Florence Schechter – typical filthy Jew.

Florence Schechter – a feminist jewess from the United Kingdom – has been making waves around the world with her idea for a ‘Vagina Museum’. She is the daughter of Russian-born jewish klezmer musician Gregori Schechter.

Schechter described her motivation for this rather weird decision as follows:

I felt quite upset because I’m a big feminist and I believe in equality. I thought, “how can there be a penis museum and not a vagina museum?”

She also claims to want to promote ‘knowledge about’ and ‘pride in’ vaginas, but yet is also – inexplicably if she just wanted to promote feminism – is that her ‘Vagina museum’ will also push ‘awareness of body shaming’, ‘gay rights’ and ‘trans acceptance’.

She also wants to fight female genital mutilation (aka FGM) among the world’s Muslim community and convince ‘religious girls’ to be proud of losing their virginity and not to engage in anal sex.

Yet this is all a publicity stunt by Schechter.

The Great Wall of Vagina

We realize when we note that despite having decided to build her ‘Vagina Museum’ in the left-wing homosexual-infested seaside city of Brighton in the United Kingdom. She has no money or backing let alone permission to create any such thing.

To quote the Independent’s profile of her:

At the moment, the museum is in its very early days. All that Schechter has so far is some keen volunteers, social media pages and a Patreon fundraising page.

And the more detailed comment in the National Student’s interview with her:

Despite the fact Florence, with a helping hand from volunteers, is being proactive and getting out there with the project, it’s “humongously variable” as to when the Museum will be physically up and running. “Best case scenario, minimum 5 years, worst case scenario, 25 years, it’s going to cost a lot and takes a long time to build a museum from scratch, I’ve done research and the best way to be successful and not fall on my face is to start small and keep doing these little projects and talks and build it up.”

Then in the same interview she lets the cat out of the bag in regard to what her motivation really is: money and promoting her company.

To wit:

Florence describes the process as a form of market research, taking the project nationally, meeting with people to find out what they want and need because without that, “how can I educate and empower if I don’t know what they need?”, says Florence.

It turns out that Schechter owns a company called ‘CollabLab’, which makes ‘science films’ and is the legal entity behind her eponymous YouTube channel. Her YouTube channel is tiny with a mere 3,585 subscribers at the time of writing [why not leave a comment there? – Ed]. Part of the reason for this is because Schechter doesn’t really upload much new content and what there are largely short not particularly funny somewhat science-related skits.

Not exactly a recipe for a mass following.

That being said; the fact that Schechter has been riding the ‘Vagina Museum’ publicity wave as best she can but at the same time she wants charities like Refuge, companies like sanitary towel manufacturer Always and unspecified ‘high-profile women’ to fund her museum.

While of course operating a for profit company in the form of ‘CollabLab’ that is tangentially linked and stands to benefit substantially from the operation of such a museum.

Put another way Schechter is essentially trying to build her own company – and concomitantly her own fortune and profile (ironically alluded to by the Jewish Daily Forward’s reference to her as a ‘communications professional’) – by riding the fashionable feminist political wave and doing so in explicitly jewish way. As illustrated by her giving a presentation of her Vagina Museum recently at the Limmud Festival of Jewish Learning in Birmingham, England.

The Council on Foreign Relations (hereafter CFR) has often been argued to be one of the most important forums for the determination of the foreign policy of the United States. This simplistic view has come in for some judicious and well-deserved criticism from scholars of the subject. (1)

While I don’t hold to the view that the CFR has relatively little influence other than as talking shop as suggested by Schulzinger. (2) I also think it is important not to overstate it, but rather to see the CFR as one of an interlocking sequence of complementary and competing foreign policy think tanks jockeying for prominence and influence in the North American political landscape.

I think we can reasonably suggest however that the CFR is one of the more important and successful of these organizations given the prominence of its senior membership and sheer staying power in the arena of intellectual debate on the subject.

