Now it’s time to look at the LGBT cause. It’s another movement that many on the far-right love to lay at the exclusive feet of Jews, but is that accurate? The “Jews did it all” theorists usually tout memes like this from the terminally low-IQ wigger operation GDL:

Like with all of these types of memes, this is a classic case of cherry-picking Jewish liberals out of a line-up of pro-LGBT liberals and attributing the entire cause to only these people, omitting and ignoring all the others involved who aren’t Jewish. This is massively dishonest.

Firstly, if you go through the Jews on this list, virtually all of them are gay or transgender themselves. So why not make a meme that says “every aspect of the LGBT cause is pushed by gays, trannies, etc.”? There’s really no difference between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew promoting LGBT; they’re both motivated primarily by their homosexuality. Same with trannies: they promote transsexuality because they are transsexuals or they are homosexuals who see common cause with transsexuals. Let’s look at a few.

Magnus Hirschfeld was a known cross-dressing homosexual who had gay lovers.

His main lover was Chinese LGBT activist Li Shiu Tong.

Hirschfeld cited a gay patient’s suicide due to shame as his reason for entering gay activism:

Edith Windsor was a lesbian.

Jazz Jennings is transsexual.

Abby Stein is a transsexual.

Frank Kameny was a homosexual.

Larry Brinkin is a pedophile and most likely homosexual.

Leslie Feinberg was a lesbian transsexual.

Brenda Howard was a bisexual.

James aka Jennifer Pritzker is a transsexual.

Eli Erlick is a transsexual.

George Weinberg is one of the only heterosexuals on this list.

Harvey Milk was a homosexual.

Kurt Freund is one of the only heterosexuals on this list and he married a non-Jewish woman.

Betty Berzon was a lesbian.

Fritz Klein was a bisexual.

Barney Frank is a homosexual.

Claude Cahun was a lesbian transsexual.

Dean Spade is a gay transsexual who supports the anti-Zionist “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” group.

So as we can see here, virtually all of these people are either homosexuals or transsexuals or both. It’s the same story with non-Jewish queer activists; they are either gay or trans themselves and promote this cause for that reason. Sprinkle a few hetero “allies” in the mix. Similar to a cause like BLM where the main activists are black with some non-black “allies”.

Think about this. If these people were promoting LGBT just to “wreck society,” then why are they engaging in the lifestyle themselves, promoting it to other Jews, etc.? Wouldn’t they protect themselves and other Jews from the degeneracy that they’re promoting if it’s only designed to harm Gentiles? Why become gay or trans themselves?

It’s possible that some of these people drew some kind of inspiration from their religion or background – at best some kind of “muh minority” type of solidarity – but it’s clear that the main motivation is their sexual orientation here. The libtard Reform branch of Judaism even allows gay Jews to become clergy now. Why allow or promote that within their own group if it’s a conspiracy to weaken and pervert only Gentiles?

Later in the article I will go further into how gay Jews promote the same queerness in Israel too, which undermines the conspiracy angle.

Hirschfeld had many non-Jewish associates doing the same work

One of Hirschfeld’s early associates who he fell out with was German sexologist Albert Moll. He was born to Jewish parents but converted to Christianity and went to a Catholic school.

Hirschfeld cited a non-Jewish German gay activist named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who preceded his work by many years, as his main inspiration:

Ulrichs has been called a “pioneer of sexology and the modern gay rights movement” who contributed a lot to gay and trans theory:

His first five pamphlets, collected as Forschungen über das Rätsel der mannmännlichen Liebe (Studies on the Riddle of Male-Male Love), explained such love as natural and biological, summed up with the Latin phrase anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa (a female psyche confined in a male body). In these essays, Ulrichs coined various terms to describe different sexual orientations, including Urning for a man who desires men (English “Uranian”), and Dioning for one who desires women. These terms are in reference to a section of Plato’s Symposium in which two kinds of love are discussed, symbolised by an Aphrodite who is born from a male (Uranos), and an Aphrodite who is born from a female (Dione). Ulrichs also coined words for the female counterparts (Urningin and Dioningin), and for bisexuals and intersex persons.

Other early non-Jewish sexologists like Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal and Richard von Krafft-Ebing cited Ulrichs’ writings as their primary inspiration.

Krafft-Ebing used Ulrichs work to forward his own thesis on homosexuality, pushing for it to be decriminalized:

This diagnosis allowed him to advocate complete decriminalization of homosexuality, arguing that homosexuals were not responsible for their “malformation” and that homosexuality was nIn Psychopathia sexualis (1886), he defined homosexuality as an innate neuropsychopathic disorder—essentially a hereditary nervous disease.[8] This diagnosis allowed him to advocate complete decriminalization of homosexuality, arguing that homosexuals were not responsible for their “malformation” and that homosexuality was not contagious.

Hirschfeld founded the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee alongside Max Spohr (no evidence he’s Jewish), Eduard Oberg (not Jewish), and Franz Joseph von Bülow (not Jewish).

The group “aimed to undertake research to defend the rights of homosexuals and to repeal Paragraph 175, the section of the German penal code that, since 1871, had criminalized homosexuality.” Hirschfeld succeeded in that endeavor with the help of German non-Jewish feminist Helene Stöcker, Hedwig Dohm (Jewish ethnicity but parents converted to Christianity) and other German feminists.

Other members of the group were Adolf Brand (no evidence he’s Jewish), Benedict Friedländer (Jewish), Hermann von Teschenberg (transvestite, nothing on Jewishness) and Kurt Hiller (Jewish).

Hirschfeld’s group gathered 6000 signatures from prominent Germans on a petition to overturn Paragraph 175, which included these names:

Albert Einstein (Jewish), Hermann Hesse (Non-Jew), Käthe Kollwitz (Lutheran), Thomas Mann (Lutheran), Heinrich Mann (Lutheran), Rainer Maria Rilke (Non-Jew), August Bebel (Catholic), Max Brod (Jew), Karl Kautsky (Non-Jew), Stefan Zweig (Jewish), Gerhart Hauptmann (Non-Jew), Martin Buber (Jewish), Richard von Krafft-Ebing (Non-Jew), Eduard Bernstein (Jew), Emile Zola (Non-Jew) and Leo Tolstoy (Non-Jew).

The first World League conference included these speakers:

Magnus Hirschfeld (Jewish), Norman Haire (Jewish), Vera Brittain (British), Dora Russell (British), Charles Vickery Drysdale (British), Stella Browne (British), Ernst Gräfenberg (Jewish), Marie Stopes (British), M. D. Eder (Jewish), Laurence Housman (British), George Ives (British), Eden Paul (British), Alexandra Kollontai (Russian), Max Hodann (unknown), Felix Abraham (Jewish), Bernard Shaw (British), Bertrand Russell (British), Ethel Mannin (British), Harry Benjamin (raised Christian, German mother, father part-Jewish), Peter Schmidt (German), William J. Robinson (American) and Jack Flügel (German-English).

That’s a total of 22 speakers, five Jews (not including Benjamin because raised Christian, only partial ancestry).

The first elected presidents of the World League were Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis (British) and Auguste Forel (Swiss).

Hirschfeld founded the Institute for Sexual Science with Arthur Kronfeld (Jewish) and Friedrich Wertheim (religion unknown). As you can see here, Hirschfeld’s operation was not exclusively Jewish and many non-Jews were actively involved in all of his organizations.

Other influential sexologists

Englishman Havelock Ellis was another early sexologist who studied homosexuality.

He co-wrote the first medical textbook in English on homosexuality in 1897, and also published works on a variety of sexual practices and inclinations, as well as on transgender psychology. He developed the notions of narcissism and autoeroticism, later adopted by psychoanalysis. Ellis was among the pioneering investigators of psychedelic drugs and the author of one of the first written reports to the public about an experience with mescaline, which he conducted on himself in 1896.

He also studied and promoted the idea that children can experience sexual arousal:

As noted earlier, he was a co-president of the World League of Sexual Reform alongside Hirschfeld.

Richard Linsert was a sexologist who worked for Hirschfeld’s institute. He wrote a counter-draft to the sexual criminal law of 1927. He also promoted contraception and wrote a text on male prostitution.

Friedrich Radszuweit was “a German manager, publisher, and author and LGBT activist, who was of major importance to the first homosexual movement.” He threw his entire weight behind the gay cause in Germany:

became president of the organisation Bund für Menschenrecht E.V. (BfM), which worked for the rights of gay people and for the deletion of Paragraph 175 in Germany. He started his own publishing company and published the monthly magazine Zeitschrift für Menschenrecht from 1923 to 1933. The company also published several LGBT books and homoerotic graphics.

Chinaman Li Shiu Tong was Hirschfeld’s protégé and lover who actively participated in the queer movement.

Non-Jewish German sexologist Volkmar Sigusch produced mountains of material to advance the LGBT/trans pervert agenda. He’s described widely as one of the “main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” He headed the Institute for Sexual Science in Germany from 1973 to 2003.

So this freak supported porn, open marriages and “dirty” sexual immorality in the bedroom.

He wrote over 850 scientific articles and 51 books on sexual themes:

Alfred Kinsey (Christian upbringing) has been credited as one of the most influential American sexologists who helped normalize attitudes towards liberal sexual mores and homosexuality.

An article on Kinsey’s legacy described his work as an atomic bomb that destroyed the stigma around homosexuality and sex in general.

Some quotes:

“Kinsey had dropped a bombshell that ‘hits every structure of sexual morality.’”

“Kinsey represents a challenge to all who have maintained a dangerously reserved position on the teaching of sexual relations.”

“Sex will have lost its intimate personal character and will become the most casual and common of all the biological activities of the human animal.”

He has received numerous accolades from LGBT groups for his work:

The main financier of Kinsey’s research was the Christian Rockefeller family.

In 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation became interested in his research and awarded him an initial grant of US$23,000.

PBS cited Kinsey as an early milestone for LGBT/homosexual acceptance.

John Money (Christian upbringing) is another influential American sexologist who normalized transgender surgeries in the United States.

The book The Man Who Invented Gender notes Money’s immense influence on the gender identity topic:

In the 70s and 80s his “presence was ubiquitous, from interviews in mainstream magazines to numerous appearances on television and constant quotations in newspapers. His pleas for sexual liberation made him hot copy for journalists.”

Laud Humphreys was a sociologist and Christian priest who is:

noted for his research into sexual encounters between men in public bathrooms, published as Tearoom Trade (1970) and for the questions that emerged from what was overwhelmingly considered unethical research methods. He influenced generations of scholars who research issues related to sexuality and sexual identity.

A book describes him as a “Prophet of Homosexuality and Sociology” and “a pioneering and fearless sociologist, an Episcopal priest, and a civil rights, gay, and antiwar activist.”

Influential Non-Jewish LGBT Activists & Figures

There are so many non-Jewish LGBT activists, too many to count. They go right back to the beginning of the gay rights movement. Like the Jewish ones, virtually all of these people are gay, trans, bisexual or all of the above.

Heinrich Hössli was an early promoter of homosexualism. He “published the first volume of Eros: Die Männerliebe der Griechen (English: “Eros: The Male Love of the Greeks”), another defense of same-sex love.”

Anglo-American writer Christopher Isherwood was in “the heart of the Gay Liberation movement.”

Englishman Thomas Cannon wrote the earliest defense of homosexuality and pedarasty titled Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify’d (1749).

Cannon’s work has been described as “the most extensive and varied treatment of male same-sex desire in all of 18th century literature.”

Cannon is said to have collaborated with English writer John Cleland, the author of the earliest known erotic novel Fanny Hill.

English social reformer Jeremy Bentham has been credited as having advanced the first known argument for the legalization of homosexuality in Britain, calling it a “victimless crime”.

Gay liberation traces itself back to the Gentile-led French revolution.

France was the first European country to legalize same-sex intercourse in 1791. Frenchman Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès co-wrote the Napoleonic code.

Homosexual Irish playwright Oscar Wilde is said to have “paved the way for gay rights in the arts.”

His novel A Picture of Dorian Gray was one of the first to positively depict a homosexual character:

His works were “rife with homosexual imagery”.

He was later put on trial and convicted of “gross indecency for homosexual acts.”

Other queer activists have drawn inspiration from Wilde:

Queer writer Juliet Jacques, author of four books, including Trans: A Memoir, says she recalls having a poster of Wilde’s quotes on her bedroom wall in her adolescent years.

The earliest known self-defined Drag Queen was Christian-raised African-American William Dorsey Swann. He has been identified as “the first person in the United States to lead a gay resistance group and the first known person to self-identify as a ‘queen of drag’.”

In the late 1800s, Swann would organize “drag balls” and was often arrested.

A key figure to advance the homosexual cause in England was George Cecil Ives, who founded the homosexual secret society Order of Chaeronea and the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology alongside Magnus Hirschfeld and others. Ives was a speaker at Hirschfeld’s World League conference.

Leading members of Ives’ British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology were: Edward Carpenter (non-Jew), Montague Summers (non-Jew), Stella Browne (non-Jew, a founder of the Abortion Law Reform Association), Laurence Housman (non-Jew), Havelock Ellis (non-Jew), Bernard Shaw (non-Jew), and Ernest Jones (non-Jew). So all of the main members of this group, with the exception of Hirschfeld, were non-Jews.

One member of the group, Montague Summers, portrayed himself as a “an uncompromising defender of Catholic orthodoxy” and wrote books on religious subjects. He was accused of anti-Semitism after lending credence to accusations against Jews of blood ritual sacrifices.

English poet John Addington Symonds was an “an early advocate of male love”:

supported male love (homosexuality), which he believed could include pederastic as well as egalitarian relationships, referring to it as l’amour de l’impossible (love of the impossible).[1] He also wrote much poetry inspired by his same-sex affairs.

Symonds “translated classical poetry on homoerotic themes, and wrote poems drawing on ancient Greek imagery and language such as Eudiades, which has been called ‘the most famous of his homoerotic poems’.”

American physician Charles Gilbert Chaddock is credited with “introducing the terms bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality from German into the English language.”

Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny was an early advocate of decriminalizing homosexuality.

English socialist writer/philosopher Edward Carpenter was also influential in advocating for homosexualism. In the 1890s he “began a concerted effort to campaign against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation” and his 1908 book The Intermediate Sex “became a foundational text of the LGBT movements of the 20th century”.

Scottish anarchist writer John Henry Mackay was another early advocate of homosexualism.

German Anna Rüling is known as the “first lesbian activist”. Her 1904 speech was the first known that addressed lesbian issues.

English lesbian writer Radclyffe Hall was one of the first to write a novel, The Well of Loneliness, that portrayed lesbian themes. She also appeared to be a transsexual who dressed in men’s clothes and called herself “John” in adulthood.

Englishman John Frederick Wolfenden chaired the Wolfenden Committee “whose report, recommending the decriminalisation of homosexuality, was published in 1957.”

Two British Labour politicians oversaw the decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK: Roy Jenkins and party leader Harold Wilson. Wilson’s tenure as Prime Minister saw radical changes across the board:

His government oversaw significant societal changes, abolishing both capital punishment and theatre censorship, partially decriminalising male homosexuality in England and Wales, relaxing the divorce laws, limiting immigration, outlawing racial discrimination, and liberalising birth control and abortion law.

They passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalized homosexuality. This is the list of the Wilson cabinet who oversaw all these changes. Virtually all Anglo-Saxon names with the exception of Russian-Jew Frank Soskice.

American LGBT Movement

We have gone through many of the forebearers of LGBT ideology in Europe. Some prominent ones were Jewish and many others were not. No exclusive blame there.

The American movement is the same. There have been numerous prominent Jewish homosexuals who joined the American LGBT cause like Frank Kameny, Reed Erickson, Harvey Milk and Edward Sagarin, but numerically there are many more non-Jewish activists doing the same thing from the beginning. Let’s look at some.

A PBS article on the American LGBT movement lists Henry Gerber as the earliest activist for the cause in America. He was raised Catholic.

Gerber founded The Society for Human Rights, “the nation’s first known gay organization, and Friendship and Freedom, the first known American gay publication.” An African-American priest named John T. Graves became the group’s president. The vice-president was Al Weininger. His religion/background is hard to determine. The name could be German or Jewish.

He is cited by American gay activists as the “father” of their movement.

PBS then lists Harry Hay as the next major activist who launched the:

first sustained national gay rights organization. In an attempt to change public perception of homosexuality, the Mattachine Society aims to “eliminate discrimination, derision, prejudice and bigotry,” to assimilate homosexuals into mainstream society, and to cultivate the notion of an “ethical homosexual culture.”

Hay was raised in a Christian household.

He is praised by homosexuals as a pioneer of their cause.

Hay was “influenced by the publication of the Kinsey Reports” written by Alfred Kinsey to kickstart the homophile movement. Prominent members of Hay’s Mattachine Society were Rudi Gernreich, Dale Jennings, Bob Hull, James Gruber, and Chuck Rowland. Only Gernreich can be identified as Jewish.

Hay and numerous others founded the ONE Institute to promote the cause. That group has been instrumental in normalizing and spreading LGBT lifestyles in American culture.

The original members were: Harry Hay, Antonio “Tony” Reyes, Martin Block, Dale Jennings, Merton Bird, W. Dorr Legg, Don Slater and Chuck Rowland. None of those names ring as particular Jewish.

Hay even supported the pedophile group NAMBLA.

Hay’s foundation in turn provided vital support to an analogous lesbian organization Daughters of Bilitis:

The founders of that group were non-Jewish lesbians Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Both women formed the Council on Religion and the Homosexual (CRH) at Glide Memorial Methodist Church in northern California “to persuade ministers to accept homosexuals into churches. The couple used their influence to decriminalize homosexuality in the late 1960s and early 1970s.”

The group included representatives from the major Protestant denominations who worked alongside the lesbian couple to push for acceptance of gays in the church.

They were the first legally married gay union in California. The couple “participated in every pivotal moment of California’s same-sex marriage fight”.”

The Gay Liberation Front members:

I could only confirm that three of these 19 people are Jewish and that’s not all the members.

This lesbian group, of 12 leading members a few were Jewish, maybe three or four hard to tell as most of these people don’t have biographies.

Similar for this group. The only member confirmed as Jewish is Marty Robinson, but it’s possible a few others were. Same as most of these groups, a mix of Jews and Gentiles, all of whom are homosexuals.

Non-Jew Craig Rodwell was a prominent gay activist who led the Homophile Youth Movement in Neighborhoods (HYMN), set up a bookshop for LGBT literature and was a “prime mover” behind gay pride rallies in NYC.

LGBT magazine, The Advocate, was founded by Protestant minister Troy Perry. He also founded the LGBT-affirming Metropolitan Community Church.

Homosexual youth group Vanguard was started by Adrian Ravarour and Billy Garrison. Vanguard magazine founded by Jean-Paul Marat and Keith St. Claire was sponsored by Glide Church.

Drag Queen Story Hour, which organizes drag queen book readings to children at libraries, was started by feminist-lesbian Michelle Tea who was raised Catholic.

The organization is led by two Latinos: Julián Delgado Lopera and Virgie Tovar.

Tea is also an anti-Zionist.

DQSH is also sponsored by RADAR productions. These are their current directors: an obese black woman and a mixed-race transsexual.

Their writers/artists are every imaginable race:

Here is a list of the most prominent American drag queens. You can go pour through that list to find some Jews but the majority are going to be non-Jews.

The most prominent Drag Queen promoter is African-American RuPaul, who was raised Catholic.

There is a long list of African-American LGBT activists.

An NBC article lists “16 queer Black trailblazers who made history”.

From 1960s civil rights activist Bayard Rustin to Chicago’s first lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, Black LGBTQ Americans have long made history with innumerable contributions to politics, art, medicine and a host of other fields.

Many American politicians with Christian backgrounds support LGBT.

Obama (Christian)

Biden (Catholic)

Elizabeth Warren (Christian)

Hillary Clinton (Christian)

I could go on and on showing the contributions of every race in America to this degenerate movement, but you get the picture.

Canada

One prominent Canadian pro-trans/LGBT sexologist is Jewish transsexual Aaron Devor.

Gerald Hannon (raised Catholic) was a pro-LGBT journalist/writer and male prostitute. He’s described as a “key figure in the [Canadian] gay rights movement”.

Here are 19 other prominent LGBT activists/supporters in Canada.

Barry D. Adam (unknown ethnicity)

The name Adam is Hebrew is origin but mostly used by non-Jews.

Enza Anderson (Non-Jew)

Florence Ashley (Non-Jew)

Alec Butler (Non-Jew)

Michelle Douglas (Non-Jew)

Jim Egan (unknown)

Brent Hawkes (Christian priest)

Alan Herbert (Jew)

George Hislop (unknown)

K.d. Lang (mixed ethnicities, minimally Jewish, practices Buddism)

Irshad Manji (Egyptian-Indian)

Christin Milloy (Non-Jew)

Arsham Parsi (Iranian)

Gordon Price (Non-Jew)

Svend Robinson (Non-Jew)

Bill Siksay (unknown, possibly Hungarian)

Clara Sorrenti (transgender streamer, Italian)

Jenna Talackova (Non-Jew)

Mark Tewksbury (Non-Jew)

Canada is the most pro-LGBT country in the world led by Justin Trudeau, the most pro-LGBT prime minister in history.

Trudeau and his father championed pro-LGBT bills like no tomorrow. They are Catholic.

Canadian churches are even starting to champion LGBT, gay marriage and trannies.

The current Trudeau cabinet is incredibly diverse and only has one identifiable Jew (Karina Gould) of 38 members.

And yes, liberal Canadian Jews also support that stuff.

British LGBT Activists

Earlier we looked at quite a few British activists, writers and sexologists who spearheaded LGBT causes in England and Europe in general. See the section “influential non-Jewish LGBT activists”. Let’s look at a few more.

A “trailblazer” for LGBT in England was non-Jew Mary Susan McIntosh.

The Independent described her as a “pioneer in feminist and gay movements.”

She dedicated her whole life to vindicating LGBT and feminism:

She had begun studying and writing about the sociology of homosexuality. Her paper “The Homosexual Role”, published in 1968, argued that homosexuality was not a clinical pathology and that historical and cultural influences affected same-sex relations, changing them in meaning and practice. Much of her work was based on questionnaires and notes of meetings with gay men interviewed in Leicester and London.

She helped to found the socialist feminist magazine Red Rag, and in 1970 became a founding member of the Gay Liberation Front, eventually working towards creating contacts between the women’s and lesbian movements. She played an active role in the campaign for women’s legal and financial independence, too, which led to the Why Be a Wife? campaign. She also became involved with other campaigns for the right to define one’s own sexuality.

Australian-born British leftist Peter Tatchell has been one of the most active LGBT promoters in the UK and around the world. He was raised Christian.

He has been involved with gay politics for decades.

Pretty much all queer activism in the UK has his name attached to it.

Here he is trying to justify pedophilia.

The works of writer Virginia Woolf are noted as “one of the first great tales of gender fluidity in the English canon”. She was an early bisexual who had affairs with women. She was not Jewish and was accused of anti-Semitism.

English diarist Anne Lister has been dubbed the “first modern lesbian”. She was Anglican.

Her published dairies detailing her lesbian exploits have “shaped and continue to shape the direction of UK Gender Studies and Women’s History.”

Prominent mathematician Alan Turing was prosecuted for homosexual acts. His name “has been at the heart of future campaigns to issue pardons and apologies to those convicted of homosexuality-related crimes”.

April Ashley “was one of the earliest British people known to have had gender confirmation surgery.” She was raised Christian.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 “used her case as a precedent and finally saw her recognised as female in the eyes of the law.”

Nigerian-British footballer Justin Fashanu was one of the first athletes to come out as gay. He is “a figurehead for a more open and equal approach to sexuality across global sport.”

Ghanian-British Phyll Opoku-Gyimah “has been a leading voice in the Black lesbian community and is a co-founder of UK Black Pride.”

Bob Mellors.

Brit Charlie Martin is the “first transgender race car driver” who has “used her status as a prominent racing driver to raise awareness of LGBT and transgender rights.”

Chevalière d’Éon is considered “the first openly transgender person in modern European history.” Transgender group, The Beaumont Society, is named after him.

The Fabian Society is the most well-known British Marxist-Socialist group that formed the backbone of the British Left. The Labour Party was born out of the Fabian Society. Many Fabians were speakers at Magnus Hirschfeld’s World League conference. Virtually all of the founders and leaders of the Fabian Society were non-Jewish Brits.

The group was started as an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life, founded by Englishman Thomas Davidson.

Key Fabians were:

Sidney Webb (no religion, Christian reference found)

George Bernard Shaw (Protestant)

H. G. Wells (atheist, Christian upbringing)

Graham Wallas (raised Christian)

Charles Marson (raised Christian)

Sydney Olivier (raised Christian)

Oliver Lodge (Christian)

Ramsay MacDonald (Christian)

The Fabian website attributes early British feminism to the “pioneering efforts of several early female Fabians.”

Some of these women included:

Annie Besant (raised Christian)

Beatrice Webb (no religion, no Jewish references)

Emmeline Pankhurst (raised Christian)

Emma Brooke (British)

Charlotte Wilson (British)

A few more Fabian feminists:

A UK LGBT website lists these people as their “top 12 LGBT+ trailblazers” of 2024. No detectable Jewish names here.

Of course, among all these British Gentiles you can find liberal British Jews doing the same thing:

As always, the common denominator here is that these people – Jew or Gentile – are all homosexuals or transsexuals.

Spanish LGBT Activists

Virtually all leftists in Spain are native Spaniards.

Oriol Pamies

Ángeles Álvarez

Carla Antonelli

Irene Montero

Pablo Iglesias

Rita Maestre

Ana Redondo

Yolanda Diaz

Juan Carlos Monedero

Íñigo Errejón

Pedro Sanchez

Luis Zapatero

All of the major LGBT, feminist and trans laws were first passed by Luis Zapatero and the PSOE and new ones were pushed in by Irene Montero and Podemos and passed by PSOE.

Homosexuals and transsexuals run dozens of organizations in Spain and host a large pride parade every year.

The most leftist country in Europe is entirely led by native Spaniards.

I could go on to document every country in Europe and you’ll find this same scenario: native Europeans are leading leftism.

NAMBLA (North-American Man-Boy Love Association)

NAMBLA was the first-ever pedophile advocacy group started by a bunch of sick perverts.

Let’s look at who ran this group.

The group was founded by non-Jewish Marxist David Thorstad who was born into a “devoutly Pentecostal Norwegian-American family.”

Another prominent member was non-Jew Bill Andriette.

Of the “affiliated individuals,” two are Jewish (Ginsberg and Horowitz) and three are non-Jews (Andriette, Hay and Thorstad).

Catholic-born (atheist) feminist Camille Paglia lent her support to NAMBLA and defended pederasty.

The usual J-trap method here would be to cherry-pick Ginsberg and Horowitz out of this lineup of pedophiles and ignore the rest, but the facts show it was a mix of Christian-born and Jewish-born pedophile scum.

Another pedophile group popped up in the Netherlands called Vereniging Martijn. The only known people associated with it were Dutchman Ad van der Berg and a Christian priest.

LGBT Celebrities

Ellen Degeneres (lesbian, raised Christian)

Bruce Jenner (transsexual, non-Jew)

Bruce Jenner has become a face for transsexualism and is trying to shoehorn it into conservative circles.

Ellen Page (transsexual, non-Jew)

Page has become one of the most prolific promoters of transsexualism.

Eddie Izzard (transsexual, British)

Billy Porter (African-American, homosexual cross dresser, raised Christian)

Laverne Cox (African-American, transsexual, raised Christian)

Dylan Mulvaney (American raised Catholic, transsexual)

Mulvaney has almost become the new “face” of transsexualism promoting it everywhere he goes.

The Wachowski brothers (Matrix directors, transsexuals, Polish descent)

Nikkie de Jager (Dutch transsexual)

Here’s a list of 49 trans celebrities:

The vast majority of these people are non-Jews.

Other prominent pro-LGBT celebrities:

Madonna (raised Christian)

Madonna has been described as a “gay icon” who “has consistently been an advocate for the LGBT community throughout her career.”

Lady Gaga (raised Catholic)

Gaga has become a leading pro-LGBT activist who uses her platform and charity to push the issue.

George Clooney (raised Catholic)

Beyonce (African-American)

Miley Cyrus (raised Christian, identifies as “pansexual”)

Cyrus quit her church because they weren’t pro-LGBT.

Taylor Swift (Christian)

Swift has been noted as “a longtime ally and advocate for the LGBTQ+ community.”

Oprah Winfrey (African-American)

Anne Hathaway (raised Catholic)

Of course, you can find liberal Jewish celebrities doing the same thing:

Ruby Rose (Jewish-Australian)

Lena Dunham (mix Christian-Jewish parentage)

Pink (Jewish)

Leading Trans Activists

A list of leading trans activists gives us these names:

Most of these people are black.

Who Finances LGBT?

It is well known that Jewish-American James Pritzker funds much of the trans movement around the globe. Pritzker is himself a transsexual. That is, in my view, his main motivation. His Jewishness may be relevant, but it’s peripheral to his transsexualism.

One of the most prominent LGBT financiers are the Stryker family.

HomosexualJon Stryker founded the Arcus Foundation which has “has given more than $58.4 million to programs and organizations doing LGBT-related work between 2007 and 2010 alone, making it one of the largest LGBT funders in the world.” His sisters Ronda and Pat are also involved in gay philanthropy.

Alongside German lesbian Ise Bosch, founder of Dreilinden Fund in Germany and Irishman Michael O’Flaherty, Styker’s Arcus Foundation established MAP, “a framework for global LGBT advocacy.”

Michael O’Flaherty was an ordained Catholic priest.

Arcus works alongside NoVo, a charity founded by Warren Buffett’s son, Peter.

Jon Stryker’s religion is not reported anywhere and there is some confusion about it. The name Stryker is German. A Times of Israel article lists him as a “Jewish Democrat donor,” but no other source confirms his Jewishness that I could find. This wouldn’t be the first time a Jewish website misattributed Jewishness to a person, which was also done to Paul Volcker. The people claiming this usually cite the same source, a Veterans Today (conspiratard website) article, which calls him Jewish in the headline but doesn’t provide proof. So the jury is still out on it.

