Notes on Spencer Quinn's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review(of Israel Shahak's Book)" — Problem with Kevin MacDonald's Theory of Northern European Individualism

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/05/jewish-history-jewish-religion-a-review/

This book review leaves the impression that the problem is less with Jews than with idiot goyim who allowed themselves to be played.

Jewish ethnocentrism is problematic for being extroverted than introverted. If Jews want a world of their own, fine. The problem is they also want the whole world as their empire, an ambition that can be realized only by Palestinianizing World Goyim. To create the Jewish State, there had to be Nakba against the Palestinians. Tragic, but if Jews had stopped there, no big deal to the rest of the world. But what is now happening in the West is White Nakba, and it's largely engineered by Jews who've gained control of white elites via bribery, brainwashing, and browbeating.

But then, maybe Jews wouldn't have turned out this way if Europeans had just left them alone. If Rome hadn't invaded Judea and pushed them into exile, Jews might not have spread all throughout Europe, which might have remained gloriously pagan. Also, the European spirit of discovery and world conquest didn't originate with Jews who nevertheless were useful as money-lenders and investors in the vast enterprises. So, Jews got a taste of World Power via Europeans.

In the Ancient World, Southern Europeans, esp. the Greeks and Romans, were most aggressive and adventurous. Later, it was the Northern Europeans, without whom Jews wouldn't have gained World Hegemony. Shahak's book details how Jews threatened by fellow Jews sometimes sought refuge in the world of kinder white Gentiles governed by more enlightened values and more humane application of the law.
On the other hand, these very goyim also recklessly drove Europe over the edge in World War I. Some will say the Jewish Hand played a role in the Great War, and I'm sure that was true, but whites often had a compunction to slaughter one another over what now seems like trifles. Granted, some historians say this was the reason for European advancement. Unlike most parts of the world that either remained sparsely populated or came under overwhelming imperial power, rough parity ruled among the European kingdoms/states, and this led to many more wars that fostered innovation in warfare and various technologies; it's like warring Japan was most open to new ideas when each clan sought superior weapons from European traders. But it also means Europeans got into the habit of treating war as some kind of sports. Most of these wars were resolved quickly, but when the warring parties were well-matched, things got awfully bloody like the matches between Ali and Frazier.

Kevin MacDonald argued that Jews gained over Anglos and other Europeans because the latter are more individualistic, but I'm not so sure. While modern concepts of individuality and liberty were advanced in the Anglo world(and Netherlands), those societies weren't governed or defined by principles of individualism but by class, obedience, respect, and conformism. For all practical purposes, individualism had significance only for certain thinkers, adventurers, innovators, and the like. Most people were concerned with fitting in, being approved, seeking validation. Northern Europeans weren't as clan-based or kinship-oriented as the Greeks and Southern Italians, but they still thought socially and communally than as individuals. If they served as a crew member on a ship, they did as the captain ordered. They were loyal to the firm they worked for, like Bob Cratchit to Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. And they were mindful of the class they belonged to. And they were anxious about their respectability and standing in society. Thus, individualism in the Anglo World was rather constricted. Given liberty and individuality's tendency toward social chaos, social discipline and fear of disapproval were paradoxically the necessary conditions for the increase in freedom. The anarchic urge within liberty had to be tempered by manners and rules. In other words, individuality and liberty had to be merited by a sign of superiority, intelligence, wit, and/or skills.
Thus, individualism was essentially elitist, and most people, deemed mediocre and uninspired, were expected to just fall in line and conform, do what was necessary to gain approval and avoid opprobrium. The end result was a society where a relative few were deemed superior and worthy of admiration; they deserved more 'social credit' in liberty and individuality; the rest should just shut up, fall in line, and obey, which was pretty much the rule in British boarding schools.

Of course, Britain eventually loosened up, especially with the rise of Youth Culture popularized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the like. Later, there was the explosion of Punk culture that took it to a whole new (lower)level, especially appealing to Brit youths eager to smash the remaining vestiges of class culture. But, old habits refused to die. Anglo-Britain(and Canada and Australia) remained very much places where most people remained deferential to authority as the best and 'expert'. Of course, authority came to wear the face of 'liberal democracy' and even came to be associated with hipness. It presented itself as 'lightened up', disdainful of old hierarchies and snobberies. After all, the Establishment embraced the Beatles, the Royal Family opened up to vulgar celebrities, and the ruling class came to indulge in the same popular culture as the hoi polloi. Still, the formula still remained, "the Best know and the Rest follow".

Now, what would constitute the Best? When UK was ruled by awesome race-ists(as the Best of the nation), most Brits fell in line and supported the racial-national agenda. But, if the Best were altered, the Rest would naturally fall in line PRECISELY BECAUSE most Brits never had real individuality of their own — and even popular culture, which felt so joyous and liberating, fostered collective emotions and 'thought', the crowd mentality that could be shepherded by the Power; it was more about mass idolatry of godlike celebrities than autonomy of the individual. Is it then surprising that New Britain was hardly more individualistic than Old Britain and in some ways even less so?

Just look at the rise of 'woke' culture and Covid-mania in the UK. A truly individualist society wouldn't get so crazy. People would ask questions and show some skepticism. But when the Best say so-and-so in the UK, most people just follow along like sheep. They lack the pride and confidence of individuality. What is truly insidious about 'woke' ideology or political correctness is it gives the false impression that it's about the voice of the People and the Powerless. Thus, the brainwashed sheep being led by the nose are fooled into believing they're struggling against the system. Wow, they knocked down a bloody statue of some past figure who sold slaves! What awesome rebellion against tyranny!
In truth, UK is now ruled by Jews who, via financial and media control, define what is Best. Jews push 'wokeness' to weaken white pride, resolve, and autonomy, all the better to make whites serve ANOTHER power. But because 'woke' ideology creates the illusion that 'white supremacy' still rules or infests the West, the idiot mobs think they're fighting the Power by vandalizing old statues. It's like the moronic Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution who were led to see themselves as rebels when, in truth, Mao merely used them as shock troops to get rid of his political rivals. Contra Kevin MacDonald, individualism wasn't the dominant mindset among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Rather, it was the individuality of the Best that was respected and rewarded while the Rest were pressured to obey and follow along.