Therefore it is of great interest to us to ascertain the extent of jewish and Zionist influence within the CFR.

Looking at the CFR’s Board of Directors of 36 members we find the following jewish individuals: (3)

David Dalin (4)
David Rubenstein (5)
Richard Haass (6)
Zoe Baird (7)
Alan Blinder (8)
Blair Effron (9)
Laurence Douglas Fink (10)
Stephen Friedman (11)
Thomas Glocer (12)
John Paulson (13)
Ruth Porat (14)
Richard Salomon (15)

Despite claims to the contrary I can find no evidence that the following individuals are jewish:

Donna Hrinak (16)
Richard Pepler (17)
Timothy Geithner (18)

Therefore we can see some 12 out of the 36 members of the Board of Directors of the CFR are jewish. This is 33 percent of the total membership of the Board of Directors.

If we include the doubtful claim of jewish ancestry to CFR Board Member Colin Powell then we have 13 out of the 36 members being jewish. This is 36 percent of the total membership of the Board of Directors.

This is significant as jews are circa 2 percentage of the population of the United States of America, (19) which means they are 16.5 times over-represented in the Board of Directors of the CFR than in the general population (18 times if you include Colin Powell).

This is scary enough, but when we note other the views of other Board Members then it gets positively alarming.

Let’s look at them shall we?

Nicholas Burns is a Zionist who in 2008 was honoured for his championing of Israel’s cause and advocating the bombing of Iran in the United States by the American Jewish Committee. (20)

Stephen Hadley is a Zionist who in 2004 gave a speech before the American Jewish Committee advocating the bomb of Iran and stressing the need to combat ‘anti-Semitism’ globally. (21) Incidentally Hadley also frequently appears with Israeli generals and leaders on political platforms. (22)

Richard Pepler is a Zionist who regularly dines with jewish actors and actresses as well as (then) high-ranking Israeli politicians like Shimon Peres. (23) He also spoke at the Israeli Presidential Conference in 2013. (24)

James Stavridis’ political views are unclear, but when he was honored in 2011 by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA): he spoke of his deep commitment to security of Israel and his love for the country. (25)

Vin Weber, the disgraced former Republican Congressman and lobbyist, has written for national newspapers arguing for an Israel-centric foreign policy in the Middle East and replying to criticisms of said state. (26) Further demonstrating his Israel First credentials Weber uses ‘friendship to Israel’ as central part of his criteria for why Egypt’s President Sisi (basically the head of a military junta) should be supported and lauded. (27)

Weber also happens to be a fairly prominent neo-Conservative as demonstrated by the fact that he is one of the founding members of ‘The Project for a New American Century’. (28)

Christine Todd Whitman is another individual who pushes Israel’s agenda in the United States with her avid promotion of what Finkelstein has termed ‘The Holocaust Industry’. (29) She is also heavily en hoc to jewish interests since, as former AIPAC apparatchik Mitchell Bard has pointed out, jews were primarily responsible for getting her elected as Republican governor of New Jersey. (30)

That is an additional six documented supporters of Zionism on the Board of Directors of the CFR. This brings supporters of ipso facto jewish interests and Zionism to 18 out of 36 members (or 50 percent). If we include Colin Powell in that we go up to 19 out of 36 members (or 53 percent).

Yet there is only one person, Margaret Warner, on the Board of Directors of the CFR who has ever been accused of anti-Zionism and even then that accusation was made by Israel’s hard line right-wingers: the Likudniks. (31)

One possible anti-Zionist versus eighteen/nineteen confirmed Zionists on the Board of Directors of the CFR: who do you think has more influence?

Moving on to the Officers of the CFR (who are employees of the Board of Directors):

Carla Hills (Co-Chairman)
Robert Rubin (Co-Chairman)
David Rubenstein (Vice Chairman)
Richard Haas (President)
Keith Olson (Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

The jews, who are also members of the Board of Directors, are Robert Rubin, David Rubenstein and Richard Haass.