Another major LGBT financial backer is non-Jewish homosexual Tim Gill. Rolling Stone wrote a piece on Gill explaining “how Tim Gill turned a $500 million fortune into the nation’s most powerful force for LGBTQ rights.”

Liberal nutjob Joe Biden heaped praise on Gill, saying, “If not for the work of Tim Gill… there is no telling where the LGBTQ-rights movement would be.” Gill has dumped a lot of his fortune into promoting homosexuality around the world:

Gill has methodically, often stealthily, poured $422 million of his fortune into the cause of equal rights for the LGBTQ community – more than any other person in America.

Gill’s fingerprints “are on nearly every major [LGBT] victory.”

Another big funder of LGBT groups is Jewish-Hungarian billionaire George Soros. Since he is not a homosexual himself (like most of the others mentioned), his motivation is to support generic liberal and minority causes to establish an “open society” safe for minorities of all stripes. There is testimony from Soros himself that his Jewish identity plays a part in his advocacy, owed to a type of Holocaust PTSD.

So once again we see a mix of Jews and Gentiles, mostly homosexuals, funding the expansion of their sexual preference around the world.

LGBT in Israel

If the promotion of LGBT values is a “Jewish conspiracy,” one must ask, what is the goal of the conspiracy? The usual answer is that it’s all a trick to make Gentiles degenerate and morally debased so Jews can obtain some sort of dominance over them, while sustaining traditional values for themselves.

This is severally undermined by the fact that Jews are embracing these degenerate lifestyles and sexual orientations themselves, both in the West and in Israel. If they’re supposed to be shielding their own from this stuff, they’re doing a piss-poor job of it.

Numerous branches of Judaism started accepting LGBT clergy since the 1980s, ordaining gay and lesbian rabbis.

Israel has at least a dozen LGBT organizations pushing queerness, transsexuality and all the rest of the rot in Israel.

Tel Aviv hosts one of the largest gay pride rallies every year.

Same-sex unions are not legal in Israel but are recognized if performed in a different country.

There are evidently trans Jews in Israel.

They are doing trans surgeries in Israel.

Israel is now allowing transsexuals to change their gender on ID cards without surgery.

Organized transsexuals in Israel lobbied for this.

Gay Jewish pornographer Michael Lucas has shot gay pornos in Israel and organized trips for homosexuals to visit the country.

The question is, why are Jewish homosexuals like Michael Lucas and others pushing their perversity in Israel if the goal is to only promote it among non-Jews? The simple answer is that these Jewish homosexuals and transsexuals (like Gentile ones) support this stuff across the board – for Jews and Gentiles – which weakens the malicious conspiracy claim. They are indeed weird perverts but are consistently pushing the same stuff onto other Jews.

Examples of Anti-LGBT Jews

One thing I see people citing is this idea that there are “eight genders in the Talmud” and they try to link that to modern transsexualism. This meme has made the rounds. It’s based exclusively on an op-ed written by Jewish transsexual rabbi Elliot Kukla in the New York Times. So once again, we see a transsexual trying to shoehorn her gender confusion into her religion in order to expand its acceptance.

The problem with this is that other Jews have rebutted her claims, saying that the Torah and Talmud only speak of two unique genders and other states of being that aren’t genders. I’m sure the Talmud contains some nasty stuff, but this particular claim appears to be false.

Jewish conservative Ben Shapiro chimed in.

The Old Testament (Torah) notoriously proscribes homosexuality as a sin, let alone endorses transgenderism.

Some Orthodox Jews seem to take those verses literally.

Orthodox religious Jews in Israel are much more conservative on the issue.

Religious conservatives in Israel are no fans of LGBT.

American Jews in particular are largely on the liberal side of politics (it’s about a 70-30 lib-conservative ratio) due to various factors, similar to American blacks. Both groups seem to have a “persecution complex” as minorities and that plays into their identification with liberal-leftist causes. But there are notable exceptions.

Ben Shapiro

Shapiro is a prominent Jewish conservative who has come out against abortion, pornography, transsexualism and Marxist “White privilege” theories. He co-founded the Daily Wire with Christian Jeremy Boering. Other DR hosts include Catholic Matt Walsh who has called out the demographic replacement of Whites.

Andrew Klavan

Klavan is ethnically Jewish but converted to Christianity. He is another Daily Wire host and has similar positions to Shapiro on social issues.

David Horowitz

Horowitz is a former communist who became a staunch critic of the Left. He is more on the neoconservative side but is also against most of the left’s social positions and groups like BLM.

Dennis Prager

Prager founded PragerU which produces conservative content. He is on the softer side of conservatism but opposes most of the extreme positions of the Left like radical feminism, radical LGBT politics, DEI, BLM, etc. He often defends Christianity.

Judith Reisman

Riesman was the most prolific conservative academic critic of Alfred Kinsey’s sex teachings. She was a “crusader against pornography” and Hugh Hufner’s “greatest living foe.”

Her work exposing Kinsey and the porn mags ignited an anti-pornography movement that led to President Reagan announcing the launch in May 1985 of what became known as the Meese Commission on Pornography.

LibsOfTikTok (Chaya Raichik)

LibsOfTikTok is the most prominent anti-trans/anti-LGBT account on X that has been crusading against queer and leftist extremism for years. It is run by Chaya Raichik who is an Orthodox Jew. Here she is being questioned about her anti-trans stance by non-Jewish leftist jouro Taylor Lorenz:

Laura Loomer

Loomer is a fanatical Trump supporter and Jewish Republican. She generally aligns with most conservative social views (anti-BLM, anti-trans, anti-feminism, etc.) and has even defended White identity politics and spoken at White nationalist conference AmRen.

Yoram Hazony

Hazony is a religious Israeli conservative who founded the National Conservatism conference that hosts right-wing populists at their events. He generally aligns with figures like Trump, Orban, Ron DeSantis, etc. He wrote a book called The Virtue of Nationalism defending the nation-state idea and ethno-centrism of nations.

Paul Gottfried

Gottfried is an influential Jewish paleoconservative and has been described as the “godfather” of the Alt-Right. He has most of the same views as someone like Pat Buchanan.

Mark Levin

Levin is a Jewish conservative pundit on Fox News who generally opposes all the radical left stuff and supports Donald Trump. He wrote a book on American Marxism.

Michael Levin

Levin is a Jewish-American race realist who wrote the book Why Race Matters defending the main arguments of race realism. He was a speaker at numerous AmRen conferences.

Michael Savage

Jewish conservative talk radio host who veered into some paleoconservative territory, including pro-White takes. He “summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture.”

Eric Zemmour

Zemmour is a French journalist and pundit who is probably the most outspoken Jewish conservative on the issue of demographic replacement of White Europeans. He has popularized the Great Replacement knowledge in France and is extremely pro-French and pro-West. He ran for office on the ticket of remigrating non-French, particularly Muslim, immigrants back to their countries.

Jewish billionaire Joseph Edelman funds a conservative anti-trans group:

Hedge fund CEO and billionaire biotech investor Joseph Edelman and his wife provided a $1 million donation to help launch Do No Harm, a new conservative advocacy group pushing anti-trans legislation in statehouses across the country, HuffPost has found.

Conclusion

In no way am I “defending” any of the people mentioned here. I am a social conservative opposed to the LGBT/trans pervert agenda, so obviously I disagree with all of the LGBT people mentioned and think they’re wackos. But that’s not the point of this article. Nor am I suggesting that “Christians” are exclusively to blame for this issue either.

The point is that the protagonists of the LGBT cause are homosexuals and transsexuals and their leftist fellow travelers of different backgrounds; just like the protagonists of feminism are women. No single group is to blame for this. These people are motivated by their sexuality more so than anything else, so obsessing about their ethnicity or religion seems to me to be a red herring.

That doesn’t mean that some Jewish leftists aren’t supporting this for peculiar Jewish reasons – like “minority mentality,” “persecution solidarity,” etc. – but the clearest factor in the politics of LGBT activists is their homosexualism, transsexualism, etc. Getting too caught up in the particular ethnicities of these people is a distraction from the main issue. And as we’ve seen, there is no single ethnicity promoting these deranged ideologies.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed the article, please consider a donation.

He received praise from HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) who said this:

HIAS pays tribute to the late president Jimmy Carter, who passed away yesterday at the age of 100. President Carter was a champion for refugees, and for human rights around the world. “During a global refugee crisis, and with bipartisan support, President Carter signed and implemented the Refugee Act of 1980, establishing a permanent system of asylum and refugee resettlement. In 1980, President Carter welcomed over 207,000 refugees to the United States through the safe and legal pathway of refugee resettlement, more refugees than any President – or country – ever resettled in a single year before or since.”

HIAS is a liberal Jewish group that backs refugee resettlement in various countries. They started out as a group that came to the aid of Jews specifically but now they seem to come to the aid of refugees regardless of their race or background. As you can see here they are also supporting Ukrainian refugees:

What’s interesting about their endorsement of Carter is that Carter was known as a strong critic of Israel. He wrote two books about Israel-Palestine in which he argued that Israel was practicing apartheid in the West Bank and blamed Israeli settlement expansion as an obstacle to peace.

Numerous non-Jews like Jimmy Carter, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn and other left-leaning politicians have worked to pressure Israel to abandon nationalism and militarism for a more pluralistic open society, which is an interesting case of liberal Gentiles trying to influence Israelis to be more like them. Normally we hear about liberal Jews endeavoring to impose their liberal values on Gentile groups, but this goes both ways.

What many JQ memers always assume is that HIAS is engaged in hypocrisy, believing that it only supports refugees for Western countries but not for Israel. The reality is that HIAS also supports refugees in Israel.

The HIAS team in Israel is thrilled with the ruling in the Jerusalem District Court that Eritreans who fled forced conscription under slavery-like conditions should be recognized as refugees. The ruling, a monumental legal victory, could apply to many of the Eritreans currently in Israel.

There are approximately 30,000 African asylum seekers who sought safety in Israel, after fleeing conflict and persecution in Eritrea and Sudan. Since arriving over a decade ago, African asylum seekers have made Israel their adopted home, speaking Hebrew, raising children, and contributing to the workforce and society. Yet, at the same time, the vast majority have not been officially recognized by the Israeli government. They have lived in a constant state of instability and insecurity, denied access to basic rights and social services.

“We are overjoyed with yesterday’s ruling, as Eritrean asylum seekers have been in Israel more than 10 years without recognition of their refugee status,” said HIAS Country Director for Israel, Sivan Carmel. “Israel has one of the lowest recognition rates of refugees in the world, and we are happy to be part of changing that.”

HIAS has had a presence in Israel since 1950 and has worked primarily with the asylum seeker community since 2014, providing legal services and other forms of aid. “We are optimistic about the future,” said Nimrod Avigal, HIAS Israel’s Director of Legal Aid. “This ruling has the potential to impact many Eritrean asylum seekers in Israel, providing them with refugee status which would affect all aspects of their lives, from healthcare to employment and economic wellbeing.”

HIAS makes it clear they are actively aiding African non-Jewish refugees in Israel:

In Israel, HIAS plays a critical role helping refugees secure legal status, the first step toward regaining control and stability in their lives. HIAS also assists refugees with access to social rights and services, facilitates resettlement, and works closely with the private sector to provide pro bono legal support for refugees.

HIAS works alongside Eritreans to make legal challenges to deportation:

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Eritreans and joined by several Israeli human rights groups.

More than 46,400 Africans living in Israel consider themselves asylum seekers, The Times of Israel reported, citing the African Refugee Development Centre.

Israel built a fence along its border with Egypt to keep out infiltrators.

Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees, called the decision a “partial victory for asylum seekers and their advocates in Israel.”

Hetfield said in a statement that he “welcomes the Court’s decision to end indefinite detention as a means of pressuring asylum seekers to leave to third countries.”

“At the same time, HIAS remains firmly opposed to Israel’s secretive system of deportations to unnamed countries that do not guarantee the protection of the individuals sent there,” he said. “Consistent with Jewish values and human rights, asylum seekers living in Israel must never be sent back into harm’s way.”

Jewish leftists who oppose Israel’s nationalistic policies are growing in number. A number of anti-Zionist Jewish organizations exist and actively lead boycotts of both Israel and Israeli lobby groups like AIPAC.

There are many cases of consistency that the memers ignore. Anti-Zionist Jews like Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal, Amy Goodman, Miko Peled, Aaron Mate and others have led the chorus of anti-Zionist voices who consistently critique Israel on liberal/leftist grounds. While I don’t personally like any of these people because they’re leftists, they are at least consistent in the application of their principles, and appear to be even more staunch in their opposition to Jewish-Israeli ethno-centrism than other forms.

That’s not to say there aren’t cases of hypocrisy. Mainstream Jewish groups like the ADL have generally supported Israel as a Jewish majority state and abstained from criticizing Israel’s policies. The ADL did denounce Netanyahu’s plan to deport Eritreans, though.

That is modest consistency. But considering the ADL is staunchly opposed to any manifestation of White European ethno-nationalism in Western countries, many have called them out for a double standard insofar as they sustain support for a Jewish majority immigration policy in Israel even if they oppose some of Netanyahu’s harsher deportation policies.

Some individual Jews can show hypocrisy on the issue, such as this:

This particular woman jeers at “White identity” as a manifestation of woke ideology while upholding and protecting her Jewish/Israeli identity. This kind of hypocrisy should be called out. While not unique to Jews as you can find members of other ethnic groups who similarly ridicule White identity while upholding their own (Black activists, Muslim activists, etc.), it does demonstrate that a level of Marxist anti-White brainwashing has penetrated Jewish communities.

Here’s an example of one who is consistent in his apathy to the disappearance of Whites and Jews:

The liberal Jewish groups in the West will show a degree of favoritism for Israel’s attempts to sustain Jewish demographics in Israel while opposing efforts to sustain White or Christian demographics in the West. That double standard is not universal as you can see many left-wing Jews oppose Jewish ethno-centrism in Israel as much as they oppose White ethno-centrism in the West. But on social issues like LGBT, feminism, trans rights, etc., the mainstream liberal Jewish groups are mostly promoting the same stuff in Israel too.

The bottom line is that Jews can’t have this both ways: either you oppose all manifestations of ethnic or religious nationalism or you accept all as equally valid. If your principles aren’t consistently applied, then you’re a fraud. Some Zionist Jews in Israel will accept nationalism for other groups and some leftist Jews will furiously oppose Zionism as much as any other type of ethno-religious nationalism. So we can give those ones credit. But there is a third group of Jews who want to have their cake and eat it too by promoting multiculturalism for everyone but themselves. These ones need to be straitened out.

If you enjoyed this article consider becoming a member.

This was first published on my SubStack account.

When you look at writings of Marx, all of his public and private declarations about Jews are extremely negative and hostile. He never wrote a good word about them and, in fact, labeled them the epitome of what he despised: capitalist profiteers (money-lenders, merchants, etc.).

Karl Marx was raised Protestant and professed belief in Christ as a youth.