In contrast, while it's true Jews have been profoundly tribal, their power also derived from a strong sense of personal individualism, i.e. self-centered pride of individuality has been more common among Jews than among Anglos. While Anglos were into 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir' before their superiors, Jews were more likely to be distrustful of their own kind, evento the point of irreverence. It could be Jews were sometimes overzealous to kill/murder other Jews precisely because too many Jews were overly defiant and strong-minded; it's like, for all the black bitching about 'racism', they are most prone to beat up or kill other Negroes cuz the only thing black egomania fears is an ass-whupping.

It's also worth noting that Jewish Tribalism wasn't based on loyalty to a clan leader but to God. Tribalism based on leadership crumbles along with it. It's about follow-the-leader, so when the leader goes, so does the tribalism. In contrast, tribalism based on the Covenant means everyone within the Tribe is equally blessed by God or some great force; it's a matter of blood and spirit regardless of who is leader. Anglo tribalism was based on leadership. So, if the leadership lost prestige(with the fall of empire) or cucked to a foreign entity(the Jews or whatever), the whole system came to be fatally compromised. As for Christianity, a universal faith, it wasn't something the Anglos could claim for themselves. It was only a matter of time before other peoples invoked the Christian God and Jesus to throw back the sermons at the British Imperialists.

Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost.

Well, a Jewish State should serve Jews first and foremost.

He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances.

Nothing wrong with that.

Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be.

Jewish problem is less about double standards than duplicitous standards. Every national entity must have double standards. If Japan is to remain Japan, it must favor Japanese over others. Still, a principled people would not only use double-standards in their favor in their own domain but respect similar practices by other peoples in their own domains. So, if Japanese use double-standards to favor Japanese in Japan while respecting Iran's use of double-standards to favor Iranians in Iran, there's no real problem.

But, Jews play a different game. For some reason, not only should Jews use double-standards in favor of Jews in Israel but THE WHOLE WORLD must be made to endorse such behavior, all the while pledging to favor the Other(especially Jews) over their own kind in their own countries. So, while Hungary must praise Israel for being an ethnocentric Jewish State, it mustn't favor Hungarians in Hungary; Hungarians must abandon any notion of a historical homeland with deep roots and meanings for Hungarians.

Imagine that. Hungarians have no global ambition and merely want to preserve Hungary as their little nation. In contrast, Jews not only have Israel but use neo-imperialism to smash neighboring Arab nations. Jews also control US and EU and use them as goy attack dogs against Russia, China, and Iran. And yet, these Jews are lecturing the Hungarians about decency and morality. It's like a billionaire gangster lecturing about the evils of greed to a peasant with a plot of land. Jews want all the goy world to be blackrocked. Jewish supremacists are cretins through and through, but no less disgusting are the goy cucks who grovel at their feet.

One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism.

I wouldn't hold this against Jews of that period. We shouldn't judge past peoples and cultures with today's values. Were things any more enlightened among Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, and etc.? Back then, censorship and authoritarian measures were de rigueur all throughout Europe. Besides, Jews couldn't have survived for so long as a culture and people without certain restrictions, be they legal, cultural, spiritual, racial, and/or spiritual. Japan was an isolated island-nation but, prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry's black ships, had done everything to keep Japan sealed tight. Such isolationism kept Japan from progress but also preserved and fostered a unique culture.

He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many case freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression.

Nothing unique in history. Roman Empire was brutal and ruthless but also created Pax Romana in which many people lived in relative peace & prosperity and also gained freedoms and privileges under Roman military and legal protection. It's like that MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN scene about "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Empires can be liberating on some level. A people may be free of foreign rule but found themselves under crushing autocracy. North Korea is politically independent whereas South Korea is a US satellite, but it's far more repressive. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, but it was freer there than in Mao's China, which was liberated from foreign rule but crushed under the Chairman's fat arse. Western Imperial rule over the Muslim World was much resented but also led to modernization. Hindus no doubt gained a lot under British Imperialism. And American Indians(victims of 'genocide') and American blacks(shackled under slavery) gained access to ideas and things they never would have on their own. Black moral rage about slavery, for instance, is an adoption of white values as black African culture never had a moral issue with bondage. Also, Jews will say Palestinians shouldn't complain so much because, all said and done, Arabs living in Israel are better off materially than most Arabs in Arab-ruled countries. Palestinians get less than Jews but still get more than most Arabs elsewhere.

We can understand why many Jews felt liberated from their own tradition by the Emancipation, but I can also understand why conservative Jewish elements among tried to keep the tradition and community together. After all, no matter how rich and free one becomes, a Jew is no longer Jewish without a powerful sense of blood and culture. Indeed, this is borne out by what's happened to the white race. Whites got rich and comfy. They came to favor materialism and hedonism as the two pillars of their existence. Result has been utter deracination and decadence. Whites are now so without an identity or loathe the one they have that they pledge fealty to other identities, especially Jewish or Black. Some pretend to be 'American Indians'. For others, racial self-flagellation is a kind of anti-identity. White 'conservatives' prefer to label themselves as Christians, Civil Nationalists, or Libertarians. They are afraid to be True Race-ists, the only way to be free.

Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.

Purely from a scientific point of view, this would be true enough. After all, certain Christian folks who still reject evolution and insist the world is 10,000 yrs old come across as ridiculous. But, a culture isn't only about objective truth but a sense of soul, myth, roots, and cosmology. Culture is essentially irrational and if a people were to totally reject their culture for its irrationality while wholly embracing science/rationalism, they would be lost because humans are more than walking calculators. Worse, even though science is an infinitely superior means for man to reach the moon or cure some disease, it too is the tool of power, evinced by the Covid regimen. Science is a great tool but not The Answer. Also, it doesn't define a people. It's agreed that the world is round in Syria, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Yemen, Iran, and etc. It's agreed by all peoples that aspirin reduces pain. But what does that have to do with their sense of who they are as a people and culture? The law of gravity or the chemistry of Vitamin C doesn't make Jews distinct from Turks or Turks distinct from Iranians.

Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings.

From the perspective of free speech and honesty, that's bad stuff. But Jews were hardly alone in that kind of censorship. Through much of US history, most people didn't know of all the racy and controversial things said by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. In the public lore, Jefferson was Mr. Enlightenment who said 'all men are created equal'. And Lincoln was portrayed as the Great Emancipator. Most didn't know what Lincoln really felt about blacks. Historians used to focus on Woodrow Wilson the Progressive, or Mr. Democracy, than on Wilson the 'racist' — he was indeed awesomely race-ist. A lot of people don't know about what Winston Churchill said of the various non-white races and even about Jews(before they bought him off). So much has been bowdlerized or airbrushed out of history. Jews were surely no different. But given Jewish activism in Free Speech and Civil Liberties Movement of the 50s and 60s, Jews do come across as a bunch of lowlife hypocrites and cretins.