Now while there are a plethora of Vice Presidents (all of whom are non-jewish) I would note that the Board of Directors sets the tone and the Vice Presidents are merely senior employees not decision-makers in the ideological biases behind the scenes at the CFR.

The Vice Presidents aren’t likely to substantially disagree with their bosses who after all pay their wages and control their bonus awards. Therefore we can see that the key is that out of the five officers with influence (since four are members of the Board of Directors, while the other is the Chief Financial Officer) that three (i.e. 60 percent) are jewish.

However when we pan back to look at the members of the Board of Directors who are Emeritus or Honorary (who may or may not have influence) who number six people in total. We note a similar preponderance of jewish and pro-Zionist individuals.

To wit:

Madeline Albright (Director Emerita) (32)
Martin Feldstein (Director Emeritus) (33)
Maurice Greenberg (Honorary Vice Chairman) (34)

In addition to these three jewish individuals we have Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus, who is a strong partisan of Israel and one of those who have tried to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby in the United States. (35)

This equates some 66 percent of Honorary and Emeritus Directors being jewish or Zionists, which confirms the conclusion that we must draw from the foregoing analysis.

This is that the Council on Foreign Relations is an organization where circa half of its Board of Directors are either jewish (who are only circa two percent of the American population) or non-jewish Zionists (the clear majority being the former not the latter), which is clearly disproportionate and potentially dangerous in terms of influence United States foreign policy in the interests of Israel not America.

References

(1) For example Robert McMahon, 1985, ‘A Question of Influence: The Council on Foreign Relations and American Foreign Policy’, Reviews in American History, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 445-447
(2) Cf. Robert Schulzinger, 1984, ‘The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations’, 1st Edition, Columbia University Press: New York
(3) http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html
(4) David Dalin, 2001, ‘At The Summit’, p. 45 in Louis Sandy Maisel, Ira Forman, Doanld Altschiller, (Eds), 2001, ‘Jews in American Politics’, 1st Edition, Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/arts/01donor.html?_r=0
(6) Richard Haass, 1997, ‘The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War’, 1st Edition, Council of Foreign Relations Press: New York, p. 142
(7) David Dalin, 2008, ‘Jews and the American Presidency’, p. 149 in Gaston Espinosa (Ed.), 2008, ‘Religion, Race, and the American Presidency’, Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham
(8) Stephen Harlan Norwood (Ed.), 2008, ‘Encyclopedia of American Jewish History’, Vol. 1, 1st Edition, ABC-Clio: Santa Barbara, p. 721
(9) http://jewishnews.com/2015/08/06/one-of-the-biggest-dealmakers-on-wall-street-is-sounding-the-alarm-on-ma/
(10) http://forward.com/the-assimilator/131013/jews-dominate-vanity-fair-100-most-influential-mog/
(11) http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-legacy-behind-game-of-thrones/
(12) http://www.hebrewsurnames.com/GLOCER
(13) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paulson#Early_life_and_education
(14) http://www.jta.org/2015/03/24/news-opinion/united-states/new-google-cfo-porat-is-daughter-of-holocaust-survivor-sabra
(15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_%28surname%29
(16) As claimed by: https://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-the-council-on-foreign-relations-part-1
(17) As claimed by: https://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-television/
(18) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/06/tim-geithner-not-a-jew/18248/
(19) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html
(20) http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=7oJILSPwFfJSG&b=8479733&ct=12487873#sthash.bjAv1bbR.dpuf
(21) http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=871779&ct=1124967
(22) http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/10/12/at-harvard-tzipi-livni-offers-%E2%80%98no-comment%E2%80%99-on-candidacy/
(23) https://next.ft.com/content/5fc80e04-972f-11e4-845a-00144feabdc0
(24) http://2013.presidentconf.org.il/en/speaker/mr-richard-plepler-usa/
(25) http://www.jinsa.org/events/annual-awards-dinners/henry-m-scoop-jackson-distinguished-service-award-dinners/jinsa-present
(26) http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-20/local/me-3935_1_u-s-loan-guarantees
(27) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/cooperating-not-condoning-toward-a-more-constructive-u.s.-egypt-policy1
(28) http://www.merip.org/mer/mer243/israel-lobby-perspective
(29) http://www.nj.com/reporter/index.ssf/2009/03/christine_todd_whitman_former.html
(30) http://www.mitchellbard.com/articles/mattbrooks.html
(31) http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/semi-monthly/2008/12/30/pbss-margaret-warner-israel-gaza-apparently-rocket-science
(32) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_gist/1997/02/did_she_know.html
(33) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Feldstein
(34) http://www.jewage.org/wiki/en/Article:Maurice_R._Greenberg_-_Biography
(35) http://www.ufppc.org/book-notes-mainmenu-36/6692-book-review-leslie-gelb-reviews-mearsheimer-a-walt-in-ny-times.html