Marx wrote “On the Jewish Question” and said this:

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement. We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

And this:

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

So Marx labeled Jews hucksters and called for the abolition of Judaism and Jews as a unique group. Looking at that, it’s very hard for me to believe he was pursuing a tribalist agenda when he despised them. Don’t attach the name Marx to these statements and your average Neo-Nazi would be shouting in agreement.

Fredrich Engels, Marx’s closest collaborator and co-author of many communist texts, was a non-Jew. Ironically, Engels was notably less anti-Jewish in comparison with Marx and denounced the phenomenon publicly, although he made some private anti-Jewish remarks. How do the J-communism theorists explain that? The non-Jew Engels opposed anti-Semitism publicly, while the Jew Marx supported and contributed to it.

More from Marx:

In 1845 in The Holy Family Marx claimed that in his articles in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher he had “proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today’s practice of life, the summit of which is the money system”. In 1849 an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was the editor, criticised the notion that Jews living in Prussia’s Polish provinces should be regarded as Germans. The article declared that these Jews were “the filthiest of all races”. “Neither by speech nor by descent- but only by their greed for profit – can they be looked upon as relatives of the Germans in Frankfurt.” Robert Payne has remarked that “this solution of the Jewish question was not very different from Adolf Hitler’s, for it involved the liquidation of Judaism”.

Marx was poor and often had to take out loans (sometimes from Jews), which motivated much of his sentiment against them:

He had many dealings with Jewish financial agents in the City of London. The Bambergers (father and son), Stiefel and Spielmann were German Jews whose names frequently crop up in the Marx-Engels correspondence. Marx made use of the Jews to raise small loans and to discount bills of exchange received from Dana (editor of the New York Daily Tribune) in advance payment for articles which Marx had agreed to write. Marx complained bitterly that the Jews would not discount his bills until confirmation from Dana had been received’ and he was furious when they pressed him to honour debts due for repayment. Marx showed his contempt by always referring to them as “Jew (or little Jew) Bamberger” and “Jew Spielmann” or by imitating the nasal twang characteristic of the way in which some Jews from eastern Europe spoke German. Yet Marx had cause to regret the day when the Bambergers were not in business in London any more and were no longer available to discount his bills of exchange. In 1859 he wrote to Engels: ‘it is the devil of a nuisance that I have no Bamberger in London any more.’

He goes on to disparage his fellow J socialist Lasalle as a “Jewish n-word” among other insults. In fact, both privately and publicly he would go on and on about Jewish money-lenders (see above snippets) and that was his principle gripe with Jews as a group. All of this sounds strikingly similar to the Nazis’ own rhetoric about Jews and money-lending.

In my view this fully refutes the J-communism conspiracy. If the only thing Marx is writing about Jews both in public and privately is negative and he is advocating for their disappearance as a group/religion, then how could he be the centerpiece of an agenda to advance that group’s interests? Some people are emotionally attached to that theory though, so they will react with hostility to any facts that undermine it.

The only and main critique that the Nazis leveled at Marx and Marxism was its “denial of the personality principle” or the “race principle” and simply that Marx was “a Jew”, deceptively ignoring the similarity of his own views on Jews with theirs. Rarely, if ever, did they critique Marxism on economic grounds and, in the case of Goebbels, asserted that Marx was right in his critique of capitalism:

“Karl Marx described the causes of capitalist development reasonably correctly. But we [Marxists and National Socialists] are both always and forever right about capitalism. The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system. It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it. Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and Hitler.” – Goebbels

“Lenin was the greatest man, second to Hitler. The difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is slight” – Goebbels

If you enjoyed this content consider a contribution or a membership.

In his book MacDonald tracks Jewish involvement in various intellectual movements: Marxism, Boasnian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Neo-Conservatism. MacDonald’s accusation is that Jews get involved in these intellectual movements specifically to forward a Jewish ethnic agenda that benefits their group exclusively, to the detriment of Gentiles, and that they don’t advocate for these ideas among their own group. He calls this a “group evolutionary strategy” to advance their group interests in hostile environments.

Cofnas points out a few exaggerations and flaws in this narrative. He notices a few things that MacDonald leaves out:

• high Jewish intermarriage rates among the diaspora non-Orthodox (72% among non-Orthodox American Jews who got married in the last decade)
• most Jewish leftists (with some exceptions) that MacDonald brings up also advocated for similar liberal stances for Jews (intermarriage, no in-group exclusivity, anti-Zionism, etc.) / that undermines the idea that those leftists were pursuing a ruthless tribalism for their own group
• The triumph of liberal social policy in Israel itself (LGBT, feminism, pornography, etc.) / negates the idea that Jews are uniformly pursuing traditionalism for their own people
• The existence of right-wing and even race-realist Jews who have participated in right-wing intellectual movements too (less so than leftist movements, but nonetheless they exist)
• The involvement of many Gentiles in the same leftist movements (and other leftist movements not mentioned by MacDonald) that MacDonald tries to pin exclusively on Jews

These are hard pills to swallow for the MacDonald thesis believers. When you look into the details, the Jewish monolith simply isn’t real and Cofnas makes a good case for this by pointing out Jewish involvement in right-wing political ideologies like Libertarianism, Paleo-Conservatism, even race-realism groups like American Renaissance, hereditarianism in the sciences, etc. He notes the prominent role of many Jews in the rise of Italian fascism, which contradicts the stereotype that all Jews are opposed to patriotism or nationalism in Gentile societies. There’s too many Jews on all sides of politics for the “Jewish monolith” meme to hold up. How would their involvement in these right-wing movements fit with the “group evolutionary strategy” hypothesis?

What Cofnas essentially argues is that Jews by and large get sorted on the left side of politics because of “right-wing anti-Semitism” and it’s hard to argue that point looking at the history of movements like National Socialism, the Russian monarchists, etc., who made anti-Judaism a prominent feature of their cause. If Jews are not welcome on the Right, then they will naturally gravitate to the Left, and then their prominence on the Left will be used as evidence of why they’re bad by right-wingers. I don’t think that’s the only reason many Jews join the political Left; there are also cultural and religious factors that lead them there. They do sometimes reference the bible when justifying pro-immigration policies, for example, and they often cite historical persecutions for why they favour pluralism, which Cofnas acknowledges. I call this the post-Holocaust PTSD motive for Jewish leftism.

Cofnas sums up his critique this way:

MacDonald paints a picture of Jews as hypocrites who impose liberalism on gentiles and adopt nationalism for themselves, but he ignores the fact that many of the most influential Jews seem to promote liberalism and multiculturalism for both gentiles and Jews. Just as problematically, in a number of cases MacDonald fails to report that Jews whom he identifies as ethnic activists took stands against Israel and other Jewish interests (again, defining “Jewish interests” in MacDonald’s terms as ethnic self-preservation).

We can look at a few examples here.

George Soros, who has said his Jewish experience in the Holocaust motivates him to push for an “open society” that will respect the rights of all minorities, applies the same liberal standards to Israel. He is known to fund pro-Palestine groups protesting Israel:

The cash from Soros and his associations has been key to the protests in Columbia University. At the Columbia University, three groups set up the tent city last Wednesday. These groups are Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and Within Our Lifetime. The SJP termed the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel as “a historic win”. The SJP reportedly received $300,000 from Soros’ Open Society Foundations since 2017 and also took in $355,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund since 2019, as per media reports. The Rockefeller Brothers fund is chaired by Joseph Pierson and includes David Rockefeller Jr, a fourth-generation member of the oil dynasty, on its board of directors. 

Soros has infamously clashed with right-wing Israeli PM Netanyahu who accused him of funding the opposition to his plan to deport African migrants from Israel:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday accused Jewish billionaire George Soros of funding a widespread campaign against the government’s plan to deport African migrants and asylum-seekers. Soros, who in recent years has backed groups critical of Israeli government policy, has become a bugbear for the pro-Israel right.

Soros vigorously opposed the Iraq war (which was promoted by pro-Israel Zionists):

A billionaire philanthropist is running full-page ads in major US newspapers challenging the honesty of the Bush administration’s case for waging war on Iraq. The ads, estimated to cost about $185,000, were co-sponsored by US philanthropists Dorothy and Lewis B Cullman.

George’s son Alex said this:

I worry when Jews in America start to support policies in Israel which they wouldn’t support in America which don’t allow for separation of church and state, which don’t give full rights to people who are technically living under occupation, and which don’t allow for immigration of people who aren’t Jews, or for non-Jews to become citizens. I will always support Israel as a nation state, but I don’t live there. In the end, I don’t believe in a Jewish world and a non-Jewish world.

I hate the Soros’ because they are globalist maniacs committed to swamping the West with Third World barbarians, but you can see here that they are more or less consistent in their leftism, even calling out other Jews who are not consistent in their political stances depending on the country. Committed Jewish leftists will tend to be tolerant of non-Jewish immigration to Israel and certainly lean left on social issues within Israel. Some exceptions pop up like hypocrite Chuck Schumer.

Israel allows the non-Jewish spouses of Jews to become Israeli citizens under the Law of Return:

As of 2021, 3,340,000 Jews have immigrated to Israel since its independence in 1948.[15] Hundreds of thousands of people who do not have Jewish status under Orthodox Jewish interpretations of halakha received Israeli citizenship, as the law confers citizenship to all offspring of a Jew (including grandchildren) and their spouses.[16]

The Israeli Communist Party manifesto says this:

The CPI fights for: (1) the interests and rights of the workers and the raising of their quality of life; the development of the country for the benefits of all its inhabitants, both Jews and Arabs, without discrimination; against all forms of racism, national chauvinism and social reaction; the defense of human rights and against all forms of discrimination; the defense of democratic liberties and against the danger of Fascism; (2) the equality of both civic and national rights of the Arab population in Israel and its recognition as a national minority; the legislation of an equal citizenship law; the defense of the rights of Arab citizens who were torn from their land and property; for Jewish-Arabic fraternity; (3) the equality of rights for women in all spheres; an end to all forms of violence and coercion towards women; (4) for an equality of rights of Mizrachi Jews; (5) for the defense of the rights of children and youths; (6) for the defense of foreign workers; (7) against militarism and for the recognition of the right of conscientious objection; (8) for the separation of religion and state; to guarantee freedom of conscience; the end of all forms of religious coercion; guaranteeing freedom of worship for all religions without discrimination, and the right of every person to freely choose a secular or religious way of life. In both th e past and the present, the Communist Party of Israel swims against the tide national chauvinism among Jews and Arabs. We reject the ideological roots and the praxis of Zionism, which breed racist attitudes and undermines equality and democracy.

Sounds exactly like the kind of melting pot open society the Soros’ envision for Israel.

The pro-refugee organization HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid) also backs refugees in Israel and organizes support for them:

Israel has one of the lowest recognition rates of refugees in the world, and we are happy to be part of changing that. HIAS has had a presence in Israel since 1950 and has worked primarily with the asylum seeker community since 2014, providing legal services and other forms of aid.

The radical leftist Jewish group Anti-Defamation League, known for its support of Israel generally, stood with HIAS in opposing Netanyahu’s plan to deport African asylum seekers:

ADL and HIAS have grave concerns over a reported Israeli government plan to deport tens of thousands of African asylum seekers from Israel, either by coercion or force. Under this plan, Sudanese and Eritreans in Israel were given three months to leave the country or face indefinite incarceration. In this open letter, the American organizations urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to refrain from implementing this plan.

The ADL even scolds its fellow Jews who take an anti-LGBT stance and acts as tone police of the Jewish community to keep them squarely in the social liberal camp.

I will say that the ADL, while mildly opposing the more extreme manifestations of Israeli Zionism or Jewish supremacism, is fairly quiet on those issues and mostly just attacks perceived anti-Semites and anti-Zionists. So if they’re attacking anti-Zionism and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, then they by default support Zionism. So they could be categorized, in my view, in the “hypocrite” category on the topic of immigration and nationalism while probably supporting a socially liberal program for Israel on other issues like LGBT, abortion, etc.

Jewish “anti-racist” activist Tim Wise makes it quite clear here he’s an anti-Zionist.

He opposes a Jewish state and wants Israel to become a multi-racial democracy, like he does in the West:

He is a critic of Israel, and philosophically opposed to Zionism, which he views as not only oppressive to non-Jews in Palestine, but detrimental to Jews as well, and counter to Jewish values.

Look into any of these major leftist Jewish figures and you’ll find it’s normally the case they advocate for the same stuff in Israel. There are some cases of Jews with conflicting views on Israel vs a Western country, but for these hardcore anti-racist activists it’s pretty consistent.

Another example is pro-immigration zealot Ronit Lentin in Ireland where she “became increasingly involved in Palestine solidarity activism”. She’s described here as “an anti-racist and pro-Palestine activist” and published a book Thinking Palestine which a reviewer described as, “‘The book should be read closely by serious pro-Palestinian activists wishing to sharpen their conceptual tools in the ceaseless battle against Zionist propaganda.'” She pushes multiculturalism for both the West and Israel. She’s a bad influence for sure but at least consistent.

One notable exception is Barbara Spectre, who pushed for multiculturalism in Sweden, but is married to a rabbi and has made no notable critique of Israel (that I’m aware of) vis-a-vis its policy towards Palestinians.

Jewish anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow apply the same principles to both Jews and Gentiles, the West and Israel. Their website says this:

Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. Zionism has meant profound trauma for generations, systematically separating Palestinians from their homes, land, and each other. Zionism, in practice, has resulted in massacres of Palestinian people, ancient villages and olive groves destroyed, families who live just a mile away from each other separated by checkpoints and walls, and children holding onto the keys of the homes from which their grandparents were forcibly exiled.

By creating a racist hierarchy with European Jews at the top, Zionism erased those histories and destroyed those communities and relationships. In Israel, Jewish people of color – from the Arab world, North Africa, and East Africa – have long been subjected to systemic discrimination and violence by the Israeli government. That hierarchy also creates Jewish spaces where Jews of color are marginalized, our identities and commitments questioned & interrogated, and our experiences invalidated. It prevents us from seeing each other — fellow Jews and other fellow human beings — in our full humanity.

IfNotNow, a similar group, lays out their mission to defeat Zionism and “Ashkenazi dominance” in Israel, as well as AIPAC.

Jewish anti-Zionists like Max Blumenthal, Norman Finkelstein, Miko Peled, Noam Chomsky, David Sheen, Ilan Pappe and others positively fall outside the mold of the “group strategy” outlined by MacDonald. They apply their liberal egalitarian standards even more categorically towards Israel, dedicating much of their lives to opposing ethno-religious nationalism there. This Jewish disconformity on the Israel/Zionism issue is not something a “group evolutionary strategy” can explain.

There’s also some consistency on the other end, with Israeli nationalists like Netanyahu approving of stricter border policies in the West. Netanyahu and Likud in Israel have had warm relations with immigration-restrictionist populist parties in Europe (Orban, Geert Vilders, Spain’s Vox, etc.) and the Donald Trump-led Republicans in the US, which indicates their tolerance towards those types of policies in the West so long as the parties aren’t explicitly anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. Netanyahu personally called for Western countries to restrict immigration in his 1995 book:

Israel, despite being led by hardcore Likud Zionists committed to a Jewish majority, has permitted the prescence of two million Arab Israelis, 150,000 Druze and other non-Jewish citizens, and has embraced a mostly socially liberal program for the country.

