hard drug, such as heroin or cocaine, in that it is addictive and it releases dopamine into your brain from your biological reward center, and gives you a mental high (this is why drugs are nicknamed “dope”).

In evolutionary terms, the reason for this is obvious, as it has encouraged us to procreate through the years. Things which are potentially beneficial or even necessary such as eating, having sex, winning the hunt, etc., trigger a positive chemical response, just as things which may potentially cause us harm will trigger a negative one (fear, pain, embarrassment, etc.).

Each time we look at a sexualized image of a healthy female, our brain gets a dose of dopamine, which is telling us: go forth and multiply. High speed internet, with its limitless amounts of thumbnail pictures and real-time videos, has made it so that our brains can be flooded with this dopamine over and over and over again, in a short period of time.

In an especially vile interview with Playboy magazine, Jewish singer-songwriter John Mayer acknowledges the problem with high speed internet porn perfectly (yet then goes on to say he supports it anyway):

Mayer: . . . By the way, pornography? It’s a new synaptic pathway. You wake up in the morning, open a thumbnail page, and it leads to a Pandora’s box of visuals. There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed.

Playboy: What’s your point about porn and relationships?

Mayer: Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generation’s expectations. How could you be constantly synthesizing an orgasm based on dozens of shots? You’re looking for the one photo out of 100 you swear is going to be the one you finish to, and you still don’t finish. Twenty seconds ago you thought that photo was the hottest thing you ever saw, but you throw it back and continue your shot hunt and continue to make yourself late for work. How does that not affect the psychology of having a relationship with somebody? It’s got to.

Playboy: You seem very fond of pornography.

Mayer: When I watch porn, if it’s not hot enough, I’ll make up backstories in my mind. My biggest dream is to write pornography.

(((John Mayer)))

This continual flood of dopamine dulls men’s minds, saps their motivation, and actually begins to rewire their neural pathways. This can even be seen in brain scans.

Years ago, many young men who had self-diagnosed themselves as internet porn addicts, and had recognized its side effects, began to gather online in support groups to work together toward breaking the habit. They came to call themselves NoFap, and what they discovered is nothing short of incredible.

Every side effect reported by the NoFap community is directly related to emasculation. Those who have managed to quit have, all reinforcing each other, reported the same effects, which are the following:

• Increase in motivation
• Increase in confidence
• Ability to make and hold eye contact
• Increased attention from women
• Deeper voice
• Thicker hair
• Gain in muscle mass
• Relieved depression
• Better memory
• Better able to concentrate and focus
• More energy
• Decrease in social awkwardness

Here is an 157-page PDF of positive results from NoFappers, compiled from various NoFap forums.

What’s more, porn causes many of its users to escalate to more and more extreme forms of porn as the novelty of each wears off.

Eventually, they lose all attraction to real women, and the ability to even hold an erection while having sex with them.

I repeat: Porn addicts can only hold an erection by looking at a computer screen and not with a real woman.

It is therefore not an exaggeration to say that the widespread availability of Jewish pornography is a civilizational-scale crisis of alarming proportions. Coupled with Jewish feminism (see part 7), it will destroy us completely, in very short order. With entire generations having been warped and emasculated by the concentrated Jewish poison I have outlined in these articles, our society has been ripened for conquest by hostile outsiders. We are now actually witnessing this happen in real time.

This kind of thing would not be tolerated in a strong and healthy White society.

So, what can we, the minority who is able to see what is happening around us, do about it?

Well, first of all – and this should go without saying – we must categorically reject all pornography and Jewish filth in our own lives.

To do otherwise means actively and willingly participating in the destruction of our civilization, our race, and ourselves.

If you are struggling with pornography addiction, search out the online NoFap communities and begin working to break the habit today. There are literally hundreds of thousands of men who are eager to help you through it.

This is the current count of the Reddit NoFap community alone.

Along with rejecting degeneracy, as I’ve already said, we need to strip the Jews of all power and expel them. The former is a necessary prerequisite for the latter.

This is a difficult task, and it will be an uphill battle – but it needs to be carried out. There is no Plan B.

It is a terrible situation we find ourselves in, but it is also an important lesson. What doesn’t kill us will make us stronger. Maybe this was all meant to be, to put us through a test.