The twentieth century American author and novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald has lately come back into literary fashion with a recent-ish film based on his most famous novel ‘The Great Gatsby’. The fascinating things about Fitzgerald are that his marriage to Zelda, his wife, caused him to drink away his literary profits as he coped with her increasing insanity.

In addition to the fact that Fitzgerald was very much a product of his era; working primarily in a time of glaring social inequality as well as a spiraling ‘clash of civilizations’ between so-called Liberal Democracy, Marxism and Nationalism. It was this time period that is echoed in his writing about spend-thrift millionaires as well as the glitz and glamour of upper class New York society.

We can see this in Fitzgerald’s own attraction to Marxism in 1929, which was the result of his dislike of the laissez-faire capitalism that characterized American society in the 1920s. (1) This flirtation with Marxism, and the election of Franklin Roosevelt as the US President, brought Fitzgerald into contact with growing number of leftist organizations in the United States. (2)

Despite this contact and his obsessive reading of the works of Karl Marx; Fitzgerald was never an intellectual believer in Marxism per se, but rather someone who wanted to believe it was true on an emotional level. (3) This is easily demonstrated by pointing out that Fitzgerald had left his Marxism behind by 1936; (4) at the beginning of very height of its popularity in the days of the ‘Popular Front’.

Conversely Fitzgerald also demonstrates a significant sense of nationalism when in his novel ‘This Side of Paradise’; he has one of his characters espouse the thesis of Lothrop Stoddard’s best-selling book ‘The Rising Tide of Color’ referring to it as Goddard’s ‘The Rise of the Colored Empires’. He has his main character point out that naturally blondes are superior to darker-skinned peoples and that as culture-bringers blondes have to work harder than non-blondes.

The reference is, of course, to Stoddard’s Nordic racialism. That this isn’t an attack on Stoddard is furnished from our knowledge that from at least 1921-1922; Fitzgerald talked privately about the racial problem of the existence of blacks in America. We also know from his private correspondence that he railed against the racial defilement of the Nordic race by blacks in Europe, which is probably a reference to the French use of black troops in the Rhineland and the resultant miscegenation from rape and loose morals, which brought the famous ‘Rhineland Bastards’ into existence. (5)

Further Fitzerald openly declared that America should have allowed Germany to crush the British and the French in the First World War to safeguard the racial purity of the Northern peoples. (6) These sentiments don’t sit well with his biographers today so they tend, as seems to be de rigueur these days, to minimize and edit them; when it clear that Fitzgerald was a fairly strident racialist and nationalist all of his life.

He despised the effete snobbishness of the New York upper classes, (7) but yet benefited by it financially in large part because he had no other source of income and he was always hard up for ready cash.

This, as you might expect, made a newly famous writer like himself; easy prey for the big names of Hollywood with jewish-owned studios (8) offering to buy the rights to screen his stories if he would write the scripts. Examples include Columbia Pictures who, in 1930, purchased the film rights, to be named ‘Cosmopolitan’, for his story ‘Babylon Revisited’ for $2,500 with another $2,500 on completion of the script. (9)

Columbia however refused to pay up whenever Fitzgerald produced an acceptable script (10) and this, quite understandably, embittered Fitzgerald against them. It didn’t help that he was on an insultingly low salary for Hollywood; (11) who were just trying to exploit his penury.

