I finally got the chance to read through this article.
I thought the interview was excellent and will rabbit hole the linked reference material soon as well.
I found the entire article be equally brave and tactful. Necessary qualities when discussing the taboo subject of critiquing those who are not to be critiqued. I connected with the trepidation of discussing or even researching this subject, for the same fears you illustrated in the article. I even hesitate now to type the word jew or jewish.. so that tells me this is a deep conditioning I am looking to de-colonize.
The programming is real, and in relation to the comments below, I think that post secondary education is the birth place for woke-ism. and a structure focused primarily on teaching one what to think as opposed to how to think. Educators and the educated would have consciously chosen, to gloss over, ignore and divert attention from these historically relevant facts - I'm guessing as a survival technique.
In this current covid era medical professionals were looking at the same grim career choice, recommend and even submit themselves to an unproven, unsafe and ineffective medical procedure in the interests of big pharma, or lose their jobs and position in their community.
Personally, I remember being physically attacked by a pro-authoritarian so called "anarchist comrade" for mentioning the uncomfortable truth that is avoided in most activist communities about real control at the top of the banking pyramid - which I suggested is masked by a corporate media, serving the same overlords that runs a propaganda campaign 24/7 disguised as our entertainment. I was labelled a Nazi, and this guy tried to fight me.
Cognitive dissonance is hard to live with for anyone who is trying to integrate spirituality with their activism. The whole self becomes divided into pieces, and the only antidote I can think of for this fracturing is shining a light on the truths , especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.
You, Corbett, Davis and of course Cudenec are helping to open up this conversation that surprisingly has been avoided by anarchist thinkers for way too long.
So thanks again for your bravery and I look forward to educating myself some more on a rabbit hole that I've avoided myself from digging for too long.
So, the guy that you referring to (the one who attacked you) is our mutual former friend and comrade, who Ill call Steve. I encourage you to share this article with him and re-iterate my willingness to debate him. Im still willing to engage respectfully in good faith debate with any of our former comrades. I suspect the reason that theyve been so quiet on the subject lately is because they sense that the tides have turned, and they dont want to plant their flag by taking a position, because the terrain is shifting so rapidly...
Its also worth pointing out that Rio Tinto is very much historically tied to the Rothschilds (Paul scratches the surface of this in Enemies of the People). The city of Kitimat wouldnt exist if not for Rio Tinto, and CGL/LNG Canada wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the port in Kitimat. Weve all been asking ourselves for years what the true motives of LNG Canada, because it makes no economic sense to liquidify gas from B.C. and ship it to China. The Rothschilds were also behind the Churchill Falls mega-dam in Labrador, by the way. Im sure that would be an interesting topic to explore.
I am only imagine how difficult it would be for someone to argue against an anti-Rothschild position from an anarchist position... If my mind was host to that much cognitive dissonance, I might attack someone too, just to make the feeling stop. I suspect thats why he attacked you. Like Ammon Hennessy said, force is the weapon of the weak.
Im glad that you liked it! I should probably clarify that I havent actually gone all the down the rabbit hole myself... I have yet to read To Eliminate the Opiate for instance. I mention it because everything else that the raging Rabbi told me has turned out to be true. Based on his recommendation, I read None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen, which blew my fucking mind. Its not actually that great a book, and I can summarize in one sentence - Marxism was a Rothschild-sponsored plot.
The book doesnt even spell it out for you - you have the join the dots. But I have, and its true. Marx and Engels were commissioned by a group called ¨The League of the Just¨ to write the Communist Manifesto is order to divert the socialist movement into a dead end. Who do you think that the League of the Just was? Well let see what Bakunin had to said to say about it:
I know that in speaking out my intimate thoughts on the Jews with such frankness 1 expose myself to immense dangers. Many people share these thoughts, but very few dare to express them publicly, for the Jewish sect, which is much more formidable than that of the Catholic and Protestant Jesuits, today constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce and banking, and it has invaded three-quarters of German journalism and a very considerable part of the journalism of other countries. Then woe to him who makes the mistake of displeasing it! (Quoted in Draper 1990, 293. For the original French see Bakunin 1911, 243–4. This view is repeated in Bakunin 1872b, 1)
Marx ... has a remarkable genius for intrigue, and unrelenting determination; he also has a sizeable number of agents at his disposal, hierarchically organized and acting in secret under his direct orders; a kind of socialist and literary freemasonry in which his compatriots, the German and other Jews, hold an important position and display zeal worthy of a better cause. (Bakunin 1973, 246. Also see Bakunin 1872b, 1)
What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ... (Bakunin 1924, 209)
(very briefly - yes, the part about the Jewish nation being parasitic a racist statement, and I dont agree with it. But thats a subject for another day. Unfortunately, it gets worse, and I will direct the interested reader to Zoe Baker´s excellent essay Bakunin was a Racist, which you can find on The Anarchist Library website. There are historically relevant details contained therein which will help you join the dots).