Maybe we needed to hit rock bottom to really find it in ourselves to again rise to the top and learn for all time what mistakes we can never afford to make again.

The bottom line, as far as I see it, is this: Yes, the Jews are largely responsible for the mess we’re in. But, it is up to us to get ourselves out of it – nobody is going to do it for us. If we are not strong enough to reject pornography and degeneracy in our own personal lives, then we will perish as a people and will not have deserved to live in the first place.

If this is our fate, going to our grave pointing at the Jew as the reason for our downfall is not going to cut it, and frankly is a weak and pathetic way to go down.

We know what the Jews are. This series and endless amounts of other books and articles unmasks them, as does their own words and actions.

They are our enemy.

Will we again find who and what we are and overcome them, or will they succeed in destroying us and everything we hold dear?

Only time will tell.

I know I for one will die on my feet before kneeling to these parasites, and I know plenty of other men who are filled with the same resolve. Our numbers are growing by the day.

Hopefully you will join us on the Alt-Right, if you haven’t already.

It will be the best choice you’ve ever made, I can promise you that.

If you enjoy this series, please consider supporting the author by purchasing a print copy.

Notes

BEGIN CITATION

… He said they were having trouble getting CIA records on Kennedy’s decisions or actions on Cuba and South Vietnam. Then the President switched the subject to getting the Internal Revenue Service to give them records on political opponents opponents and stop investigations of their friends: “John, we have the power but are we using it to investigate contributors to Hubert Humphrey, contributors to Muskie, the Jews, you know, that are stealing every—You know, they have really tried to crucify Hobart Lewis, Robert Abplanalp, I mean, while we’ve been in office even…. And John Wayne, of course, and Paul Keyes….” Lewis was the editor of Reader’s Digest. “What the hell are we doing?

… He was raging again about the Internal Revenue Service. “Billy Graham tells me an astonishing thing,” he told Haldeman on September 13. “The IRS is battering the shit out of him. Some son-of-a-bitch came to him and gave him a three-hour grilling. Connally took the name of the guy…. Now here’s the point. Bob, please get me the names of the Jews, you know, the big Jewish contributors of the Democrats…. All right. Could we please investigate some of the cocksuckers? That’s all.” There was more of the same the next day: “You see, the IRS is full of Jews, Bob…. That’s the reason they’re after Graham….”

Graham, in the office later to discuss holding his crusades in states critical to Nixon in 1972, had his own ideas about such things, as recorded by Haldeman in his diary: “There was considerable discussion of the terrible problem arising from the total Jewish domination of the media…. Graham has the strong feeling that the Bible says that there are satanic Jews and that’s where our problem arises….”

…Then Nixon called Mitchell, first telling him he wanted the Immigration and Naturalization Service district director in Los Angeles fired or transferred: “The fellow out there in the immigration service is a kike by the name of Rosenberg. He is out. He is to be out….”

… Nixon met with Haldeman, Kissinger, and Ziegler for three hours, going over details, including the list of just over one hundred reporters, news executives, and cameramen and other technicians who had been chosen by the White House for the trip [to China]. “Are there any non-Jews here?” Nixon asked as he read down the list.

… Later, Haldeman came in to tell Nixon that his men had discovered that most of the Watergate leaks were coming from the FBI. “It’s pretty high up,” he said, and named the deputy director. “Mark Felt.” “Now why the hell would he do that?” the President asked. “You can’t say anything about this, because it will screw up our source…. Mitchell is the only one that knows this and he feels very strongly that we better not do anything because … if we move on him, he’ll go out and unload everything. He knows everything that’s to be known in the FBI. He has access to absolutely everything.” “What would you do with Felt?” Nixon said. “Well, I asked Dean…. He says you can’t prosecute him, that he hasn’t committed any crime. Dean’s concerned if you let him know now he’ll go out and go on network television…. I think he wants to be in the top spot.” “That’s a hell of a way for him to get to the top,” Nixon said. “… Is he a Catholic?” “Jewish,” Haldeman answered. “Christ,” said the President. “Put a Jew in there? … What’s the conveyor belt for Felt?” “The Post.” “It could be the Jewish thing,” said Nixon. “I don’t know. It’s always a possibility.”