Additionally, 168,000 Ethiopian Jews (who are black) have been incorporated into the country.

Mizrahi and Ethiopian are both somewhat distinct ethnicities from the Sephardim and Ashkenazim, so Israel is far from an ethnically pure state.

There are dozens of LGBT rights groups in Israel and Tel Aviv hosts large gay pride rallies every year.

Abortion is legal in Israel as is pornography.

Feminism is also rampant in Israel and laws are biased against men. This documentary says “Israeli women are the freest in the East, emancipated and independent”:

PEW Research says this:

Most U.S. Jews – with the exception of the Orthodox – say that rabbis should perform interfaith weddings. The same is true for same-sex weddings. Among U.S. Jews who are married, 2% say they are married to a spouse who is the same sex, while 3% of Jews who are married or living with a partner have a partner who is the same sex.

Also:

About one-in-ten U.S. Jewish adults identify as gay or lesbian (4%) or bisexual (5%)

So most US Jews not only welcome interfaith marriages among Jews but also homosexual marriages.

Reform Judaism fully welcomes Gentile converts to the faith. A NYT report from the 80s says:

The synagogue branch of Reform Judaism has started a vigorous program to invite conversions by non-Jewish partners in mixed marriages and by those Americans who express no religious preference. The plan, approved this week in Boston by the biennial convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, an organization of 735 Reform synagogues, represents a historic step toward welcoming non-Jews into Judaism, but stops short of encouraging outright proselytizing.

A website for Reform Judaism says this:

Modern-day Reform Jews wholeheartedly welcome those who have chosen to convert to Judaism, recognizing that our Jewish community is made stronger by those who actively seek to become Jews. As more and more Jews-by-choice enter the Jewish community and as public discussion of such choice grows more commonplace, Jews-by-choice have found that their acceptance in the Jewish community has grown. In fact, the Reform Jewish community, as a whole, is proud of its many congregational leaders, as well as a number of rabbis and cantors, who are Jews-by-choice.

Reform Jewish congregations also celebrate multiculturalism, diversity and multi-racial Jews. One congregation’s website says:

We rejoice that at least 25% of the Jewish population is racially and ethnically diverse, including African, African American, Latino (Hispanic), Asian, Native American, Sephardic, Mizrahi, and mixed-race Jews by heritage and marriage. Also, cross-cultural and cross-racial adoptions have been a part of our history from biblical times. We welcome you to bring color, flavor, and fullness to our Congregation. Recognizing that we are all created b’tzelem Elohim (in the image of God), we are pleased to welcome the multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic Jewish individuals and families in our community.

Another remarks: “We’re a global, multiracial people that’s growing more racially and ethnically diverse through interfaith and interracial marriage, conversion, and adoption.”

Another Reform website fully embraces diversity for Jews:

A major component of this is ensuring that all our Jewish communal spaces are affirming for all Jews and their loved ones, something which we – both as the Reform Jewish community and as a broader Jewish community – have not yet achieved. We can further advance toward this vision by learning and implementing three core principles/practices: diversity, inclusion, and equity.

The memes you see online tend to monolithically portray all Jews as “racist ethno-centrists” who would only advocate for social liberalism and degeneracy in the “goyim countries” while keeping Israel free of these vices. The truth is, many of these vices (with the exception of casino gambling) have arrived to Israel, a country run exclusively by Jews. If this was all just mendaciously designed to injure Gentiles, then why have they embraced much of it in Israel?

Cofnas’ argument against MacDonald’s thesis is that Jews are not a hive-mind and thus not all are pursuing the same objectives let alone “group strategy,” nor can all Jews even agree on what that strategy should look like. Jewish liberalism will eventually lead to the disappearance of Jewry into assimilation, which is what Frans Boas himself advocated for, stating:

Thus it would seem that man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until Negro blood has been so much diluted that it will no longer be recognized just as anti-Semitism will not disappear until the last vestige of the Jew as a Jew has disappeared.

If Boas advocated for total Jewish assimilation with Gentiles to the point where Jewish identity disappears, as it appears he did there, then he can’t be counted as a self-interested Jew “advancing Jewish interests”. Franz Boas looms large in MacDonald’s thesis of group strategy, but the case for him being motivated by Jewish considerations is weak. He had a strong German cultural identity to the point of co-founding a German cultural society in America:

He also married a Catholic Gentile, which disputes MacDonald who falsely claimed he married a Jew to prove his ethno-centrism. Many scholars concluded that Boas had a weak Jewish identification and a stronger German one:

The likely reality of the situation is this illuminated by Glick (1982): throughout his life, Franz Boas was by identity primarily a German or German-American (who probably “never identified himself in his public writings as Jewish”) and “recognized the right, indeed the duty, of Germans in America to maintain pride in their national origins and cultural heritage, but advocated assimilation to the point of literal disappearance for Jews.” (In agreement is Damrosch (1995, 1), cited earlier.) In fact, “in common with many other Jews, particularly German Jews and others of a strongly assimilationist bent, he did not acknowledge the existence of a specifically Jewish cultural or ethnic identity.” Rather, he displayed considerable partiality to Germany

Another Jewish Boasian, Alexander Goldenweiser, criticized Jewish Zionists as “racial snobs” oppressing Arabs:

Here for once, the tables are reversed, and the Jew turns into a racial snob. . . . In the “democratic” organization of the new Jewish state, the Arab is outvoted and ruled against his will by the Jewish people with the assistance of foreign British police. . . . Those same Arabs . . . are regarded by the Jews as inferior, as a primitive race.

Even Israel Zangwill, known for popularizing the “melting pot” idea of America, did not advocate for racial intermixing between black and White and was referring to a “European melting pot” as immigration at that time mostly came from Europe. A line from Zangwill’s famous play was this: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming.“

Zangwill said this:

The devil is not so black nor the black so devilish as he is painted. This is not to deny that the prognathous face is an ugly and undesirable type of countenance or that it connotes a lower average of intellect and ethics, or that white and black are as yet too far apart for profitable fusion. Melanophobia, or fear of the black, may be pragmatically as valuable a racial defence for the white as the counter-instinct of philoleucosis, or love of the white, is a force of racial uplifting for the black. . . . 

[N]egroes of genius . . . should be far less unwelcome than that which starts with the dregs of both races. But the negroid hair and complexion being, in Mendelian language, “dominant,” these black traits are not easy to eliminate from the hybrid posterity; and in view of all the unpleasantness, both immediate and contingent, that attends the blending of colours, only heroic souls on either side should dare the adventure of intermarriage. Blacks of this temper, however, would serve their race better by making Liberia a success or building up an American negro State, as Mr. William Archer recommends, or at least asserting their rights as American citizens in that sub-tropical South which without their labour could never have been opened up.

So Zangwill was more or less advocating for blacks to self-govern in Africa (Liberia) or in some isolated part of America where they can all go. The melting pot idea of Zangwill, which got twisted by modern progressives later to mean inviting the whole world to America, was that the various ethnicities of Europe immigrating to America should give up their previous identities and become exclusively American.

I guess you could argue that he more or less helped kickstart the spirit of that progressive idea, but you can’t argue in good faith that he was equivalent to a modern progressive who sees America as a dumping ground for the Third World.

When you get down deep into the details, it is not as black and white as the MacDonald side makes it out to be.

Ignoring Gentile Involvement

A major critique of MacDonald from Cofnas and the writer behind Mischling Review is that he went to great pains to omit any references to radical leftist Gentiles and their influence on the Jewish subjects in his book because it would weaken his overall case that this is all exclusively Jewish-motivated and Jewish-led. One such example here:

So in his treatment of Levi-Strauss, MacDonald excised parts of a text that implied Strauss was influenced by leftist-liberal Gentile philosophers John-Jacques Rosseau and Jean-Paul Sartre. MacDonald also claimed that Levy-Strauss had a strong Jewish identity and was concerned with anti-Semitism, but a researcher uncovered strong evidence that Strauss did not identify strongly as Jewish and identified much more as French.

Cofnas makes mention of MacDonald’s selective treatment of the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration bill in the US, putting all focus on Cellar and the pro-immigration Jewish groups who backed the bill. Cofnas writes:

As always, MacDonald’s version of history is tendentious, highlighting liberal Jews, making unsupported speculations about their motives, and ignoring or downplaying the role played by gentiles. He says that, in the century leading up to the 1965 immigration law, Jewish groups opportunistically made alliances with other groups whose interests temporarily converged with Jewish interests (e.g., a constantly changing set of ethnic groups, religious groups, pro-communists, anticommunists, the foreign policy interests of various presidents, the political need for presidents to curry favor with groups influential in populous states in order to win Philosophia (2021) 49:1329–1344 1337 1 3 national elections, etc.). Particularly noteworthy was the support of a liberal immigration policy from industrial interests wanting cheap labor. This is a mealy-mouthed way of saying that there were powerful gentile groups with the same position on immigration as the Jewish groups.

It is true that Jewish groups helped push for the passage of the bill as did Emannuel Cellar and Jacob Javits who were Jewish, but the bill’s co-sponsor Phillip Hart was not Jewish and neither were other major backers of the bill like Ted Kennedy. Cofnas acknowledges the role Jewish organizations played in pushing for the bill, but counters that they were not alone:

Kennedy’s election in 1960 “ensured that immigration reform, though not a priority for the new administration, would find a place on the new president’s agenda” (ibid.: 55). In 1965, Johnson was president, and Democrats controlled both the Senate (68–32) and the House (295–140). Graham comments: “These circumstances, especially the egalitarian thrust from the civil rights movement, virtually ensured that the 89th Congress would be pressed by the White House and the congressional leadership to abolish the national origins quota system in 1965” (ibid.: 56).

So John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and other non-Jewish Democrats were strongly in favour of the civil rights movement and immigration reform. Here’s a speech from JFK on civil rights in which he comes out strongly for black liberation and integration:

Various Kennedy family politicians were all major protagonists of the civil rights movement and immigration reform of the 60s:

Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921. Ted Kennedy, along with Attorney General and Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), were both proponents of the bill, in part to honor their brother and also because it was consistent with their general interest in civil rights and international cold war politics, Chin adds.

Kennedy was not for unlimited immigration but absolutely supported a color-blind policy based on merit:

Renewal of the system was particularly offensive to groups that represented Italians and Jews, who had been particularly affected by the restrictions. The American Committee on Italian Migration conducted an intensive lobbying campaign. Publication of A Nation of Immigrants was a project of the Anti-Defamation league of B’nai B’rith, which had been impressed by Sen. John F. Kennedy’s record of supporting liberal immigration laws, including measures to accept refugees from war-ravaged Europe. The book was actually written by a member of Kennedy’s staff, Myer Feldman. Describing Kennedy’s participation as minimal, Feldman said the senator had “reviewed it, and did some editing.”10

While Kennedy was one of his era’s most outspoken reform advocates, he used a 1957 speech to the American Jewish Congress to make clear that he did not favor unlimited immigration. He stated his conviction that “we should have a system of limited and selective migration to the United States.” Kennedy’s principal objection with the status quo was about “the nature, not the existence” of restrictions. Asserting that a selective policy was necessary, he said that policy should “give preference to an immigrant because he is a nuclear physicist rather than because he is an Anglo-Saxon.”11

Kennedy was aware of the political as well as the ideological value of expansive immigration policies, especially in northern states where immigrants and their families were concentrated. In a 1955 letter to fellow Sen. Lyndon Johnson, he wrote, “The Democratic Party must do something to fulfill its 1952 pledges concerning revision of the McCarran Act if it is to have any appeal in the large cities of the North in 1956.”12

Notice that an Italian group also strongly lobbied for the reform. A description of that group’s activities is as follows:

The American Committee on Italian Migration (ACIM) was organized in February 1952 as a member agency of the National Catholic Resettlement Council, which later formed part of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC). From its inception, ACIM’s chief objective was the liberalization of the United States immigration policy that, as delineated in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, rested upon a restrictive “national origins” quota. ACIM undertook a wide range of activities, from raising funds to sponsoring new Italian immigrants into the United States and promoting new immigration legislation by Congress. This collection contains additional materials donated to CMS by ACIM in 2003, mostly documenting ACIM’s work in the 1970s-1990s. The collection contains office files and case records pertaining to lobbying US Congress regarding immigration law, and to the assistance of Italian immigrants in Italy and the United States.

MacDonald makes no mention of that Italian-Catholic lobby group in his discourse on the 1965 immigration bill.

Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Baines Johnson championed the immigration reform cause after Kennedy’s assassination:

But as Johnson delivered his first such address less than two months after becoming president he became an energetic advocate of the reform. “We must … lift by legislation the bars of discrimination against those who seek entry into our country, particularly those who have much needed skills and those joining their families,” President Johnson said. In a reference to the legislation’s use of preferences to replace national quotas, he added: “A nation that was built by the immigrants of all lands can ask those who now seek admission: ‘What can you do for our country?’ But we should not be asking: ‘In what country were you born?'”

We can see a convergence of interests emerging here among the ethnic/religious minority groups: Italian Catholics, Irish Catholics (like Kennedy) and Jews, all of whom perhaps felt slighted by the cultural dominance of WASPs.

All of that is interesting, especially considering that JFK was not known to be a stooge of Israel or Zionist interests, having pressured Israel to submit to more rigorous inspections to scuttle its burgeoning nuclear weapons program:

Kennedy pressured the government of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to prevent a military nuclear program, particularly after stage-managed tours of the Dimona facility for U.S. government scientists in 1961 and 1962 raised suspicions within U.S. intelligence that Israel might be concealing its underlying nuclear aims.  Kennedy’s long-run objective, documents show, was to broaden and institutionalize inspections of Dimona by the International Atomic Energy Agency. … Declassified documents reveal that more than any other American president, John F. Kennedy was personally engaged with the problem of Israel’s nuclear program; he may also have been more concerned about it than any of his successors. Of all U.S. leaders in the nuclear age, Kennedy was the nonproliferation president.

JFK and his brother Robert also tried to pressure the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent. JFK also supported Arab and African independence and nationalism:

JFK personally supported Arab and African nationalism. As a senator in 1957, he criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting and sending weapons to France in their war against the Algerian independence movement. In a 9,000 word presentation to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he criticized “western imperialism” and called for the US to support Algerian independence. Algerian President Ben Bella, who France had tried to assassinate and considered far too radical by many in NATO, was given a huge and impressive welcome to the White House.

A piece on JFK’s diplomatic conflict with Zionist Israel notes this:

Kennedy wanted to steer the Jewish Zionists away from the racist, militaristic and ultra-nationalistic impulses which have led to where we are today.

Kennedy supported Palestinian rights and the right of return:

All of that sounds to me like Kennedy was working to pressure Israel to become a more liberal and tolerant society, a very interesting case of a Catholic Gentile pressuring Zionist Jews to abandon in-group preference in favour of liberal equality. (Another interesting example of that is former US President Jimmy Carter who became a strong critic of Israel and Zionism). So the usual cop-out logic that liberal politicians like Kennedy are mere “puppets” of the Jewish lobby can’t reasonably be asserted here given his less-than-sycophantic stance on Israel and its domestic American lobby. He held genuine progressive beliefs and pursued them politically. He applied the same standards to both the US and Israel.