And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud.

This is what kills me. The white/Christian world came up with tons of epithets for Jews and nonwhites but in the vernacular, not in canonical writings. In contrast, the sacred texts of Judaism are filled with slurs as if Don Rickles wrote them. Imagine opening up some Christian text and reading stuff like, "you know them Christ-killing money-changing kikes are up to no good", "we gotta get the ni**ers to believe in Christ as a means to suppress their jungle jiggity uga-buga nature", or "we need more missionaries in China to convert the lot of them slanty-eyed yellow bastards". Christian texts might put down other peoples as 'heathens' but on the basis of their ignorance, not on their blood. If white Christians said unkind things about nonwhites, it was outside the context of religion. But it seems Jewish sacred texts were into racial name-calling. The Talmud must be full of stuff like, "Get a load of them dumb Polacks. Let's go exploit them and screw their shikse bimbo whores."

In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.”

Maybe Maimonides wasn't all bad.

There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles.

That doesn't bother me. I think Jewish men also had a practice of thanking God for being men than women... though with tranny business these days, maybe some new passages have been added to the New Talmud that says, "Thank you for removing my balls and giving me a fake 'vagina'." If Jews felt pride in being born Jewish, nothing wrong with that.

they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers

Catholic Church complied, so who is the cuck? We can't blame Jews or any people for acting in their self-interest, but we can blame whites/Christians for cucking time and time again in the hope that they will be forgiven and loved by Jews. White dummies or whummies need to wake up. If they won't or can't, they are beyond hope.

On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:

Jewish Logic is pretty ridiculous, but there is something to be said in its favor. First, it is for Jewish interest as they do get the milk on the Sabbath. Also, given the ridiculousness of Sabbath rules to begin with — one isn't allowed to milk the cow even? — , it seems Jews needed to concoct some ingenious means to circumvent the law. In other words, if the law itself is ridiculous, come up with counter-ridiculous ways to go around it. Now, why couldn't Jews just do away with the law? It was ordained by God.

In our time, what is most appalling isn't the Jewish abuse of laws or legalism to get what they want. It's vile and rotten, but at the very least, it's a case of Jews messing with laws to their advantage. Their self-interest makes it somewhat rational.
What is truly astounding is that so many white goyim go along with it even though it does nothing for the white race. Jews milk 'ridiculousness' to get the cream. Whites go along to emerge empty-handed. Granted, we can understand why white cuck elites choose to collaborate. They are taken care of, like the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. But what about all those white 'deplorables' who get NOTHING out of this? Why are they so into "Muh Israel" and "We Luv Jews, Jews, Jews"? Jews are bad, but whites must be DUMB, like Lone Star.

Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court

This wasn't much different from the racial laws in the American South. White killing a white was a big deal and a Black killing a White was a very big deal, but white killing a black, not so much. And in the West, Whites had to kill Indians to make way for civilization. Of course, today things are reversed. Blacks killing whites or non-blacks(excluding Jews) is no big deal, but whites killing a precious black is a big big deal. The only acceptable murder of a black is by another black, apparently because it's all in the family. Likewise, the reason why Jews reacted so hysterically to the cases of Leo Frank and the Rosenbergs was they simply couldn't abide by the notion of inferior goyim killing Jews. In the American South, it was a taboo for even a good black to kill a bad black. Blacks simply weren't allowed to kill whites. Jews feel likewise about goyim. They feel as the massuhs while all goyim are really a bunch of schvartzes of various colors. But just like blacks once internalized their own inferiority and dutifully served at the feet of the white massuh, it appears so many white goyim internalized their inferiority as well vis-a-vis Jews. To most white Americans, it's perfectly okay for Jewish Power to use the US military to smash the skulls of millions of Arabs/Muslims, but how dare anyone touch a hair on a single Jew!

One thing for sure, most whites/Christians believe Jews/Zionists have every right to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, but heaven forbid any Jew get killed by a non-Jew. Zionists killing 100,000s of Arabs is just 'Israel defending itself', but if some Muslim kills a Jew in Europe, it is ANTISEMITISM.

In some ways, things have changed a great deal since the time of Woodrow Wilson. But structurally speaking, not much changed. It's not that the US is less 'racist' but that it's 'racist' about other things. Back in Wilson's day, it was okay to be 'racist' against blacks and even let the KKK march in DC. Today, when Robert E. Lee monuments are being removed in Southern States, a KKK march would be unimaginable. BUT, it's okay to allow BLM thugs burn down entire parts of DC, vandalize, loot, and randomly attack people. Ostensibly, it's in the name of 'anti-racism', but it's really an expression of black savage-supremacism with the blessing of Jewish Supremacist Elites who use blacks as the bullwhip against whites emotionally and physically. Use black muscle to intimidate whites, use black narrative to guilt-bait whites. But it's really about Jewish supremacism and black supremacism working hand in glove. So, the current US is really just as 'racist' as it was a hundred years ago. The content is different but the structure is the same.

https://mondoweiss.net/2022/01/pompeo-at-zoa-gala-israel-is-not-an-occupier/

And consider US foreign policy. US military is given green light to drop bombs on the Middle East and kill countless 'sand-ni**ers' at the behest of Jewish Supremacism, the new ideology of America. While apartheid in South Africa was deemed an absolute evil, Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank must either be supported or ignored. So, the US didn't go from 'racism' and 'imperialism' to 'anti-racism' and 'anti-imperialism' but to 'neo-racism' and 'neo-imperialism' with new saints and monsters. In 2020, invoking 'George Floyd' gave blacks a free pass to rob, loot, burn, and murder. They could act 1000x worse than the KKK ever did, but as Jewish Supremacists rule America and as Jews need blacks to guilt-bait whites, black supremacist savagery is A-Okay.

For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out.

That's not a bad rule. It's like the US shouldn't go around hurting other nations, BUT it is not the role of US to save or bail them out. Let them fix their own problems. The problem is the US goes around the globe claiming to help other peoples while actually causing them great harm, especially in the Middle East and places like Ukraine.

One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never.

But there's a LOL case. Some Jewish doctor treated Adolf Hitler's mother, and Hitler was thankful later in life and allowed the doctor safe passage.