…Ehrlichman and Haldeman were most faithful scribes, filling hundreds of pages as the meetings in Aspen Lodge went on day after day behind the chain-link fences and spotlights on the perimeter of the two-hundred-acre mountain retreat. Their notes quoting the President and recording his orders included: “Not brains, we want loyalty”; “Foreign Service appointments—based first on loyalty then competence”; “Get good hacks in the departments as Secretaries under this system”; “Fewer people talk to the President—cut the staff”; “Eliminate the politicians, except George Bush. He’d do anything for the cause”; “Do quotas—balance—Too many Jews. Tell Richardson this in spades”; “Italian, Mexican—couldn’t find any. Plenty of blacks—must keep some incompetent blacks”; “Publicize Ash and Shultz as Catholic”; “Genius needs to be recognized—e.g. HAK. Henry is a rag merchant, starts at 50 percent to get 25 percent. That’s why he’s so good with the Russians.”

END CITATION

Source: Richard Nixon: Alone in the White House by Richard Reeves

See Parts 1 and 2.

Watch this documentary about Nixon, which features many recordings of him speaking, often juxtaposed with other footage of what he was speaking about. It is obviously intended to harm his reputation according to conventional standards of public morality, but I imagine most visitors to this blog will view it more sympathetically. Much of it is hilarious.

You can’t help but be struck by the parallels between Nixon and Trump. Nixon also seemed to be engaged in a war against political correctness while pretending to stay within its boundaries. And, like Trump, Nixon sensed that the entire Establishment, including the press and elements of the government apparatus, was working to undermine him. It was largely his feeling of grievance about this that led him to resort to underhand methods. His logic was: they are playing unfair against me, I will play unfair against them. Will Trump make similar choices and will his presidency end the same way?

[My own comments are in italics and square brackets like this]

On February 22, 1969, he sent a memo to Secretary of State Rogers and Henry Kissinger on a subject he knew better, the Middle East: I have noted in reading the papers prepared by the State Department and by the Security Council Review Board on the Mideast, references from time to time on “domestic political considerations.” The purpose of this memorandum is twofold:

(1) Under no circumstances will domestic political considerations have any bearing on the decisions I make with regard to the Mideast.

(2) The only consideration which will affect my decisions on this policy will be the security interests of the United States. In the future, I want no reference to domestic political considerations to be included in any papers.

On one level the order was about Israel, and thus about the strong support of Israel by American Jews. Richard Nixon did not like “our Jewish friends” or “New York Jews” or “the fucking Jews”—phrases he regularly used in private, projecting a rhetorical anti-Semitism not uncommon to Republicans of his time, though in his case more vulgar. He sometimes called Kissinger “Jew-boy” or “my Jew-boy,” usually when his associate in foreign policy was not in the room, but occasionally when he was. 

He had already told his national security adviser that the one area of the world where Rogers would have primary authority would be the Middle East. Nixon was determined to improve relations with the Arab countries equally determined to destroy Israel—Arab countries becoming more dependent on aid and weapons from the Soviet Union—and he thought there was little chance Arab leaders would welcome a Jewish emissary from the United States. Also, Kissinger had never been in an Arab country. Besides, as the President would tell anyone who would listen, “The Jews voted 95 percent against me.” 

… The next day, Nixon met with King Hussein of Jordan, who came with messages from Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic (Egypt). The thirty-three-year-old king said that he and the Egyptian ruler had been polar opposites in the Arab world but had been drawn together by crushing defeat in the 1967 war with Israel and by the internal dangers and pressures of increasing Arab extremism in their countries since that defeat. He said he had been authorized by Nasser to tell Nixon that the United Arab Republic would like to reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States and that all Arabs were willing to negotiate a “just and honorable” settlement document with Israel—anything short of a formal peace treaty.

“The Arabs have learned,” said Hussein, whose country was home to more Palestinian refugees than Jordanian citizens since the 1967 war, “that Israel’s right to exist is now unchallenged.” The President was interested. He said the United States wanted a settlement and asked Hussein to prepare informal proposals on borders in the area, with emphasis on what to do about Jerusalem, which had been divided between Israeli and Jordanian control before 1967, but now, along with all the territories of the West Bank of the Jordan River, was occupied by Israel.