The national origins quota system was also already being circumvented to allow in hundreds of thousands of non-European immigrants:

On the other hand, Graham says that, in the wake of the civil rights movement and political developments that coincided with Lyndon B. Johnson’s election, “[a]bolishing that system [i.e., the national-origins quotas] seemed an idea whose time had come” (ibid.: 61). He explains that “[t]he immigration system constructed in the 1920s…was threatened by growing evidence that it no longer worked” (ibid.: 53). In the years leading up to 1965, an “incoherent patchwork of special government measures” had already been established to circumvent the national-origins quotas (ibid.: 53–54). Between 1945 and 1960, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower used “executive parole authority” to admit 700,000 refugees outside the quota system (ibid.: 54). “Congress…responded to the…political and cold war pressures by expanding the use of special statutes that worked outside the annual immigration quotas.” In the 1950s, “the Bracero program imported on average 360,000 low-wage workers a 1338 Philosophia (2021) 49:1329–1344 1 3 year from Mexico alone,” which “produced a deepening channel of migration and expanding lodgments of permanent settlement” in the US.

It’s important to note that the main purpose of the 1924 bill that established the national-origins quotas was to limit immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. As Graham says: immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Canada [were] exempt from quotas….Ironically, the national origins quota system curbed immigration from Europe but not from Latin America or the Caribbean. (ibid.: 46) Immigrants of African and Hispanic ancestry continued to come to the United States in significant numbers from the Caribbean and Latin America because the Western Hemisphere was excluded from quota systems or caps. Even after the sharp restrictions of 1921 and 1924, immigration law in the late 1920s admitted an average of 287,000 immigrants a year, chiefly because of the Western Hemispheric exclusion. (ibid.: 42)

MacDonald portrays Cellar’s intention as reducing specifically the White population of the country, but Cofnas provides a source which suggests that’s not true:

He [Graham] notes that Emanuel Celler—the Jewish congressman who officially proposed the 1965 legislation (also known as the Hart–Celler Act)—was “disturbed by the steep decline of European immigration.” Celler “introduced a bill to allow higher immigration from Ireland, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries, which he said had suffered from ‘unintentional discrimination’ as a result of his own law” (ibid., pp. 94–95).

So while Cellar was a pro-immigration liberal, it appears he did not intend specifically to harm Whites as he was still pushing for more European immigration afterwards when he saw that it had fallen in favour of other groups. So he was just a run-of-the-mill liberal on immigration without any specific animosity to Europeans as a group, something which MacDonald implies in his book. But Cellar and his bill did irreparable harm to the country in the end, even if he didn’t intend it to be so.

It’s undeniable that the Jewish lobby did play a role in both the 1965 Hart-Cellar act and the civil rights movement as a whole, which is not something they hide. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism boasts of the pivotal role of Jewish liberals in the movement:

Judaism teaches respect for the fundamental rights of others as each person’s duty to God. “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Equality in the Jewish tradition is based on the concept that all of God’s children are “created in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). From that flows the biblical injunction, “You shall have one law for the stranger and the citizen alike: for I, Adonai, am your God” (Leviticus 24:22).

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference.

From 1910 to 1940, more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and 20 Black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities) were established in whole or in part by contributions from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. At the height of the so-called “Rosenwald schools,” nearly 40 percent of Black people in the south were educated at one of these institutions.

During the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of white people involved in the struggle. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC’s building.

The Jewish community has continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent discrimination in voting, housing, and employment against not only women and people of Color but also in the LGBTQ+ community and the disabled community.

So there were some explicit Jewish ethno-religious motives for their support of minority rights. But I guess the argument of Cofnas is that there were plenty of non-Jewish fellow travelers like the Kennedys, Phillip Hart, LBJ, Italian-Catholic lobbies and others who played equally decisive roles in bringing this all about.

MacDonald also misrepresented statements by Karl Marx who advocated for the dissolution of Jews as a group:

Occasionally he imagines evidence based on nothing at all, as when he falsely says that Karl Marx held that “Judaism, freed from the principle of greed, would continue to exist in the transformed society after the revolution” (MacDonald 1998: 54). As I observed, Marx never said anything like this, and in fact he said the opposite, namely, the Jew would be “impossible” in a socialist society that “abolish[ed] the preconditions for huckstering” (Cofnas 2018: 149). (MacDonald (2018b) acknowledged that his claim about Marx was inaccurate, but responded by pointing out a typo in Cofnas (2018), which he apparently sees as a comparable error.)

Since Marx was anti-Jewish and advocated for the total dissolution of Jews as a group, he can’t be used as proof of a “Jewish group strategy”.

The evidence illuminates that Boas and Levy-Strauss don’t appear to have been motivated much by Jewish identity, nor was Marx, but that doesn’t mean that some of the modern Jewish anti-racists (like Soros, Tim Wise, etc.) aren’t motivated by their Jewish identity to promulgate anti-racism, which MacDonald’s chief critic admits is probably the case:

Overall, we find that Boasian anthropology as a movement was not guided by Jewish interests, and was in all likelihood an inevitable occurrence that exacerbated existing trends finalized by WWII and the Holocaust and their associated stigma against race and biology. It’s almost certainly not true, nor is it argued here, that Jewish interests were entirely irrelevant to all this; they may have played a role in the minds of some Jewish anti-racists in academia. After all, the few Black scientists of the era, also coming from a community afflicted with racism, were uniformly anti-racist in their outlook because of ethnic and self-interest.

Where MacDonald is Correct

Cofnas and Mischling Review have buttressed substantial evidence the MacDonald misrepresented the motivations of various Jewish intellectuals like Marx, Levy-Strauss and Franz Boas and used some dishonest omission tactics to downplay the influence of Gentile leftists in the same fields. It’s hard to deny Cofnas’ evidence that Jewish leftists are hardly as ethno-centric as MacDonald alleges considering their intermarriage rates in the West and their advocacy for leftist egalitarianism for Jews and Israel too (with some exceptions). However, some of these Jewish leftists are trying to establish what we can call a safety hatch. Alex Soros made that clear about his father’s work:

It is not charity, and his outlook represents more than mere solidarity with others who have endured similar fates. He believes in an open society because Jews and other minorities need rights and equality under the law to prevent another Holocaust.

That’s more or less what Israel itself was set up to do. In a sense, the mainstream Jewish interest groups are choreographing what they believe to be a “Jewish group safety strategy” as opposed to a strategy of Jewish in-group continuity. Here’s Jewish journalist Bret Stephens making the case that “liberal pluralism” has been good for Jews as a group:

Other Jews like Democrat politician Debbie Wasserman-Schulz have expounded on that point publicly, saying she pursues her liberal-egalitarian politics “through a Jewish lens”:

Countless other Jewish pundits have argued the same thing without shame.

They’re much less committed to an ethnic purity agenda (no group of Jews are ethnically pure anymore, they’re a mix of different ethnicities and don’t prevent further admixtures between Mizrahi, Sephardic, Ashkenazi and Ethiopian within Israel or between Jews and Gentiles outside of Israel) than they are to a generic “safety” agenda for the Jewish group.

What Cofnas fails to refute are the Jewish-motivations of the intellectuals behind two movements: Neo-Conservatism and the Frankfurt School. The evidence is overwhelming that the Frankfurt School intellectuals were primarily motivated by their Jewish identities and their opposition to anti-Semitism (and thus an in-group loyalty). This bias was only intensified by the events of World War II and Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. Likewise, it seems irrefutable that the neoconservatives, most of whom were Jewish, were motivated by Zionist commitments to the well-being of Israel. That case has been expounded on in many places, so I won’t go over it again here.

What Cofnas does dispute is the accusation of Jewish hypocrisy, which exists but has been overplayed by MacDonald. He relays how various Frankfurt School leaders had differing views on Israel. Fromm was strongly critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and at best supported a “bi-national” multi-ethnic state. Marcuse too was for a multicultural melting pot version of Israel with no exclusivity for Jews. He also supported the Palestinian right of return knowing it would end the Jewishness of the state.

By contrast, Horkheimer was the most pro-Israel of the bunch and donated to Zionist organizations. So there was no true uniformity of belief on the question of Zionism and it appears they mostly leaned towards a left-liberalism for Israel itself and didn’t support any hardcore Jewish racism against Arabs. What is undeniable is that the Frankfurt School leaders were strongly self-identifying Jews who were opposed to anti-Semitism and saw their work as a means to undermine it by weakening and discrediting right-wing social values as a whole. But that doesn’t necessarily prove that they were ruthless ethno-centrists themselves who wanted Jews to pursue ethno-religious in-group purity or supremacy over Gentiles. That part gets exaggerated.

Here are some various slides from ProblemGene’s analysis of MacDonald’s work showcasing the omnipresence of opposition to anti-Semitism that guided Frankfurt School thinkers’ development of Critical Theory.

What we can conclude from all this is that MacDonald is not infallible and is prone to cherry-picking and ignoring sources that refute him. It appears he has not made a sufficient case that Boasian egalitarian anthropology was motivated by Jewish concerns and used deceptive twisting of facts and omissions of contradictory evidence to beef up his case, but he is right that the Frankfurt School was.

So the picture is more complex than the MacDonald thesis would have us believe. The involvement of prominent leftist Gentiles in all of the aforesaid movements and in the original Liberal Enlightenment itself (Rosseau et al.) also casts doubt of the widespread belief on the far-right that our modern woes stem exclusively from the machinations of Jewish intellectuals.

What we can say is that Jewish intellectuals on the Left (some of whom had Jewish motivations, some not) have contributed disproportionately to the advancement of egalitarianism in Western societies (especially through the Frankfurt School) and their presence in the mass media, so they do bare part of the blame.

Progressive Jews should be called out for advancing the hostile dogma of anti-Whiteism in academia and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out their specific Jewish motives if evidence of it exists. Some leftist Jews do appear to be motivated, at least partly, by hatred or revenge against Gentiles, Christians, etc., for past persecutions of Jews. But that doesn’t mean we should blame these things exclusively on Jews or infer that all Jews bare responsibility for the machinations of Jewish leftists. Jewish leftists are not alone in that endeavor, as you can see today with prominent Gentile anti-racists like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram Kendi, Jane Elliot and others, who have their own ideological commitments and have done analogous damage to the West with their work and activism. All of these anti-White leftists, Jewish and Gentile, should be identified and shamed for their belligerent crusade to tear down the West and disenfranchise the White people who built it.

If you enjoyed this article consider a small donation or becoming a member.

I mentioned in this clip above that the hypothesis of “Judeo-Bolshevism” seems self-evidently contradictory when you note that so many Jews are successful businessmen and advocates of free enterprise and capitalism. As Neo-Nazis like to often point out (which contradicts their own belief in “Judeo-Bolshevism”), many prominent free market economists have been Jewish: Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, etc. Many anti-communist libertarian intellectuals were also Jewish: Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, etc. Many anti-communist, anti-Soviet neoconservatives (who are not libertarians, but strong pro-military statists) are also Jewish.

But this demonstrates the contorted and unsound conspiratorial nature of the NatSoc narrative on the Jews and why a more nuanced analysis is necessary. The Nazis would say Jews are bad for being Marxists (socialists) AND they’re bad for being capitalists or libertarians (thus anti-Marxists, businessmen, etc.). So if they’re both of these things, then they’re not a monolith and they have wildly divergent views. To get around this inconvenience, they would resort to conspiracy logic that these Jews on opposites ends of the political and economic spectrum were not sincere in their beliefs and were conspiring together in some way, with scant proof. So this critique is illogical and invalid. You could also find non-Jewish Germans who were Marxists and others who were capitalists and businessmen. Why is that not similarly viewed as a German ethnic conspiracy?

You can also find Jews who support some kind of mixed economy, social welfare system, similar to what some Nazis advocate (even George Soros supports that type of system). You can find fascist Jews who supported Mussolini and Zionist Jews who tried to align with Hitler on both geopolitical and ideological grounds:

Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. It initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.[22] Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis, proposing a Jewish state based on “nationalist and totalitarian principles, and linked to the German Reich by an alliance”

You can find religious traditionalist Jews, secular atheist Jews, woke Jews, anti-woke Jews, LGBT Jews, anti-LGBT Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, Israeli conservative nationalists, Jewish anti-Semites (Bro Kaper, Gilad Atzmon, Bobby Fischer, etc.), even race realist Jews (like Richard Hernnstein). A few even took up Neo-Nazism (Daniel Burros, Frank Collin, etc.). They’re on all sides of the political spectrum just as all other groups are on all sides of the political and social spectrum.

Joseph Goebbels said this:

That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

He also said this:

Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.

So Goebbels’ critique of “Judeo-Bolshevism” falls flat as he admits that his own ideology is very close to Bolshevism. He says above that the reason he dislikes and opposes Jews is because he views them as “capitalists”, not socialists. He is a socialist, a very radical one indeed, so why would a Jewish socialist be bad then? He attacked Jewish socialists for being Jewish and for not adhering to Nordic supremacy race theory, not for being socialists.

Ironically, sentiment of Jewish culture being the “incarnation of capitalism” echoes exactly what Karl Marx said about Judaism:

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[…] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible[…] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews[…] Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities[…] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange[…] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

As PraxBen notes, much of what Karl Marx wrote about Jews would have Nazis shouting in agreement:

Marx may have been ethnically Jewish, but he grew up a Lutheran, had no Jewish education, and rejected Judaism and his Jewish heritage. Marx didn’t just reject his Jewishness, he despised it. Marx is known to be a vehement antisemite. It’s quite ironic that his existence is meant to prove some sort of Jewish-communism conspiracy, while in reality, he wrote things about Jews that would have modern antisemites shouting in agreement. He claimed that money was the “jealous God of Israel,” referred to Jews as “dirty” in body and soul, and believed they were both inherently bourgeois and inherently counter-revolutionary.

Marx was raised in the Protestant church and was baptized:

Although earlier generations of the Marx family had been rabbis, Karl Marx’s father became a professing member of Prussia’s official Protestant church for sociopolitical reasons. The young Karl Marx was officially baptized as a Protestant, exhibited “fairly clear and well grounded” knowledge of Christianity in school, and penned the fervent—if perhaps sometimes theologically confused—Christian-themed essay quoted above.

It was fairly evident that the Marx family was sprinting full speed ahead away from their Jewish roots towards full assimilation. Mischling Review notes:

Marx’s childhood sweetheart and life-long wife was Jenny von Westphalen, a gentile woman descending from German nobility. The Marxes had three surviving children, of whom apparently only Eleanor would go on to identify as Jewish after the Dreyfus Trial, though none including Eleanor married other Jews. This was a thoroughly assimilated family whose Jewishness was eventually absorbed into gentile stock, disappearing without a trace in just the manner Marx endorsed. Not only did he consistently apply his ideas to his own ethnic group, he did so to his own family.

Here Joseph Goebbels more or less echoes Marxist “alienation” theory under capitalism:

The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces. Labor is for him only a way to survive, not a path to higher blessings, not a joy, not something in which to take pride, or satisfaction, or encouragement, or a way to build character. We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism, work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie between. – Those Damned Nazis, Joseph Goebbels, 1932

Despite hating Marx simply for being ethnically Jewish, Goebbels had much more in common with him than he’d care to admit.