According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile.

That's terrible but Japanese are worse. Even a cursory look at Japanese culture suggests that Japanese regard other Japanese as prostitutes and toy-like playthings. Jews treat goyim as whores, whereas Japanese treat their own kind as whores.

Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.

You know, those would be perfectly good laws for whites if 'Jews' were replaced by 'whites' and 'gentiles' were replaced by 'non-whites', especially Jews and blacks. Whites need to learn from Jews. Whites need the White Talmud. If any Jew complains about it, just tell him, "We drew inspiration from YOUR culture, and we're acting just like you."

Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews.

Jews are right to abhor Christianity as it blasphemes Judaism. What's rather sad is whites failed to develop their own religion and mythology upon the fall of Rome. They had to rely on heretical Jews. In the long run, Christianity turned out to be an albatross around the white neck. Time has come to move beyond it, especially when a total creep like Devil Pope Francis can rise to the highest authority.

West Alarmed as US Prepares for Key Talks with Russia With No Negotiating Strategy & Divided Allies by Alexander Mercouris

What Anne Frank and Leo Frank teach us about Jewish Mendacity and where both Germans and White Americans failed with the Jewish Question — Why Jews cannot tolerate Free Speech and Facts & Reason of a Truly Secular Society

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/09/26/jasenovac-the-latest-holocaust-embarrassment/

The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it. When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility. When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall. And when that happens, all bets are off.

I'm not too sure about that. Much of history has less to do with facts than the power of who gets to control the discourse. So, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that 6 million didn't die, the myth can go on as long as the Power decides if it must. The Power controls the knob and can amplify or mute whatever it wants — consider George Floyd, who died of overdose, has been canonized while Derek Chauvin will rot in prison for 22 yrs for merely having done his job of protecting blue city yuppie elites from black thugs. Most people don't do independent research and, as normies, just go with the Official Narrative. Now, there are surely historians and the like who know the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration, but they fear being ostracized and/or blacklisted. Being labeled a 'denier' is tantamount to heresy in our so-called secular order with new gods, namely the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Power will denounce you, and the normies will reject you as a 'neo-nazi', 'white supremacist', 'anti-semite', or some nutjob crank because they almost never look or think beyond what they got from public education and Jewish-run 'mainstream media'.

This is why honest people fear telling the truth. They are caught between the Power and the People. The Power is mainly concerned with control and will spin any narrative, push any lie, and suppress any truth to maintain its grip(and the Power operates likewise all over the world, no less so in China, Iran, and Russia with their own sacraments and taboos). The People, most of whom are 'normies', are easily manipulated by the Power. In some ways, they are more easily manipulated in so-called 'liberal democracies' due to the conviction-bordering-on-faith that the People are free. In truth, people in so-called 'democracies' get to vote for whore-pawns vetted and bought/sold by the oligarchs who also own nearly all the media that hire mostly flunkies, careerists, propagandists, and activists(in line with oligarchic agendas). Under communism, people were more skeptical because they knew everything was propaganda.

To be sure, in the so-called 'liberal' West, there was certainly lot more freedom than under Stalinism or Maoism, but the danger lay in the fallacy that better is best. If Bob the gangster is a better person than Tom the gangster, a real psychopath, it still doesn't mean Bob is a good person. Though not as terrible as Tom, he too is a criminal, a thug, and even a killer. The so-called 'liberal West' was undoubtedly freer than communist systems(or other hardline forms of autocracy) and more kinds of speech were allowed, but that doesn't mean it was the bastion of truth. But the cult of 'muh democracy' and 'muh free speech' fooled a lot of people that they are getting the truth from the media(because it's part of the 'free press') in a society committed to free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. But like the hare that took for granted its lead over the tortoise, people in the West have been complacent in the assumption that they are living in the best of all possible worlds in terms of freedom and truth(and prosperity). This has resulted in 'insouciance', as Paul Craig Roberts calls it, that has led to so much erosion of liberties and rights before our eyes. Even as people in the West keep losing more liberties and rights, they always assure themselves, "I'm living in a liberal democracy, therefore I'm free... unlike those living in autocratic Russia or China."

Of course, the West was always under some kind of oligarchic power, but it's getting worse because it's ruled by Jews who refuse to even acknowledge their dominant position(fueled by a tribal sense of supremacism & contempt), lack any sense of magnanimity, have intoxicated themselves on moral narcissism, and are caught in the web of their own paranoia. In the West, never has so much power been concentrated in the hands of so few who are so hostile toward and derisive of those they rule over. Why else would they push for the Great Replacement or White Nakba? It's because Jews don't regard white folks as their own people but as the Goy Other that must be kept in their place, and what better and more permanent way to destroy white power than by demographically eclipsing whites with non-white goyim. Jews say O Vey, whites better Obey. The current West is something like an 'oligomocracy', i.e. it's totally controlled by the oligarchy but within the framework of what appears to be a democracy.

Honest people find themselves caught between the Power that prioritizes control and the People who gobble up whatever slop they're fed. It's the Glob and the Mob. Consider how the Twitter Mob works. Them 'woke'(or Jewoke) idiots swallow all the crap fed them by the Jewish-controlled media and academia. They think they are more 'sophisticated', 'evolved', and 'hip' because they get their ideas and views from supposed 'progressives' with elevated elite credentials. Not that American 'conservatives' are much better as they wolf down all the crap fed them on Talk Radio which is mostly controlled by Neocon monopolists. (And even alternative voices like Alex Jones would have us believe Arabs own Hollywood and China has something to do with diminishing freedom in the West.) These proggies feel smarter because they hang around tonier parts of the city, attended fancier colleges, watch Young Turks, listen to NPR, and maybe have a subscription to the New Yorker. Now, one can get lots of valuable news and information from such sources — they sure beat the 700 Club and much of Talk Radio — , but all said and done, they dare not venture outside the boundaries of discourse as insisted by Jewish Power. Indeed, the sudden war on Free Speech by so-called 'progressives' has been instigated from above by Jewish supremacist opinion-makers.