Nixon was greatly impressed with Hussein. As he waved good-bye outside the White House—when he liked the leaders of other nations he would walk with them right up to their cars in the driveway—he turned to a State Department official and said: “We’ve got to help the King. We cannot let the American Jews dictate policy.” 

… The first Gallup poll after the Mobe [these were antiwar demos] showed Nixon at new highs, with a 68 percent approval rating. But those numbers had not helped Haynsworth. On November 21, the Senate voted fifty-five to forty-five against his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. The President was as angry as he was newly popular. During one of several tantrums over the courts and Haynsworth and also over the increasing coverage and investigations of the My Lai killings, the President slammed his desk and said, “It’s those dirty rotten New York Jews.” 

[About the situation in the Middle East]
… On the American side, the game was complicated by Nixon’s determination not to give in to pressure from American Jews to give Israel whatever it asked for, and by the corrosive contempt and suspicion between Kissinger and Secretary of State Rogers.

From the beginning, the President had given Rogers control over Mideast policy, because of Kissinger’s ignorance of that part of the world and because he did not like the idea of an American Jew dealing with Arabs fighting Israeli Jews. In fact, American policy in the area was called the “Rogers Plan”—the Secretary’s proposal for a return to something like the region’s pre-1967 borders in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel’s sovereignty—the Jewish state’s right to exist. Land for peace.

[Regarding the leak of what came to be known as the “Pentagon papers”, related to the Vietnam war]

There were only fifteen copies. Five were in Laird’s safe at the Pentagon, and the Secretary occasionally referred to them for background on bombing decisions. There were copies at the Kennedy and Johnson presidential libraries. Seven had gone to former Johnson administration officials, including Robert S. McNamara and his successor as secretary of defense, Clark Clifford. Two copies, under the control of Gelb and Morton Halperin, who had quit Kissinger’s staff to go to Brookings, were in safes of the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica. Nixon told Haldeman that it might have been someone on Kissinger’s own staff, or just some group of “fucking Jews.” 

Kissinger thought at first that the leak consisted of a few pages and probably was done by Laird, his administration rival as a master of the care and feeding of the press. But when Laird told him there were seven thousand pages—sixty pounds of paper—Kissinger knew immediately it could have been only one man, Daniel Ellsberg.

[Ellsberg was responsible for the leak. He was ethnically Jewish although his parents had “converted” to “Christian Science” so Nixon’s intuition was basically correct.]

President Nixon now told Haldeman, once more, to cut off all contact with The New York Times. Warming to the subject the next morning, he talked about the Times and its Washington bureau chief, Max Frankel, adding conversationally: “Don’t give them anything … because of that damned Jew Frankel all the time—he’s bad ….”

…On July 3, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced one of the largest drops ever recorded in monthly unemployment numbers, from 6.2 percent to 5.6 percent. But The New York Times—under the headline “JOBLESS RATE OFF SHARPLY, BUT DOUBT IS CAST ON DATA”—reported it this way: “The nation’s unemployment rate dropped substantially in June but part of the reason was a statistical aberration, the Labor Department reported….”

In the third paragraph, the story quoted Harold Goldstein, the assistant commissioner of labor statistics, saying that the rate would go up again when high school and college students came home looking for summer work. Nixon’s reaction was explosive: “That little Jew cocksucker is the same guy who screwed us in the Eisenhower administration He’s a radical left-winger who hates us.” He took off from there, telling Haldeman and Colson, not for the first time: “Washington is full of Jews…. Most Jews are disloyal”—he excepted Kissinger, Safire, and Leonard Garment—“Bob, generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?” Haldeman said, not for the first time, he was right. Colson added: “You just have to go down the goddamned list and you know they are out to kill us.”

The result was a transfer of Goldstein, a civil service employee, and a presidential order to a White House staffer named Frederick Malek to find out how many Jews were in the bureau. Malek’s answer came back in a memo: “Thirteen of the 35 fit the demographic criterion which was discussed.” 

[Excerpted from President Nixon: Alone in the White House by Richard Reeves.]

See Part 1 here.