As PraxBen mentioned, Marx may have been ethnically Jewish, but had no Jewish upbringing and seemed to despise Judaism as the “incarnation of capitalism” just as Goebbels did. Marx believed that Jews could only truly assimilate after capitalism (and thus their supposed culture) was abolished first. It’s been demonstrated that Marx did have a strong Germanic identity and was quite chauvinistic, supporting German imperialism in Europe, as did Fredrich Engels.

The issue with this logic of Jews as arch-capitalists is that so many of them took up socialism in various forms, including the early State of Israel:

The party of Israel’s founder David Ben-Gurion, the Labor Party, may now be more or less dead, a casualty of the nation’s right-wing shift, but it cannot be forgotten that its predecessor was the dominant force of the modern Jewish state in its first three decades. Israel was once a beacon of successful socialism in which the paradigmatic building block was the kibbutz, the utopian commune that fused egalitarianism, farming, and Zionism.

You’d think if Judaism was inherently capitalisitic, as Karl Marx and his disciple Goebbels said, this Kibbutz socialism would not have occurred in Israel and no Jews would have ever become socialists or Marxists at all. Obviously, whatever capitalistic elements exist in the Jewish culture or religion, it’s not strong enough to prevent large numbers of Jews from defecting to the ranks of socialism.

So the conspiracy logic here falls apart when you note the broad variety of Jewish types and beliefs. Ockham’s Razor leads us to the simplest explanation: differences among Jews are genuine and not the product of some vague “trickery” agenda which doesn’t have consistent academic proof or a logical basis. The motivations of various Jews can be and sometimes is influenced by their culture and religion, but that is not always the case.

Take Lazar Kaganovich for example. A prominent Soviet Bolshevik of Jewish background said to prove the “Judeo-Bolshevik” conspiracy. Yet, like Karl Marx, Kaganovich rejected his Jewish identity and actually despised it. He said the following in an interview:

“They [Jews] are always confused,” he [Kaganovich] said. “Even today, during the time of the collapse of our state, they are in the first ranks of those who instigate public disorder. Before the war, we successfully overcame the heritage of Jewish bourgeois nationalism, but after the war they forgot who saved them from destruction by Hitler. We carried out an offensive against cosmopolitanism” — the Stalinist codeword for Jews — “and struck first of all at the Jewish intelligentsia, the primary army of the cosmopolitans…. Asked how he could make such comments when he himself was a Jew, Kaganovich said: “This is by birth only. In general, I never felt myself to be a Jew. I have a totally different mind-set. Unlike the Jews, who are prone to anarchy, I love order.“

So Kaganovich was loyal to Stalin, a non-Jew, until the very end and supported Stalin’s purges of specifically Jewish members of the regime. Surely, this was not a man motivated by Jewish tribalism but by genuine belief in communist ideology.

Hitler embraced this more paranoid primitive thinking on this matter and failed to recognize that not all Jews are pulling in the same direction and have genuine disagreements with one another politically. He said this bluntly to Max Planck:

“I must proceed uniformly against all Jews,” Hitler said, despite there being large differences among them. Hitler was confronted with the reality that nationalist Jews loyal to Germany existed when Max Naumann formed the group “Association of German National Jews” (which counted seven thousand members according to JTA) declared its full support of Hitler and advocated for the total assimilation of Jewish identity into a German identity.

There was another group of Jews loyal to Hitler called “The German Vanguard“. Despite Naumann’s seemingly honest desire to support Hitler and Germanic nationalism, Hitler had Naumann’s group disbanded and he was tossed in a concentration camp where he died. Naumann’s existence undermined Hitler’s desire to peg all German Jews as the enemy. Instead of acknowledging that these patriotic Jews existed and were sincere, he found it more expedient to get rid of them and carry on with the agenda.

He did this deliberately, explaining in Mein Kampf that only simplified, caricatured propaganda can move the masses in the direction he wants:

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out. The function of propaganda is . . . not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

As he says there, his goal was not to tell the truth about the Jewish phenomenon because his agenda was “not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness”. So he was willing to bend the truth, to lie and embellish things, to achieve the desired result.

It should have been evident to Hitler that, while there were certainly leftist/Marxist Jews in Germany who were advocating for Communism and other ills, as there were German non-Jews advocating for the same ills, there were also patriotic ones who fought and died in World War I and earlier wars:

According to Bryan Mark Rigg, there were quite a few soldiers of partial Jewish ancestry in Hitler’s army too.

So if Hitler was correct and all Jews were internationalist traitors, then you would not have seen any Jewish military service at all in any German war. Clearly, an exaggeration.

The Nazis were so paranoid on this question that some of them (including Alfred Rosenberg) even labeled fascism Jewish because various Italian Jews were involved with Mussolini’s government.

What further weakens Hitler’s position on this was its hypocritical nature: Hitler himself was a leader of a soldier’s council in the Soviet Bavarian Republic and attended the funeral of Jewish Marxist Kurt Eisner.

So if all Jews are bad for some Jews being communists, then why is Hitler not bad for having been a communist? In fact, a historian has shown that at least half of recruits to the Nazi SA battalion were former communists:

Scott exposes the estimates collected by Rudolf Diels, first head of the Gestapo -the political police of the Third Reich-, in his memoirs, “Lucifer Ante Portas: Von Severing bis Heydrich” (1950), pointing out that in Berlin 70% of the new recruits to the SA from January 1933 were former Communists. According to the historian, the SA themselves calculated at 55% the number of their militants who came from the communist ranks. Brown also points out that both the Gestapo files and the reports from the KPD intelligence apparatus confirm the considerable presence of former communists in the SA.

That was a phenomenon that Hitler welcomed, stating:

 we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.

Many leading Nazis themselves, like the Strasser brothers and Joseph Goebbels, were communists before joining the NSDAP (and I’d argue continued being communists while in the NSDAP). So if all Jews are to be held collectively responsible for the involvement of some Jews in communism, then why are not all Germans collectively responsible for German communists?

The overlap between Communism and National Socialism was palpable, which Goebbels himself attested to as I quoted earlier. Hitler’s fake hatred of Communism didn’t stop him from collaborating with the Soviets in Molotov-Ribbentrop, leading to their joint conquest and victory celebration over Poland:

I have covered this topic of Nazi-Communist similarities ad nauseum, so I won’t go over it all here again, but suffice to say that Nazi critiques of communism are self-defeating considering how close the two systems are.

So how could Hitler and the Nazis, being quasi-communists themselves as avowed statists and socialists who happily collaborated with the USSR, sustain this critique of “Jews as communists”? It’s unsound and hypocritical. They were against Jews no matter what they were politically: communists, capitalists, social democrats, conservatives, even the nationalist, pro-monarchist ones were carted away to camps to hide them from the public.

So what is true about the Jews?

What is true, as we have seen, is that there are genuine political and ideological differences among Jews. These differences are not some nefarious mirage to “trick the goyim” into thinking they’re on different teams when they’re all secretly in cahoots. That can’t be demonstrated to be true considering that Jews have killed other Jews over political differences.

On Judeo-Bolshevism itself, various meme-exaggerations have taken root online, but a sober analysis of the phenomenon produced these numbers:

“Jews comprised 5.2 percent of party members in 1922 and 4.3 percent in 1927”

“7.2 Jews per 1,000 were members”

The first government of 1917 had Jews at 6/21 of the Central Committee and 4/10 of the politburo. That’s 28% and 40% respectively, which is quite an overrepresentation but much lower than the 90-95% numbers bandied about by the memers. Those high numbers plummeted after Stalin’s purges as you can see on this chart (courtesy Mischling Review):

Two studies of Jewish participation in the upper echelons of the USSR regime put their representation overall at 17% and 15%:

Following Stalin’s purges, these numbers emerge:

The Jewish share of the Politburo diminishes greatly under the reign of Stalin, with the removal of all the Jews by the mid-1920s up until Kaganovich is installed in 1930. Jews become, in fact, underrepresented (~0.7% or six of 851 total post-Stalin elite in Mawdsley’s terms9) in the post-Stalin USSR where official antisemitism emerges.

The highest positions then become minimally Jewish:

There were approximately four Jews of the ten most prominent Gulag administrators over a period of 25 years:

So while it is clear that Jews were overrepresented in the Soviet government apparatus, especially in the early years, the extent of this power has been exaggerated to make it seem like it was an entirely Jewish affair. Jews were certainly eager to enter into this new socially egalitarian government after the fall of the Czar who largely restricted them to the Pale of Settlement. That can be seen, but the wild claims that they were over 90% of the top positions is a lie that originates with two people: Robert Wilton (a British journalist who had close ties to the Russian monarchist forces) and Boris Brasol, a Russian emigree loyal to the Russian monarchy, both of whom had political motives to exaggerate the phenomenon to discredit the Czar’s opponents. Another meme-lie is that “Stalin was Jewish” and had “Jewish wives,” both of which are false. Why lie to embellish this issue if you’re an honest person? Obviously as a right-winger I personally would have sided with the Czar over the Bolsheviks, but that doesn’t mean that the monarchist side didn’t partly embellish this Judeo-Bolshevism phenomenon to suit their objectives.

What’s clear is that the USSR did overlap on some Jewish interests like emancipation of the minorities and full civil liberties, but it contradicted other Jewish interests like the preservation of Jewish culture and Jewish religion, which were both suppressed like all other faiths. It’s abundantly clear that Stalin, and not Jews, had total control evidenced by his purges and executions of various Jews like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yagoda and later the Slansky trial which took on an “anti-Zionist” character. If self-interested Jews were guiding the Soviet ship under Stalin, then surely they would have never signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal with Hitler. In fact, Stalin fired his Jewish foreign minister Litvinov to replace him with Molotov precisely to please Hitler and get the deal done, since Litvinov opposed the deal.

The Soviets also then took up a global crusade against Israel and Zionism, backing all of Israel’s Arab enemies, even engaging in direct aerial combat with Israel in 1970. Then there was the refusal to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate until the 1970s. Surely, if Jews were steering this ship the entire time, none of those Stalinist purges would have happened and Soviet anti-Zionism would not have been a thing. It should be noted too that most Jewish communists were also anti-Zionist and remain so today, proving that they were committed to communist ideology and not exclusively to a collective Jewish interest.

With that said, what is true is that Jewish tribalism is a real phenomenon and Jews are a tight-knit group who often, but not always, hang together especially when there’s an external threat to their existence. When they view an external threat to their existence, they will temporarily put aside political differences to band together for survival. That phenomenon, however, is not really unique to Jews but is true of any group that is collectively under threat.

What is also true and where there is a valid critique to be made of organized Jewry is their tribal inclinations towards a form of politics that undermines the majority group. Some Jews are motivated to do certain things by their religion and culture, just as some Gentiles are. It’s often the case that they think and act politically as Jews instead of as Americans, as Britons, as Canadians, etc. But this has to be demonstrated with evidence, not guesswork. For example, George Soros showers left-wing groups and politicians with money and pursues his globalist “open society” project precisely because he is Jewish and views nationalism as a threat to “minority groups” including Jews. Alex Soros said this:

It is not charity, and his outlook represents more than mere solidarity with others who have endured similar fates. He believes in an open society because Jews and other minorities need rights and equality under the law to prevent another Holocaust.

This “holocaust experience” motive is what drives most of organized Jewish groups to pursue radical progressive politics. It’s not something they hide, but readily admit:

Organized Jewish support for causes like open borders immigration, LGBT, transsexualism, and Black Lives Matter can also be seen as part of this Holocaust or pogrom PTSD mentality that drives many Jews into a state of paranoia about Gentile anti-Semites out to get them. They believe that by supporting the political rights and emancipation of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, they too will be shielded from persecution. Ironically, it was Hitler’s paranoia about Jews being “out to get Germans” that has led in part to modern-day Jewish paranoia about Whites (in general) being “out to get Jews”.

The Frankfurt School appears to be part of this milieu of Jewish leftists committed to weakening any political or social tendencies that may pose a threat to Jews:

This Jewish paranoia about Gentile oppressors, especially White Europeans, has led copious numbers of Jews into leftist radicalism and anti-White advocacy. They appear at the helm of Marxist academia’s push for woke ideology. In addition to the original Frankfurt School intellectuals, Jewish names like Noel Ignatiev, Ronit Lentin, Tim Wise, Richard Lewontin, Franz Boas and a slew of others have featured prominently in the “anti-racist” (aka anti-White) and “race denialist” academic circuit. Jewish leftists appear prominently in media attacks on “Whiteness” and “masculinity”.

American Jews year after year tend to vote 70/30 for the Democrat Party who they believe represent their progressive politics. Insofar as Jews are well-educated, well-organized and ambitious, they will continue to pop up at the frontline of organized progressivism, whipping up woke mobs into a frenzy. This leads many on the Right to suspect them of being the masterminds of Western decline. They are not alone in that endeavor and have many Gentile fellow travelers in the progressive camp (Jane Elliott, Robin DiAngelo, Ibram Kendi, Angela Davis, BLM, TYT network, AOC/the Squad, Democratic Socialists of America, etc.). But as Barbara Spectre herself acknowledged, if they’re seen as taking a “leading role” in the rotten edifice of anti-Whiteism and woke progressivism, they’ll be collectively blamed for it.

And while it is true that a majority of Western-based Jews are aligning themselves with some kind of left-wing politics at least partially out of a perceived self-interest, there are notable counter-examples like Stephen Miller, Eric Zemmour and Yoram Hazony who are championing a patriotic nationalist-conservatism in defense of Western civilization. While not explicitly White nationalist in orientation it’s certainly adjacent to those viewpoints.

The Jewish neoconservatives were indeed motivated by a deep devotion to the well-being of Israel. Thus Zionist ideology and Jewish identity could be said to have been a strong motivating factor for their hawkish foreign policy advocacy towards Arab/Muslim countries at odds with Israel. They, in tandem with the Sharon-Netanuyahu Likud faction in Israel, lobbied for the Iraq war because they believed that was in the long-term strategic interests of Israel.

This is an example of where some Jews are not acting in the best interests of their host nation, but a foreign nation who shares their religious/ethnic identity, which has led to very valid accusations of treason and disloyalty to the West.

Since the State of Israel was formed, Jewish patriotism to their host countries has evaporated in favour of Jewish loyalty to Israel. This has given birth to the phenomenon of “dual-citizen” Israelis attempting to infiltrate and sway Western governments to do Israel’s bidding in the realm of foreign policy. Zionist lobbies like AIPAC function as emissaries of Israeli intrigue in the West attempting to buy support for Israel via campaign donations. Zionism, thus, can be said to have put the patriotism of Western Jews into question. A man cannot serve two masters.

While most Jews would probably say they believe in Israel’s right to exist, a growing faction of Jewish anti-Zionists is breaking ranks and taking the side of Palestine, which confirms my thesis that there is no Jewish hive mind collective and they don’t always just “take their own side” no matter what. Jewish anti-Zionist voices like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Miko Peled, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Dave Smith, Max Blumental and others have become especially prominent since the October 7 attack, in addition to dozens of anti-Zionist Jewish groups both in the West and Israel:

George Soros himself opposed the Iraq war and the neocons and has funded pro-Palestine/anti-Zionist groups. A PEW poll on Jewish-American opinions post October 7 show that among younger Jews support for Israel is falling, with 42% saying Israel’s military response to the October 7 attacks has not been justified.