They are not about free-ranging intelligence in search of truth but corralled and tamed 'intelligentry' in service to Jewish Power and the gods it controls. Jews fear true secularism where people are free to use reason and facts in pursuit of worldview that comports with reality. Such secularism favors no side as plenty of dirt can be dug up about any group. It could dig up lots of dirt on Anglos, Germanics, and Slavs but also plenty on Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. Mao Zedong soon realized his system couldn't be sustained by the principles of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For a season or two, something like a real liberal spirit prevailed in China as people were allowed to say anything, even against the party. Few drips turned into a torrent that then threatened to break the dam of party authority. Likewise, the liberal experiments in Czechoslovakia in the mid 60s eventually led to Prague Spring that challenged the very authority of the Communist Party. Soviet tanks had to roll in to turn the tide. Mikhail Gorbachev had his own Hundred Flowers Campaign called Glasnost and, unlike Mao who soon reversed course, he allowed it to take root and grow. Result was a million complaints from the people and the utter demoralization of party members. It wasn't long before the whole edifice of Soviet authority crumbled. (Of course, by then, all of Eastern Europe had given up on communism and looked to the West for aid, guidance, and investment.)
In order for communism or at least communist party authority to remain, the Marxist brand of secularism had to enforce its sacraments and taboos. While lots of things could be questioned, certain things could not be. Marx and Lenin were gods, and communism was 'scientific materialism', and only a mentally ill person would dare question it.
Truth and facts are neutral. So, the Power wants truth and facts to shed light on the bad of the enemies and rivals but not of itself. The Power encourages the educated class to dig up all manner of dirt about the other side(s), even rewarding those who manufacture falsehoods(as with the Russia Collusion Hoax, Assad Gas Attack Hoax, and Jussie Smollett Hoax). The Power seeks flaws in the arguments and ideologies of competing powers but not in its own. Thus, secularism can never be totally rational or factual because the Power favors its own control than the general truth.
In a genuine liberal-secular democracy/republic, free speech and free discourse can boomerang on the Power as the educated class(often filled with resentment against the rich and privileged) may well critique the Power itself. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with the Anglo elites in US and UK. Even though they had plenty of educated men on their side, they also had to contend with the increasing chorus of criticism coming from within and without their own ranks, not least from Jews.
In regards to the Power, there are two natural tendencies among the People: Submission and Rebellion, and the two tendencies often co-exist. As often as not, rebellion is borne of resentment of not having been favored and/or approved by the Power than based on any real principle, though all rebels pretend they are motivated by higher values, and the same goes for submission, i.e. people join the Power and collaborate for personal gain, careerism, and peace of mind(as dissent can lead to harassment, purging, and even death) than out of any deep conviction. Most people are benders than standers.

At any rate, the Power is likely to attract as much criticism and pushback as cooperation and support in a free society. The opposition could be a matter of partisanship or personal conscience, as is true of compliance. When Anglo-Americans ruled the US, they had both lots of supporters and lots of critics. Of course, the influence of criticism altered the character of the ruling elites, in which case the once-supporters could become the new critics and once-critics the new supporters. Or, the change came about because the character of the support was altered by the influence of media and academia. After all, even the supporters of the Anglo-American Christian Order were bombarded by the Jewish-controlled media, and their children(groomed to work for the Power) were shaped by the increasingly Jewish-dominated academia. Consider the fate of the GOP. At times, the leadership came under Jewish influence and mandated a new set of 'values' for American Conservatives to follow, but at other times, the rank-and-file were altered by Jewish Influence and exerted pressure on the leadership to change course; or else, they threatened to leave the Party for the Democrats or the Independents.

No doubt, Jews understood this aspect of the secular-liberal dynamics of Power. Free Society meant free speech, and free speech meant the freedom of conscience and the free play of ideology to critique and challenge power and authority. Indeed, no group than the Jews did more to involve itself in taking apart, deconstructing, exposing, and invalidating the existing concentrations of Power, indeed so much so that, Jewish influence was seen almost as synonymous with social critique, dissent, ideological radicalism, and other modes of rebellion/dissidence, so much so that even anti-Jewish groups and those at odds with Jewish agendas developed grudging respect for Jews as standard-bearers of civil liberties. Now, we know it was either just a ploy or something Jews came to regret.

Secular freedoms can support and protect any side but also subvert and tear it down. One can use free speech to spread and defend Christianity or to mock and expose it as a delusion or hypocrisy. One can use free speech for or against Marxism. Secularism, in and of itself, doesn't have sacred cows, and that means ANYTHING can be critiqued, appraised, questioned, attacked, mocked, impugned, and etc.
Marxists understood this very well, which is why they made Marx and Lenin the new sacred cows. You could question, criticize, and condemn religions, capitalism, feudalism, traditionalism, liberalism, and etc. in a Marxist state but one could not question the 'scientific' and 'materialist' truth of Marx and Engel's ideas. After all, if secularism in a communist state could critique and diagnose Marxism like any other ideology or worldview, it could be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, not least because so many Marxist policies weren't working according to plan.

Jews are no different than Marxists in their grip on power. Though Jews today are super-capitalists and the LAST THING they want is communism, they know that the current Power Arrangement cannot allow total free speech founded on absolute commitment to secularism. They prefer a sacral-secularism, or 'securalism' whereby Jews get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. Jews know that official religions aren't possible in a secular order, and so, they use media and academia to generate sacral-emotions on certain topics. That way, Jews can have the cake and eat it too: Jews can maintain what is ostensibly a secular order without official religions but also have a population that feels, thinks, and behaves as virtual spiritualists on certain matters.
Under this order, there are three kinds of qualities: Holy, Material, and Unholy. 'Holy' are those subjects that command reverence & piety and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; one must idolize, mourn, and/or celebrate them. As the Michael Jackson and Oprah cults have shown, people can be made to feel 'holy-schmoly' about anyone or anything. 'Material' are those subjects that are unrelated to the Holy and, therefore, can be discussed freely: Like the science of dairy products or the migratory behavior of birds. 'Unholy' are those matters that pose a danger to the Holy and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; they must be condemned outright and, in the absence of legal protection of free speech, banned, as is already the case in UK, Canada, and EU.

MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, Globo-Homo, and Jews are holy. All Good People must gush about them. Covid-19 and 'vaccines' have also entered the realm of the Holy; the 'jabs' and the never-ending boosts are the new communion rituals. If you dare to discuss Covid-19 freely and speculate as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, you are a heretic and must be mocked as a 'horse-dewormer' taking devil-worshiper. Most diseases and treatments are in the 'Material' realm, or open to free scientific discourse, but Covid-19 and the 'vaccines' are not; the only allowable 'science' is the one pushed by the Jewish Globalist World order that controls the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Media. Indeed, notice how the nay-sayers of the 'vaccines' are effectively 'excommunicated' from the church of 'trust-the-science'(or schwience). And of course, anyone who dares to freely discuss the problems of racial differences, black crime, Jewish perfidy, homosexual decadence, tranny nuttery, and etc. are immediately deemed 'Unholy'; everything is done to ban such voices from media, academia, and even internet platforms that once used to be bastions of free speech. Like the Marxists in communist nations, Jewish Supremacists realized their grip on supremacy isn't tenable in a world of free flowing opinions and ideas where anyone and everything can come under scrutiny, criticism, and reappraisal. 'Unholy' views are immediately and roundly attacked as 'far right', 'hateful', and etc., funny coming from a people who've committed the most violence and mass killings since the end of the Cold War. Just ask the Arabs and Muslims whose policies led to the destruction of millions of them. They were victims of Jewish-Supremacist policies that animate the cuckish aggressions of the Anglo-managed US and UK.

American Pravda: the ADL in American Society - From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day - by Ron Unz

Something of the Jewish character can be glimpsed from a consideration of Anne Frank and Leo Frank. The comparison may seem perverse as one was an innocent victim of Nazi inhumanity whereas the latter was a pervert-murderer. But, not if the comparison focuses on the Jewish Reaction to the two individuals(or the two events they're associated with), and it has to do with Denial, a term usually associated with the Holocaust but which applies so often to Jewish reactions to events. Even to this day, Jews are in USS Liberty Denial mode. While Nazi horrors were many times more murderous and destructive than Israel's attack on the US ship, the nature of the lie is the same: A pathological inability to face up to the truth for purpose of ethnocentrism. (Ironically, Holocaust Denialists and Holocaust Dogmatists have more in common than they realize. Both are invested in History as Faith, either in the total innocence or absolute guilt of the Germans. This false dichotomy has made it virtually impossible to have a true historical discussion on the subject as anyone suspected of 'revisionism' is thrown into the Denial Camp.) What matters is the attack on USS Liberty was clearly a hostile act by Israel, but to this day, Jews refuse to own up to what happened. And not just the Israeli government, which would at least be understandable, but Jews all around the world. What does this say about Jewish Power and the general character of Jewishness when most Jews aren't willing to face up to the most obvious facts?

And if Jews aren't willing to face up to what happened to USS Liberty, why would they be any more honest or principled on far graver matters? And if most Jews, 'conservative' and 'liberal', so readily circle the wagons on something so obvious and undeniable, the only logical conclusion is that, for most Jews, ethnic unity and power take precedence uber alles. Besides, it's not as if Jewish criminality has been limited to isolated incidents like the USS Liberty attack. Jewish finance played a significant role in the expansion of European Imperialism, not least the Anglo kind. Jews had a key role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(at least in South America) and the forced sale of opium to China. Jewish merchants played a role in the Westward expansion and the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and Jewish radicalism played a key, even decisive, role, in the spread of communism and its horrors that led to the deaths of millions. And since the end of the Cold War, World Jewry have been the main butchers of the world as overlords of the lone superpower, the US, the foreign policy priority of which has been appeasing Zion by serving as its murderous attack dog. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others.
Furthermore, Jews have been the main concocters of this 'wokeness'(or Jewokeness) that plants poison seeds in the souls of whites(mainly via Afromania and Globo-Homo degeneracy) and prepares the West for White Nakba.

But, because Jewish Power has been dispersed among various nations in which goy 'buffers' were often employed to do the bidding of Zion, much of Jewish Evil has been attributed to anyone but Jews. So, Iraq War is blamed on George W. Bush and 'Neocons'(with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the most prominent faces), and most of the current lunatic policies are blamed on Joe Biden even though he's just a puppet of his Jewish Handlers. Even when Jews were considerably less powerful in the past, they had sway over key members of the goy elites via the control of money.
What all this means is that, while Jews have much to accuse the goy world of, they also have much to be accused of and much to answer for. Also, apart from the policies of National Socialist Germany that sought to be Jew-Free, thereby making its crimes its own, it's not so easy to differentiate the Jewish Role from the Goy Role in much of the Modern West. Jews, like the Irish, collaborated in much of British Imperialism. If most Irish did it as foot-soldiers, Jews did it as financiers. So, ironically, National Socialism rendered Jews the most innocent of German crimes during the Nazi Era, whereas the Western Powers that allowed Jewish participation made Jews accomplices in their 'racist' domination of the world. Not that any of this matters in the current Jewish-controlled Historiography whereby we are to believe Jews were always pure-as-snow innocents who were totally blameless of Western Imperialism and, if anything, the main poor hapless victims of Western 'antisemitism'.

Though Anne Frank and Leo Frank are two very different individuals, both have been shrouded by Jewish Lies. Thus, what unites them is the culture of Jewish Mendacity. Never mind the stuff about Anne Frank story being partly created by her father. Never mind the rather ludicrous canonization of some Jewish Girl into the new madonna. We can accept that she was a nice girl and met a sad fate(though she died of disease than gassing or a bullet to her head). The LIE is in propping her cult as the main face of Jewishness, thereby creating a false impression as to why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred and why the Germans were driven to such extremes. It'd be like using some Japanese girl who died in Hiroshima as the main face of Japan's place in World War II.
Now, clearly many innocent children of all nationalities perished in the war, and there's no problem in remembering and mourning Jewish children who died in the Shoah. And Japanese children who died in the war should be remembered as well. But the war against Japan wasn't about some crazed desire to kill innocent Japanese girls. Rather, Japanese children were the unfortunate and tragic casualties of a war in which Japanese adults in powerful positions decided to play with fire. To understand Japan's role in WWII, one needs to focus on the politicians, industrialists, military men, ideologues, and the Emperor. Likewise, even though many innocent Jews, even children, were persecuted and killed in WWII, no real understanding of the Jewish Role in the war can be understood without taking into account the dangerous and even reckless roles played by Jewish radicals, bankers, gangsters, fraudsters, corrupters, and perverts. Remembering Anne Frank as a sad child victim of History is a decent thing to do, but using her as the Face of Jewishness in the Modern Era is utterly bogus.
After all, Germans could do the same. Consider all the innocent German children who were killed by bullets or bombs, or who were raped(most likely by Soviet troops), or perished from starvation and disease. All such lives should be remembered, but it'd be foolish to use her story as exemplary of Germany's role in World War II. No, Germany got embroiled in the horrors because of Adolf Hitler and his reckless worldview(though it certainly wasn't helped by Josef Stalin, FDR, Winston Churchill, and others itching for some kind of major conflagration). Anne Frank Cult as the face of the Holocaust Narrative overlooks the role of Jewish Power that led to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists. Germans went to the dark side not because they wanted to hurt innocent Jewish children but had-it-up-to-here with the crimes and corruption of Jewish Power. However, in handing power to a bunch of radical Anti-Semites, there was the danger of innocent Jews getting it in the neck as well. But innocent Japanese also got burned for the crimes of their rulers.
Granted, it's never quite simple to draw a clear line between guilt and innocence. After all, many Japanese supported the policies of their rulers. But then, their minds were largely manipulated by the rulers who controlled the media, so there was a kind of circular logic to the mania. Likewise, many Jews did nothing to restrain the vileness of their tribal elites(and little has changed over the years as Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal are exceptions than the rule) and a good number of them participated, though not as key players, in the vile machinations of their tribal leaders. So, absolute guilt and absolute innocence are virtually non-existent. One could say children are innocent, which is true enough, but it's only a matter of time before children are indoctrinated into soldiers of the regime, much like it's only a matter of time before tiger cubs grow into predators. Children are innocent in the moment but not in their destinies, most of which are controlled by external forces; besides, even the internal drives of human nature leads one to aggression, competition, domination, or service to dominant forces.