A few days ago, in another post, I mentioned Richard Reeves’ book “Nixon: Alone in the White House” and how it was full of Nixon’s pungent comments about Jews. I’ve been looking through it again. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there. I’m going to post some excerpts in a series of posts. We’ll start with one excerpt about the episode I mentioned in the previous article. It seems I misremembered it, in fact. I thought it was about General de Gaulle, whom Nixon really admired. In fact, it involved another French President, Georges Pompidou.

BEGIN CITATION

The President’s good mood ended on February 26. “This is as mad as I’ve ever seen him,” Haldeman told Ehrlichman that day. The President was pacing in the Oval Office cursing Jews because of demonstrations across the country against Georges Pompidou, the president of France.

The French leader was on an eight-day state visit and had spent the first two days at Camp David and in Washington, talking with Nixon before going on to dinners and speeches in San Francisco, Chicago, and New York. At every stop, Pompidou and his wife were booed and jeered by angry crowds protesting a French decision to sell 110 Mirage jet fighters to the new revolutionary government of Libya, headed by a twenty-seven-year-old army colonel named Muammar al-Quaddafi, while refusing to sell 50 of the planes to Israel.

In Chicago the demonstrators got close enough to rough up Pompidou and spit on his wife. “This is unconscionable,” raged Nixon. “The fucking Jews think they can run the world. Well…” And on and on.

He decided right there to postpone the sale and delivery of twenty-five U.S. Phantom jets and eighty Skyhawks to Israel—a sale that he had secretly approved only two weeks before in meetings with Prime Minister Golda Meir. Turning to Kissinger, he said, “I don’t want any more Jews in here to talk about the Middle East.”

Then he read that both Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Mayor John Lindsay were boycotting the France-America Society dinner honoring the Pompidous at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City. “I’m going then, goddamn them,” he said.

As for the city and its mayor, the President signed off on a long memo to Ehrlichman that began with an order: “Cut all federal projects you can find which provide aid for New York City…. Discontinue or delay programs with discretionary funding which directly aid the City government, concentrating on three departments vital to the City’s needs—HEW, HUD and Transportation.”

The President flew to New York on March 2 for the French-American dinner. Protesters were chanting outside the hotel and Nixon used them to get a couple of laughs. Toasting the French president, Nixon said: “When I learned that President and Madame Pompidou were coming to the United States, I wanted them to see our country, the United States, as a President of the United States saw it….” He paused. The audience of seventeen hundred paused, too, for a second and then broke into laughter and applause. Nixon picked up, “And I must say, we overdid it a bit, as we usually do.” More laughter.

The front page of The New York Times the next morning included four separate stories on the dinner. The headline across the top of page one began: “NIXON OFFERS HIS APOLOGY.” Below that was a story with the headline “JEWS AFFRONTED,” reporting on Pompidou’s canceling a planned meeting with American Jewish leaders.

END CITATION

Here are some extracts from the NYT article

BEGIN CITATION

Even as President Nixon prepared to fly to New York for a dinner in honor of the French President that neither Governor Rockefeller nor Mayor Lindsay, would attend, Mr. Pompidou affronted Jewish leaders by abruptly canceling a morning meeting arranged with them at the Waldorf Astoria.

The Jewish leaders who were to have met with the French head of state issued a statement denouncing President Pompidou’s “rudeness.” They said they were “appalled at this act of discourtesy.”

Later, in response to a reporter’s question about this statement, Mr. Pompidou said in riposte, “Where is courtesy?”

The Jewish leaders said that the conference had been arranged more than a month ago through French officials. It was reconfirmed by the French Embassy last Friday, they said, and the first they knew of any cancellation came about 10 A.M., an hour before the scheduled meeting, when a reporter asked for comment on Mr. Pompidou’s change of plan.

Half an hour later, they said, someone called from the French consulate general to say that President Pompidou probably, would be unable to see them and to suggest that French Foreign Minister Maurice Schumann meet them instead.

Dr. William A. Wexler of Savannah, Ga., president of B’nai B’rith, retorted that the Jewish leaders had come from all over the country to hear President Pompidou’s explanation of the controversial sale of jet fighter planes to Libya, and that they would accept no substitute.

Waited Several Hours

They waited several hours in the hotel, hoping that President Pompidou, who had gone to the United Nations for lunch with Secretary General U Thant, might arrange to see them afterward at the Pompidou suite in the Waldorf Towers.

END CITATION

Source