Anyway, given the fact that communists keep betraying and murdering us, why are hiding the fact that Marx was, in all likelihood, an agent of the Rothschilds? This is a pretty big fucking deal, isnt it? Keep in mind that Im Mennonite. My ancestors fled Russia after the Bolshevik coup, and my. I am a survivor of genocide, and the people responsible for that genocide were Jewish bankers. And their descendents rule the world today, and were not supposed to talk about them because their co-religionists were also the victims of genocide.
Why? Because more Jews died in the Holocaust than Mennonites in the de-Kulakization of Russia? Guess what? At least as many Russians died as a direct result of de-Kulakization as Jews died in the Holocaust. Im going to go out on a limb and say that it was probably a lot more. In any case, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and we havent even talked about the greatest mass murderer of all time, Mao, which was of course also a Marxist.
(On another note - it may be of interest to some of you that an agent of the Bolsheviks actually followed my ancestors to Canada and tried to make their lives hell, leading to a period of Saskatchewan history known as the Friesen-Braun trial (or the Mennonite civil war)
There´s a book about it called Fangs of Bolshevism, which is extremely rare because the followers that agent apparently bought up every copy of the book they could and destroyed it. My cousin owns one of the few existent copies, and recently uploaded it to his website, which you can check out here: https://www.mentalsymmetry.com/index.php)
Seriously. Its fucking insane. Marxists are our enemies, and have been since the first International.
Fuck ´em all. Suck my fucking dick if you want to make excuses for the likes of the Rothschilds. They are the epitome of everything that anarchists should be against. If you are an anarchist, that means you are against the banks, pure and simple. And try being against banks without making being against bankers. It makes no sense.
The time has come, once again, to ask the age-old question - Which Side Are You On? The side of the Rothschilds, or the side of the people?
For those of you of who like hip-hop, I encourage you to check out the latest adaptation of the classic anarchist anthem. Its got KRS-ONE!
What an amazing richly documented preamble! The beginning of the interview was uncomfortable to read, not because its content was unacceptable or “problematic,” but because it revealed how strong the taboo against talking about Jewishness is, how it has been made unacceptable to discuss this topic, and how this taboo has been used for decades to prevent studying and understanding some of the most enduring seats of perennial oligarchic power.
I love the discussion on fascism and racism, going beyond the ubiquitous narrow equivalency between these two terms, and seeing fascism as an extreme extension of liberalism in need of authoritarianism to achieve the goals of the oligarchy.
Thank you! Im glad you liked it. Since Im not adhering to any conventional formula for making an argument, sometimes I wonder whether Im rambling too much.
What you say is true... I was trying to think if Id ever heard a prominent Leftist (think Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, David Graeber, etc) speak about the Rothschilds, and I cant summon forth a single memory.
Im honestly pretty fucking pissed off at academics. For years, I used to go to the Marxism conference in Toronto, where you have a bunch of highly-educated people which a super-abundance of arcane knowledge, all centred on economics, and yet, when it came to globalist bankers - crickets. As I mentioned, I didnt even know that the B.I.S. existed! Im appalled at my own (former) ignorance. I´ve been politically active since I was a teenager, and could have talked your ear off about the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc... yet somehow the subject of the B.I.S. never came up. How in the hell do you study a pyramidal political structure for years on end without asking yourself who controls it?