If Jews used an innocent girl, Anne Frank, as the face of all Jews threatened or killed in the World War II period, Jews denied the guilt of Leo Frank altogether even though he was most certainly guilty of the rape-murder. A case of rape-murder denial. Though only one girl was raped and killed by Leo Frank, the Jewish pathology behind the denial isn't much different in kind from the denial of those who naysay all documented details of the Shoah. In some ways, it's worse among Jews because, whereas Holocaust Denial is a fringe phenom among goyim, Leo-Frank's Rape-Murder Denial has been the mainstay of Jewish Power and Jewish Majority, much like USS Liberty Attack Denial. Add to this the Jewish Virtual-or-Emotional Denial of the Rosenbergs' guilt in slippling atomic secrets to Stalin. While most Jews came to admit Rosenbergs were guilty of the act, they melodramatized the Narrative to make the Rosenbergs and other communists the 'victims' of 'red-baiting' and 'paranoid' anti-communists. So, even when Jews admit a good number of Jews were involved in treason and treachery, they canonize the guilty as 'victims' while reviling the prosecutors as subhuman persecutors of all things decent and humane.

Leo Frank was eventually lynched by a mob that just about had enough. He was only one person, indeed the only Jew ever lynched on American Soil. Therefore, it may seem ridiculous and perverse to compare his case with the Holocaust where, purportedly, 6 million Jews perished(though the real number is probably half that), Anne Frank included. US was good to Jews, Germany of the Nazi period was horrible for Jews. And yet, history and truth aren't merely about numbers. One Jew or Six Million Jews, the motivations of goy hatred could be the same. Thus, what the Leo Frank Case(the death of one Jew) and the Anne Frank Case(the death of millions of Jews) have in common is the Jewish tendency to commit horrific crimes and use the tribal network to circle the wagons.
Lucky for Jews, such Jewish behavior led to minimum anti-Jewish violence in the US(relatively speaking), but consider the goy rage in both US and Germany. In the US, southern white goyim were more than willing to give Leo Frank the benefit of doubt and his day in court. Frank wasn't treated like some Negro but had all the legal defense one could hope for. And yet, facts proved his guilt beyond a doubt, and the proper thing for Jews would have been to make him face justice. But, what did the Jewish community do? They circled the wagons. They chose tribal ethnocentrism over justice for the dead goy girl. Apparently, the life of a Jewish rapist-murderer was more precious than the life of a goy girl seen as little more than a shikse whore(later to replayed by Roman Polanski's case). Jews not only refused to face up to facts but tried to frame a Negro. And then, the Jewish Press slandered southern whites(who'd been kindly to Jews) as a bunch of raving 'anti-semites' when they'd offered Leo Frank every opportunity to prove his innocence. The real issue isn't that Leo Frank was a creep. All groups have their rapist-murderer creeps; John Gacy was no Jew. The issue was the Jewish Community went out on a limb to protect a fellow Jew despite his obvious guilt(and things are even worse today, with Jonathan Pollard giving the US a middle finger as he swaggers around Israel as a 'hero').

The Southern White Goy community just about had enough and took matters into its own hands. They grabbed Leo Frank from the jail cell and lynched him. The goy rage wasn't much different from what would happen among Germans during the Weimar Period, in which many German Jews, backed by World Jewry, did horrible things to the German economy, culture, and political process, which they would repeat all over again in Russia of the 1990s. But, the difference is German Rage put radical Anti-Semites in power, and the Nazis had a worldview not so different from that of Jews: supremacism. Just like so many Jews felt Jews could never do wrong and should always circle the wagons to protect other Jews, guilty or innocent, the National Socialist direction for Germany was Aryans Uber Alles.
Still, the rage that many German citizens felt that drove them to support the National Socialists wasn't much different from the rage felt by the Southern White mob that finally had had enough of Leo Frank and had him lynched. In both cases, goyim were driven to the limit by Jewish vileness. Historically, Germany had been less anti-Jewish than most European nations, but Germans came to believe that their relative niceness toward Jews only emboldened Jews to act more shitty. Likewise, historically the American South had been kinder to Jews, but how did Jews pay back this favoritism? They circled the wagons to defend the loathsome Leo Frank, the rapist-murderer of a white Christian girl.