Fitzgerald’s experience with jewish-owned Hollywood outfit Twentieth Century Fox was little different. (12)

Indeed Fitzgerald seems to have had nasty experiences with jews and jewish-owned companies all of his career.

For example he believed that jewish theatre producer, George Kaufman, had plagiarized his own 1920 play ‘The Vegetable’ (directed by his jewish associate George Cohan) (13) to create Kaufman’s successful ‘Of Thee I Sing’. (14)

In another case Fitzgerald’s script for the film ‘Three Comrades’ was, in his view, simply wrecked by jewish director Joe Mankiewicz even if the film was itself a massive success. (15) This script wrecking included an anti-fascist plot (16) and was (surprise, surprise) being funded by jewish-owned MGM Corporation. (17)

Indeed few script writers had any love lost for Mankiewicz’s tampering and controlling nature; (18) so it comes as little surprise to learn that Fitzgerald heartily loathed him for the rest of his days. (19)

With such experiences with individual jews; it comes as even less of a surprise that Fitzgerald frequently attacked jews in his novels and short stories.

In his novel ‘The Beautiful and the Damned’; he refers to Yiddish (i.e. jewish) comedians as being boring and third rate, non-jews who date jews discover that they are actually boring creatures, that jewesses who ‘come out’ in society are looking to marry a fellow jew who is an upcoming financial broker and jeweler, that you can tell a jew just by looking at him as in the case of a ‘Semitic violinist’ and that jews are generally short and dark shopkeepers who stare out of their doors with ‘prideful and suspicious eyes’.

In an ex post facto hilarious aside Fitzgerald has the main character, Anthony Patch, refer to a jewish film mogul as being ‘half-baked’ and in need of being stuck in the oven again for another minute or so. Said film mogul is also stated to be corpulent, slimy and desperate to make influential society connections so he can ‘advance’ in the world.

Fitzgerald gets even more delightfully subversive when he refers to a jewess named Rachel; who is dark but very pretty, but her parents are converts to the Episcopalian Church from Judaism. This, Fitzgerald necessarily infers, is to provide her racial camouflage so she can gain access to non-jewish members of high society and she eventually marries one, a man named Richard Barnes, to make her racial camouflage complete.

Similarly in his best-known novel ‘The Great Gatsby’ Fitzgerald has one of his side characters refer to ‘a little kike’ who she almost married, because he relentlessly pursued her. The subtext to this statement is that Fitzgerald is promoting the idea that jewish men lust after and relentlessly pursue non-jewish women rather than their own.

One of the other side characters actually marries the jew concerned. She relates to the reader that he claimed to be a gentleman and a writer, but it turned out that he lives over a garage with her and ‘borrowed’ a suit to get married in (which he didn’t tell his bride to be or anyone else) and then tried to not give it back when the owner came and asked for its return.

In other words Fitzgerald is urging his readers not to marry jews, because they are serial liars and are only after feeling superior for sexually conquering a non-jewish woman.

Fitzgerald also describes a jewish side character as being small, flat-nosed with hairy nostrils and tiny eyes. He is said to have jewelry made of human teeth and to have fixed the 1919 World Series, but hasn’t been prosecuted because, while everyone knows it was his doing, the police cannot find any evidence to actually do anything about it.

We see a similar reference to jewish power by Fitzgerald when he lists the names of people closely involved in Hollywood and they are nearly all, obviously, jewish in origin.

Fitzgerald is clearly here depicting the jews as a racially alien, fundamentally evil and diabolically clever people; who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

This reaches its most obvious form in Fitzgerald’s short story ‘May Day’ when a black-haired jewish agitator is haranguing a crowd of poor workers and former soldiers advocating pacifism and claiming that the First World War was a capitalist conspiracy. The jew is then called a ‘god damned Bolshevik’ by a blonde worker and former soldier who pulls him down from his soap box and the non-jewish crowd punch and kick the jewish agitator till he is broken and bleeding.