31% of US Jews between ages 18 and 35 went so far as to say that Hamas’ reasons for fighting Israel are valid.

This Jewish dissension is also present in the fact that so many Jews marry outside the faith. According to PEW:

Fully 42% of all currently married Jewish respondents indicate they have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who have gotten married since 2010, 61% are intermarried.

Obviously, if so many Jews are taking non-Jewish spouses, those ones can’t be all that committed to group preservation and advancement.

There’re also valid critiques of the supremacy elements and attitudes of the Jewish religion (chosen people supremacy, hatred of Gentiles/Goyim, revenge fantasies). While these ideas are not universal among Jews and there are also historical enmities between various groups of Gentiles, some prominent rabbis have espoused both hatred of non-Jews and ethno-religious supremacy.

While this is in no way unique to Jews as you can find Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Whites, Blacks, etc. proclaiming their superiority over other groups, what is unique is the prominence of the Jews proclaiming it, such as chief rabbis and Israeli lawmakers; whereas the members of other groups who espouse supremacy viewpoints are generally marginalized or fringe.

Many Jews seem to be motivated by the religious concept of Tikkun Olam to try to “lead” society in certain directions in line with Jewish religious principles, which probably mostly benefits them and not everyone else. This can also be seen with their support of immigrants and refugees, often referencing biblical stories. So the dominant influence of Jewish leftists over academic institutions and Hollywood, and their tribalist pursuit of making their own well-being as a minority paramount, can be said to be a problem that requires some solution if right-wing nationalist politics is to emerge triumphant in the west.

So while there are some very valid critiques of the impact of Jewish-Zionist influence on the West, the low-brow and low-IQ sectors of Neo-Nazism have tried to hijack the issue and turn it into a Der Stürmer meme-caricature of reality with their shoddy conspiracy theorizing and weak (or deliberately falsified) research. Case in point: the GDL. That group, run by uneducated wiggers and convicted criminals, produces flyers claiming X thing is “Jewish” by cherry picking Jewish names out of a line up of people involved in something, ignoring the non-Jews involved, and embellishing the Jews involved by labeling non-Jews as Jews. You can see some debunkings of their memes here.

In this clip, they are confronted about having a pedophile in their group (big surprise) and for deliberately leaving non-Jewish main players off their covid meme (Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, etc.) because it doesn’t fit the Jewish conspiracy angle:

As always, their dishonest cherry-picking, purposeful omissions and mislabeling tactics discredit whatever truth they tell about this topic. This is the by-product of their low-IQ and mendacious lack of concern for facts. As you can see with the meme below, their retardation know no bounds as they are alleging that both supporting Israel and opposing Israel is “Jewish,” which would mean there’s no position one can take that they won’t call Jewish.

This is the behavior of bad actors who exist as a “turd in the punchbowl” to discredit legitimate criticism of the Israel lobby and Jewish institutional support for leftism and globalism. Instead of rationally approaching this subject and presenting the facts as they are, these degenerate morons purposely embellish the issue with shoddy conspiratard logic and easily falsifiable poor “research” to make it all look insane. If the ADL isn’t paying them to make critics of Jewish power look like wackos, they ought to be because these goons are a big W for organized Jewry.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a small contribution or becoming a member.

In this article he concurrently states that suggestions his father is funding BLM or BLM-aligned groups are “malicious lies” but then a few paragraphs later admits that’s exactly what his father is doing. Not only does he admit this but he admits that he and his father are doing this because they are jews who are using blacks as a shield against the White demographic majority.

NBC News:

Consider this: My father was mentioned on Twitter in connection with the [BLM] protests 500,000 times a day in late May and 68,746 times on Facebook throughout the month. That broke the record of 38,326 mentions in October 2018, when he was falsely accused of funding a migrant caravan to the southern border.

And these vile allegations are not confined to the margins of social media. Just last week, John Kass, a prominent conservative columnist for the Chicago Tribune, claimed that my father was somehow responsible for the unrest in Chicago and other American cities because of his support for a liberal approach to criminal justice, one that Kass alleged has allowed felons out on the streets and created an environment that feeds the protests.

This construct also ties into the abhorrent “replacement” conspiracy theory that flourishes in the darker corners of the internet, such as on 4chan, Gab and Reddit’s now-suspended The_Donald subreddit: Evil Jewish financiers want to somehow replace white people with supposedly more pliant people of color.

This despicably racist online poison uses ideas and imagery that are directly drawn from the anti-Jewish propaganda of Nazi Germany — although the “replacement” theory remains a distinctly American manifestation of white supremacy. 

From those statements there, you would think that Alex Soros is denying any ties to the BLM movement, racial justice protests, and the whole shebang. But a few paragraphs down, he says this:

So for us, the surge in online attacks on my father and me in the wake of the renewed energy around the Black Lives Matter movement is simply one more installment of a long, ugly story — the predictable reaction of those whose power and position are threatened by the demands of justice.

And we are not stopping. Earlier this month, our Open Society Foundations announced a $220 million commitment to help achieve racial equality in America, building on our existing work with groups engaged on issues including voting rights, education, drug policy reform and ending the blight of mass incarceration of Black Americans.

We will continue to fight to eradicate systemic racism in America. And we will never stop fighting the bigotry of those who sow discord, spread lies and engage in hateful, anti-Semitic rhetoric.

The jewboy proudly admits that he and his father are funding “racial justice” causes aligned with BLM, himself citing a New York Times article which reported:

The Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic group founded by the business magnate George Soros, announced on Monday that it was investing $220 million in efforts to achieve racial equality in America, a huge financial undertaking that will support several Black-led racial justice groups for years to come.

The initiative, which comes amid national protests for racial equality and calls for police reform ignited by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, will immediately reshape the landscape of Black political and civil rights organizations, and signals the extent to which race and identity have become the explicit focal point of American politics in recent years, with no sign of receding. Mr. Soros, who has at times faced smears and anti-Semitism over his role as a liberal megadonor, is also positioning his foundation near the forefront of the protest movement.

Of the $220 million, the foundation will invest $150 million in five-year grants for selected groups, including progressive and emerging organizations like the Black Voters Matter Fund and Repairers of the Breach, a group founded by the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II of the Poor People’s Campaign. The money will also support more established Black civil rights organizations like the Equal Justice Initiative, which was founded by the civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson and depicted in the 2019 movie “Just Mercy.”

The Open Society Foundations will invest an additional $70 million in local grants supporting changes to policing and criminal justice. This money will also be used to pay for opportunities for civic engagement and to organize internships and political training for young people.

It’s right there from the horse’s mouth: Soros and company dumped over $200 million into negro groups “near the forefront of the protest movement”. The article then quotes Alex himself affirming the same thing:

Between the local grants and the millions for Black-led organizations, however, Mr. Soros and his foundation have helped answer the question of whether the social justice groups that have dominated the current moment are here to stay.

Alexander Soros, who serves alongside his father as the deputy chair of Open Society, said in a statement that the new investment was a response to a time “for urgent and bold action.”

“These investments will empower proven leaders in the Black community to reimagine policing, end mass incarceration and eliminate the barriers to opportunity that have been the source of inequity for too long,” he said.

The NYT tells us that Alex and his father were neck-deep in funding and training all of the negro organizations involved in BLM-style protests and activism, whilst calling it a “vile conspiracy theory” at the same time. The trick is, that the Soros’s will admit they are doing this if you view their work positively, but throw epithets at you if you criticize their work to undermine the White race and empower black criminals.

Alex wants you to know that the reason for all this is to avenge the alleged Holocaust:

The hatred, which is ripping apart the fabric of this country, does not deter my father or me. As a young teenager in his native Budapest, my father survived the extermination of Hungary’s Jewish population under the Nazi occupation — an experience that shaped his view of the world. Since the early 1980s, he has given away more than $15 billion to further the ideal of an “open society” in which equality and the protection of one’s fundamental individual rights are paramount.

It is not charity, and his outlook represents more than mere solidarity with others who have endured similar fates. He believes in an open society because Jews and other minorities need rights and equality under the law to prevent another Holocaust.

He admitted this in other interviews too:

Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

That leftist jews have been spearheading “civil rights” movements from the outset in order to undermine White Anglo-Saxon power in the Anglosphere is not a secret, but something jews are very proud of. A website of Reform Judaism tells us the story:

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference.” (1) – From 1910 to 1940, more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and 20 Black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities) were established in whole or in part by contributions from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. – During the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of white people involved in the struggle. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma. – The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC’s building. The Jewish community has continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent discrimination in voting, housing, and employment against not only women and people of Color but also in the LGBTQ+ community and the disabled community.

Supremacist White-hating Jews like to brag about their life-long work to weaken the standing of White people in the West, they just don’t want you to criticize them for it, in which case they’ll lobby to get you deplatformed or jailed for “hate speech”. The chosen ones are allowed to praise themselves for turning our countries into rotten hellholes filled up with dangerous colored criminals, White Goyim are just not allowed to complain about it.

Her gimmick as Trojan Horse in the right-wing sphere is to dissuade Whites and Christians from becoming “anti-Semitic”. Every time her tribe are named for their leading role in the West’s destruction, in comes Loomer to deflect onto other groups and remind you “Jesus was a Jew” so you must grab your ankles for her devious tribe.

AmRen and Groypers are playing a dangerous Hebraic game by continuing to promote this sleazy jewess.

At the same time that they give her airtime, they seek to block out voices further to their right who show less liberal egalitarian tolerance towards non-White or jewish involvement in our circles.

It’s almost like they’re using Loomer and the odd “pro-White” non-White as a shield against accusations of anti-Semitism and racism. “See we’re not racists or anti-Semites, we invite jews and non-Whites to our events!”

Just another desperate form of optics.

Ambitious White Nationalists like David Duke embraced the inverse larp. Instead of trotting out the token jew he trotted out the token Arab to shield himself from the media’s pejoratives. He peddled a pro-Arabian/pro-Islamic line for years, even traveling to Arab countries to fan their balls in the hopes that they would fan his. “I’m not an anti-Semite, I actually love the Arabs!”

None of it really accomplished anything because the media continued to call him a racist anti-Semite and the Arabs were just using him for a photo-op to piss off Israel or something.

Loomer is a mentally ill Heeb with questionable gender. Some say she’s a man and it’s hard to argue with that.

Her entire life revolved around a Twitter account and she declared her life over and ruined when that was taken away.

So she chained herself to the Twitter office front door while dressed up as a holohoax victim.

Loomer correctly sees Muslims as a problem, but like every Alt-Light gatekeeper, will pretend like jews aren’t involved in creating the immigration mess. Or if she does acknowledge it, she will attribute their behavior to leftist ideology instead of the real truth, that they pursue left-wing policies to secure jewish tribal interests. She is probably totally in denial about this because she’s ethnically loyal to her tribe and doesn’t want harm to come to them.

That makes her a problem. She will never truly side with White people or even Christians because that would mean abandoning her own tribal affiliations. “Right-wing” jews are fighting a losing battle against their left-wing counterparts. And even if they’re genuine in their beliefs, they will forever stand in the way of Whites making a clean break from their tribe’s domination over us.

It’s no wonder that all these Zionist shills are constantly pillow-biting for Trump and Putin because they’re both center-right kosher conservatives who are enthralled to jews. They give the goyim a few carrots to munch on while sustaining other parts of the kosher agenda, never placing the jews in real danger or advancing a meaningful pro-White alternative that cuts Heeb interests out of the picture.

AmRen and Groypers seem to be content with munching on these carrots in perpetuity because it makes them feel like they’re winning… and they want to feel good.

Times of Israel:

Michael Benson’s ‘Gangsters vs. Nazis’ tells how New York judge secretly directed mafia bosses Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel to recruit army of Jewish thugs to intimidate antisemites

New York judge Nathan D. Perlman was apparently a big believer in the adage: If you need a job done right, you’ve got to turn to the right people. So in 1938, he called up notorious Jewish mobster Meyer Lansky with a favor to ask of him.

Perlman called Lansky to a face-to-face meeting and asked him to direct Jewish gangsters to violently break up meetings of the German American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization for Americans of German origin.

Perlman asked if Lansky had some boys who would want to punch Nazis. Lansky said he most definitely did, and he suggested that they could do more than just beat the Bund members up.

“I want you to do anything but kill them,” Perlman warned the organized crime boss.

Prominent rabbi Stephen S. Wise, who was on hand to lend clerical gravitas, echoed the judge’s sentiment.

This left Lansky to tell his associates they could “marinate” but not “ice”  those who showed up at Bund meetings, rallies and marches, where speakers spewed Jew-hatred. Lansky gave his boys license to use more than their fists. Baseball bats, clubs and other street fighting paraphernalia were fair game. Guns were out of bounds, as were the ice picks, which were the preferred weapon of killer Abraham “Kid Twist” Reles.

A new book, “Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in Wartime America,” tells the fascinating story of how Perlman secretly directed an army led by Jewish gangsters across the United States in a successful yearlong campaign to squelch two key American Nazi organizations, the Bund and the Silver Legion (better known as the Silver Shirts).

Once things were underway in New York, Perlman reached out to Al Capone’s associate Jake “Greasy Thumb” Guzik in Chicago and asked him to do in the Windy City what Lansky was doing in the Big Apple. Key to the Chicago operation were Jewish boxers, including champion Barney Ross, as well as blond, blue-eyed Jewish journalist Herb Brin who went to Bund meetings undercover and collected valuable intelligence.

In New Jersey, Perlman relied on mob boss and bootlegger extraordinaire Abner “Longie” Zwillman. In turn, Zwillman looked to his pal, ex-boxer and gym owner Nat Arno, for help in recruiting Jewish tough guys. The ever-generous Zwillman covered all costs incurred by these “Minutemen,” who saw themselves as the elite fighting force of the Revolutionary War.

In Middle America, the problem was not the Bund so much as William Dudley Pelley‘s Silver Legion. Many of the card-carrying 15,000 Silver Shirts and their supporters lived in Minnesota. Davie “The Jew” Berman, who ran the gambling scene in Minneapolis, was Perlman’s man. Berman even cooperated with rival Isadore “Kid Cann” Blumenfeld for this mission.

“Berman told Perlman it would be his honor to slap those Silver Shirt assholes around,” Benson wrote.

Well, well, well, look what we have here, a bonafide jewish conspiracy to stifle the free speech of counter-Semites.

Powerful jews in government secretly employing jewish mobsters to undermine their domestic enemies. Not unlike what’s still happening today across the West, with jewish lawyers teaming up with Antifa and BLM terrorists to intimidate right-wingers resisting the Great Replacement.

This has been happening for a very long time. And we only get the details years later when the jews want to brag to each other about it, long after the crimes had been committed and the protagonists are dead.

Imagine what kind of shenanigans these jews are up to today? How many jewish judges and politicians are slipping envelopes of cash to Antifa, which is a violent gang of transsexuals, drug addicts and jews who the state hires to “punch a Nazi” on demand.

This is how they operate, with impunity, because the Chosen People are above the law.