It really makes me wonder whether all those professors and grad students were:
a) Keeping mum on this subject out of deference to political correctness
b) Actually ignorant of this history because no one bothered to tell them, and they weren´t curious enough to figure it out on their own
c) Ignorant of this subject because they spent their academic career avoiding coming into contact with information that would contradict what they felt that they were supposed to believe.
I assume that it´s some combination of all three factors, but Im curious what others think. I mean, one need look no further than the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto to see how important banking is to the Marxist program, but one could look also at Lenin´s statement that the establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.
Its also incredibly annoying how people are afraid to criticize the likes of the Rothschilds for fear of being perceived as racist, yet the racism inherent in Zionism gets a pass. The example of the state of Israel´s discrimination against African Jews comes to mind, to say nothing of the IDF´s crimes against the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and other Arab nations.
But we could also look to the likes of Noel Ignatiev, who spent decades pontificating about how the white race needed to be destroyed. Can you imagine how quickly it would end an academic´s career were they to call for the destruction of the Jewish race?
Yeah, sure, I get that race is a social construct, but what isn´t a social construct? Was Ignatiev suggesting that Jewishness is not also a social construct?
Let´s have a look at two of his statements, which I pulled from his Wikipedia page:
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists".
"I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity and whoever calls me an anti-Semite will face a libel suit"
I suspect that the reason that so many people these days seem to have such a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance is because this kind of shit has been getting a pass for way too fucking long. Enough already. People need to locate their fucking spines and speak up when people are spouting asinine garbage like this.
Personally, I blame post-modernism (i.e. lawyerism), and its undermining of moral principles, which are only pure if they´re applied universally. Really, moral principles can be very inconvenient sometimes, especially when you´re motivated by financial gain or a lust for power. Fortunately for the capitalists, a class of professional liars (lawyers, po.liticians, lobbyists, PR people, etc) exists to justify wrongdoing.
Over the course of long enough, reality becomes warped and people accept the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously believing contractionary things. Eventually, their sense of reality becomes so fragile that they will persecute people who make them aware of their own contradiction. And thats how you get the witch hunts, inquisition, etc.
But none of this would be possible if people just spoke their fucking minds. Politeness has been the bane of intellectual honesty, and we´ve got to do something about it. So although saying things that you know will offend people might make you seem like an asshole, sometimes it´s for the greater good.
I just had an idea. Maybe I´ll write something encouraging people to make a practice of overcoming their inner censor, i.e. the cop in your head.
I remember seeing an inspirational quote on a sandwich board outside a cafe once. The message was something like: Do one thing that scares you every day.
So how about this: Say one thing per day that you´re scared to say.
If enough people did this, I think a whole lot of stupid fucking ideas would evaporate right quick.
Anyway, I´m glad you liked the article. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
About why academics never broach this subject, it's probably a combination of the three reasons you give. Academia is part of the establishment and can only go so far in its understanding of reality. Certain topics or perspectives are deemed "below" the scope of legitimate investigation while others are so taboo that they cause academics to commit to a kind of thoughtcrime process of erasure, as if these topics simply did not exist because the Party said so.
I don't know about your idea of regularly speaking our minds on these forbidden topics. There is already so much aggressive screaming on all sides, so little deep communication, so much demonization of "the other side," that I fear a dead-end. And yet, we need to push through these taboos to get to the heart of the criminal enterprise that's been slowly destroying us and out planet through the centuries, leading to today's apocalyptic "doctrine of domination" madness.
Yeah, youre probably right... Although I suppose I would make a distinction between online and IRL communication... I definitely dont think that trollling online is helpful (although some people might think that Im forever trolling pro-compliance Leftists), but I think that its important to speak your mind whether or not it will win you the approbation of your peers. I really do feel like this should be a moral principle, especially for intellectuals.
Really, its intellectuals that are to blame for whats happening to the world right now, and Im not just talking about establishment insiders like Zbigniew Brezinski or Yuval Harari. Im talking about your random academic who knows enough to know whats going on, but is too cowardly to speak up about it. I really feel that smart people bear more culpability for their complicity with the Babylon system than do people of average intelligence. But one of the unfortunate effects of wokeness is that demonstrating a superior understanding of complicated issues is not well-seen. We can see this in the newly-discovered sin of ¨man-splaining¨, in which attempting to share information can now be taken as an insult, regardless of the intent of the man-splainer.