From this we can draw two conclusions; the first is that Fitzgerald saw the world in racial and nationalist terms as a struggle between both races and classes, which envisioned jews and blacks as the primary enemies of the Nordic race.

The second is that Fitzgerald viewed the jews as an especially dangerous enemy to America who were responsible for both international capitalism and communism. The danger they presented to America was both on the level of their power and influence as well as their use of racial camouflage in order to attain positions of influence, which they would mercilessly exploit.

In other words, and contrary to the impression of him given by his biographers, F. Scott Fitzgerald saw the jew as the most dangerous enemy that America was facing and wrote about it in his voluminous fictional work.

References

(1) Henry Dan Piper, 1965, ‘F. Scott Fitzgerald: A Critical Portrait’, 1st Edition, The Bodley Head: London, p. 175
(2) Andre le Vot, 1983, ‘F. Scott Fitzgerald: A Biography’, 1st Edition, Allen Lane: London, p. 270
(3) Ibid, p. 271
(4) Piper, Op. Cit., p. 248
(5) Le Vot, Op. Cit., p. 94
(6) Ibid.
(7) Piper, Op. Cit., p. 176
(8) On this see Neil Gaber, 1989, ‘An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood’, 1st Edition, W. H. Allen: London
(9) Piper, Op. Cit., p. 255
(10) Ibid, p. 256
(11) Le Vot, Op. Cit., p. 347
(12) Piper, Op. Cit., p. 256
(13) Le Vot, Op. Cit., p. 120
(14) Piper, Op. Cit., p. 96
(15) Ibid, p. 246
(16) Le Vot, Op. Cit., p. 326
(17) Ibid, p. 328
(18) Ibid, p. 327
(19) Ibid, p. 328

When people think of the Jew: they often think of a human version of the chameleon. Since the Jew changes his spots to suit whatever cause he may currently think would be in his, and his tribes best interests to support. This is basically as MacDonald has outlined in his series of books about a Jewish group evolutionary function. This is why one often hears those who are racially aware rail against ‘Communist Jews’, ‘Capitalist Jews’, ‘Anarchist Jews’, ‘Conservative Jews’ and so on, but more recently there has been a new insidious trend emerging in form of ‘White Nationalist Jews’…

Yes, folks… the Jews have decided that White Nationalism is a threat to them, and they have begun their infiltration of it by offering Jewish support to certain pro-Jewish segments of it. These segments are corrupt and greedy for any power as they are have decided to take these thirty pieces of silver from the Jew in order to fulfil their own lusts, and desires [too long in the wilderness perhaps?]. Or perhaps to make themselves more ‘respectable’, because they have Jews involved and hence they can’t be ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘Nazis’ any more: can they?

The so-called ‘White Nationalists’ who accept these thirty pieces of silver from the Jew are not ‘helping save their race’ as some deluded individuals would argue. In fact by taking these bribes of power, money and ‘respectability’: they are doing quite the opposite. It is impossible to deny that at the very least the ‘Jewish people’ have an extreme amount of influence upon the Western world, and that the most notable bastion of this influence is in the United States. These so-called ‘White Nationalists’ often accept this fact privately, and even in some cases to an extent publicly.

However; as we know from their own writings, many of the so-called ‘White Nationalist’ luminaries recognise that Jews were; and are, at least partially responsible for the destruction of White racial consciousness. This author would further add that this has contributed to the significant deterioration of the White race soul and thus making it all the harder to stop the extinction of our people.