Most crucially, both the US and Germany failed to do the right thing. In the case of Germany, the new regime went after ALL Jews. Even if many Jews had acted badly, there was no reason to target all Jews as the majority of Jews hadn't been gangsters, communist radicals, or financial thieves. And some were patriots who had fought in World War I and respected German culture. In going after all Jews, National Socialism disgraced itself and finally blackened German reputation with war and genocide.
One would like to believe the American Example was infinitely better. After all, Americans didn't go after all Jews but targeted one Jew, the guilty Leo Frank. Not that Jews ever appreciated this as they lionized Leo Frank as a saint, and the organization that grew out of the incident, ADL, now serves as the 'moral' muscle of Jewish Power and twists arms everywhere to push for Censchwarzship.
Still, it's surely far more sensible to go after the one guilty Jew than go after an entire community. Better to kill one bad person than kill 'six million', among whom the good are mixed with the bad. And yet, Americans also made a fatal mistake in the Leo Frank case. While only Leo Frank was responsible for the rape and murder of the white girl, much of the Jewish Community had been downright vile and verminous in trying to exonerate him out of tribal solidarity that smacked of racial supremacism: "We Jews are above the law when it comes to harming lowly goyim." (What's truly disgusting is that, even after all these years, Jews have doubled-down on the rape-murder denial and pretend as if Leo Frank is their own 'Emmett Till', all the funnier when even the real Emmett Till wasn't the 'Emmett Till' of myth, though St. George Floyd takes the cake when it comes to perfidious Jewish-manufactured idolatry. Even though the white mob was pushed to extreme measures against Leo Frank because of the dirty Arnold-Rothstein machinations of the Jewish Community, Jews have blame only the whites, never themselves.)

The real shame of the Leo Frank case isn't that some lowlife Jew was lynched. It's that White Americans didn't go far enough and do more. While it's a good thing that White Americans never became radically deranged like the Germans under National Socialism, they failed to realize that the main villain of the Leo Frank case wasn't Leo Frank himself but the Jewish Power Network defined by Jewish Tribal Supremacism. Indeed, Leo Frank would have been summarily tried and sentenced, and that would have been that had it not been for obnoxious Jewish meddling. The case was prolonged and perverted because Jews pulled every string in the book to prevent justice for the rape-murder victim. So, while Leo Frank was guilty of his crime, the Jewish Power Network was guilty of something far more egregious and consequential: Corruption of the justice system, and for what? Jewish supremacism that holds in contempt the humanity of white girls regarded as 'shikse' whores. So, White Americans shouldn't have stopped with Leo Frank. They should have started a movement to root out the networks of Jewish corruption and villainy. This doesn't mean they should have become like raving Nazis and gone after innocent Jews or done what they did to the Japanese-American population during World War II. Rather, at the very least, they should have done everything to root out the widespread elements in the Jewish Community that form networks and work together in favor of Jewish lives and interests regardless of truth and/or justice. The failure to do that has led to the rise of Jewish Networks that now rob the world through Wall Street and Big Pharma, that perverts the law to let Antifa thugs and BLM lunatics to run free and get a slap on the wrist if arrested... while January 6 protesters are denied the most basic of legal rights and parents who protest anti-white CRT agenda are labeled as 'domestic terrorists' by vile Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland(who almost became Supreme Court justice).

So, if Germans went too far in their reaction to Jewish Evil by going after ALL Jews, even good ones, White Americans didn't go far enough by fixating on the individual Jew while overlooking the power of the Jewish Network. After all, it makes no sense to see Jonathan Pollard as merely a bad individual Jew. He did what he did as part of a Jewish Network, and this network, with tentacles in academia-media-government-banking-etc., eventually pulled all stops to spring that lowlife scum from prison. Germans under National Socialism, in going after bad Jews, even went after innocent Jews, destroying the lives of girls like Anne Frank as well. White Americans thought the problem would be solved by taking out Leo Frank the bad Jewish individual while overlooking the fact that Leo Frank managed to elude justice for so long because of the Jewish Power Network operating on the premise of Jewish Supremacism and total contempt for 'filthy goyim'.

The Ideal Way for Americans would have been to Name the Jewish Power, to expose the Jewish Network. Jewish Evil isn't a simple matter of bad individuals doing their own thing but, more often than not, a matter of a bunch of Jews acting in concert within a network. It's like the Mafia, which is why RICO laws were necessary to bring down the underworld empire. Just going after individual mafia hoodlums(as if they're lone wolf street thugs) hardly made an impact on the mafia network; it was like cutting off one tentacle off an octopus that merely grew new ones. To take out the Mafia, the individual crooks had to be linked to the network and its bosses.
Likewise, Leo Frank was protected by the Jewish Network, which later canonized him as a saint, much like Tony Kushner did for the Rosenbergs in ANGELS IN AMERICA. To prevent further such abuse, White America should have at least gone after the Jewish Network and exposed it for what it is. Granted, it would have been more difficult with Jews than with the Italian-Americans whose criminality was far more specific to a social milieu. Indeed, Italian-Americans who broke from the Criminal Community tended to assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or Generic Americanism. In contrast, even Jews who operated above ground retained a powerful sense of tribal identity and loyalty, rendering mafia-like much of the Jewish networks in academia, media, government, and etc. Rudy Giuliani became just a New York mayor and did little for the Italian-American community. The idiot Cuomo Brothers are mainly careerists and have nothing to do with Italian-ness. But look at Jews like Victoria Nuland, Wendy Sherman, Merrick Garland, Stinkin' Blinken, and the rest of them, and they are NOTHING without Jewish Tribalism. Indeed, the demands of Jewish Tribalism are so strong that even goyim in politics cower before its will. Even Donald Trump who, in 2016 boasted that Jews don't own him because he's so rich, did little in office but take it up his ass from the Jewish Lobby and beg, "Can I suck your dic*?"

What the West needs is a RICO-ist approrach against Jewish Power Network. The evil didn't end with Leo Frank. He almost got away with rape/murder because of the Network, the same reason Roman Polanski has been able to sit nice and pretty all these years without facing justice. Indeed, can anyone explain the silence about USS Liberty without taking the Jewish Power Network into account? Or what really happened on 9/11 and how lies were spread in the media(essentially a Jewish Power Network) to rouse public support for Iraq War? Or how Jews managed to rape the Russian economy in the 1990s? Did just a handful of Jews, as mere individuals, manage to pull off the heist of the century all on their own? Or, were they enabled by the Worldwide Jewish Network? And consider the Russian Collusion Hoax. The Covid Hysteria and the rigging of the 2020 election. These were not done by isolated individuals but by the Network with links in government, media, academia, courts, finance, etc.

So, the lesson of the 20th century in regard to Jewish Perfidy is that the Germans went too far and the Americans didn't go far enough. Germans, in going after Jewish Evil, went after the entire population. Americans, in contrast, targeted only the individual while ignoring the power of the Jewish Network. Indeed, it is precisely because the Network was left alone in the US that Jews even managed to push the narrative that Leo Frank was some innocent saint lynched by a crazed 'anti-semitic' mob that, I supposed, one day just got off their ass to kill a totally innocent Jew for the hell of it.
IAIN DAVIS DISSECTS THE PSEUDOPANDEMIC