The unquestionable fact remains [despite how annoying this is to philo-Semites] that the Jew was directly and/or indirectly responsible for nearly all of the negative historical events/ideologies/social trends, which have caused this destruction to come about. The Jew Marx created Communism, the Jew Lassalle screamed for Socialism, the Jew Herzl argued for Zionism, the Jew Hess ranted about both Socialism and Zionism, the Jew Rand glorified selfishness, the Jewish Rothschild dynasty abused Capitalism, the Jew Hefner built a pornographic business empire by exploiting White men and women, the Jew La Vey organised mass depravities of the flesh, the Jew Freud obsessed over genitalia and the Jews Boas and Montagu claimed that Race didn’t even exist. It goes on and on and one can clearly state that the Jew is the culture destroyer not the culture bearer.

Since the Jew tries to warp anything he touches to match his insane Semitic tastes. The so-called ‘White Nationalists’ would be unlikely to dispute the above socio-politico ideologies/theories as the major players in the destruction of White Racial consciousness. All these major socio-politico ideologies/events were the work of the Jew: as any cursory glance at biographies of these individuals or the main works of the theories will quickly inform an interested individual.

However these ‘White Nationalists’ have the obvious lack of ideological forthrightness to have the absolute commitment to the truth that White Nationalism must demand if it is ever to be successful in saving our people. If they do not recognise the Jew as the deadliest; nay eternal, enemy of the White race then they are failing in that commitment. If such so-called ‘White-Nationalists’ choose to get into bed with the Jew then they are not only failing in their commitment to the truth, but in fact have ceased to stay even a ‘White Nationalist’ in name [if they ever were to start with].

If an individual and/or group does this then they are not ‘White Nationalists’, but just another part of the problem that we face. They have simply reconciled themselves with the prevailing set of institutions, albeit for now as part of the ‘official opposition’ or as Bob Whittaker calls them ‘respectable conservatives’. Perhaps Whittaker’s characterization isn’t quite accurate for this group of so-called ‘White Nationalists’, and perhaps a more fitting one might be ‘respectable revolutionaries’.

A ‘respectable revolutionary’ is simply a ‘racist respectable conservative’, but it allows the Jew to dominate its ideology: in the same way the ‘respectable conservative’ was corrupted by the other incarnations of the Jew. Of course, the Jewish influence within ‘respectable revolutionary’ circles is likely to be both direct [as in Jews being directly involved] and indirect [pro-Jewish theories and ideological positions being pushed/’officially endorsed’ by these circles], and hence the members of these circles/ideologies are nothing more than the latest; as William Dudley Pelley said so well, dupes of Judah.

This changing of the Jew’s spots and subsequent proliferation of dupes of Judah can be easily evidenced by the preposterous and downright false idea that there are such creatures as ‘White Jews’ or ‘pro-White Jews’. The Jew is pro nothing, but the Jew himself and his tribe. This should be evident by the writings of these ‘pro-White Jews’ such as the Jew Lawrence Auster. Who despite being a ‘devout Christian’ often shows his ‘loyalty’ to White people by calling them ‘anti-Semites’ and ranting about ‘anti-Semitism’ and how it must be extinguished from the ‘pro-White movement’. Auster is one of these so called ‘White Jews’ by the way and bills himself as one of the America’s most politically incorrect ‘pro-White’ writers.

When someone says anything remotely critical of Jews: the Jew Auster goes off on an irrational bent about ‘anti-Semitism’, and flagellates the White race about the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘crimes of Islam against Israel’.

So much for his ‘pro-White’ loyalty!

As a Polish proverb once read: ‘the Jew cries out in pain as he slaps you’. This holds true for the Jew Auster and his ilk of ‘pro-White Jews’. They are not White and they are not ‘pro-White’. Instead they are Jewish and are pro-Jews. If you continue to assume they are White: they will continue to slap you when you turn to deal with the heart of the racial problem: the Jew!

If you doubt the ability of the Jewish chameleon then take a glance over Jewish history. After all if one group has been ‘persecuted relentlessly for three thousand years’ then don’t you think they must be doing something to annoy a lot of different people over a significant and sustained period of time? Right?