If God gave you the gift of intelligence, it´s because you´re meant to use it. If you don´t use it for the benefit of the society of which you are a part, you are a part of the problem.
Of course, if you have views which have been demonized by the MSM, the reality is that when you do share them, some people arent going to like it. Theyll perceive it as arrongance, thoughtcrime, or worse. A lot of people don´t like it when they feel like you´ve got the upper hand on them intellectually, and dont want to be persuaded by rational argument. But so what? Fuck ´em if their ego is more important to them than the truth. Im sick of pretending that everyones opinion is equally valid. Its not conducive to solving societal problems. Sooner or later, someone will come along and take action without waiting to get permission, and thats how things actually work in the real world.
btw, I made some edits to the piece... The biggest change is that I added a part reflecting upon taboo in the 21st century.
Check it out:
Okay. I want to pause for a second here for a moment and reflect a bit about Taboo and the Zeitgeist. In the past twenty years or so, there has been a rapid narrowing of the range of permissible discourse. During the COVID psy op, the Overton window shrunk. More and more ideas became unthinkable. Rigid conformism was de rigueur.
The Long Con And The Overton Window
But, obviously, you can´t just keep narrowing the range of allowable thought indefinitely. At some point, something´s gotta give, and when it does, things will start moving the other way. And it´s clear to me that has already started happening. The tides have turned. And praise be to Allah for that.
I predict that the next decade will bring with it a spirit of radical inquiry, as more and more people are forced to think for themselves as the propaganda pumped out through the media become more and more unbelievable as Technik enters into its death throes.
And what does radical inquiry mean? It means questioning assumptions that everyone takes for granted. It means breaking taboos. It means thinking thoughts that your teachers didn´t tell you to think. It means examining your own beliefs, and considering alternative ones.
The COVID era has shown us that people are capable of rapidly changing their beliefs, and as the system flails and thrashes, a whole lot of people are going to be re-evaluating their own reality tunnels.
That´s when (some) people will figure out that the world is made out of ideas, and that ideas are more powerful than weapons. If you ask me, that´s what we should be preparing for - the moment of revolutionary potential that will come when the old paradigm finally gives way, and we´re able to cross the chasm, and if we get to the other side first, we´ll be a much better position to actually execute effective strategies.
Early Adopters: How to Find Early Adopters for Your Product Today
Or maybe this is wishful thinking. I guess we´ll see. But I´m pretty sure that people are going to start using their brains at some point, and at that point, all bets are off.
But I digress.
Anyway… How are you feeling?
I really am curious, because that´s the thing with taboo, isn´t it? If no one is allowed to talk about certain things, it means you don´t know how others feel about them. And that tends to produce a lot of unease, especially among the more self-conscious types. Everyone want to be approved of by their peers, which means that they want to think the right kind of thoughts. But when something is truly taboo, no one knows what the right kind of thoughts even are! All they know is that it´s safer not to to talk about certain things, and they might get in trouble if they ask too many questions.
So let me ask you again: How does this article make you feel?
Does it make you nervous? Are you scandalized? Do you think it would scandalize your friends? If so, which ones? What would your other friends think?
How does the cop in your head feel about the fact I´m saying things that you´re not supposed to say? Have I gone too far? If so, what are you going to do about it?
Does the fact that I´ve written these words change the way you feel about me? Do you think that I´m doing something dangerously irresponsible? Do you think I´m confused and misguided? Or do you respect me more?
Now, let me ask you this: If it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that some of the most powerful people in the world are Jewish bankers, would you really be that surprised? Or would it merely confirm something you´ve long suspected?
I encourage you to pay attention to your first thoughts, because those untamed thoughts are YOUR THOUGHTS. I´m guessing that many of the people who read this article will get to the end of it and not be sure how to feel about it.
And that´s the thing about taboo. It makes people strangers to themselves. It makes people crazy, because it makes people unable to recognize their own thoughts as their own. It makes people scared to think, because they might accidentally think a forbidden thought. It makes people weak.
I like your addition. Your invitation to the reader to share their feelings is a good idea - it acknowledges the courage it takes to break unbreakable taboos and it deflates potential aggressive reactions.
I don't know, I am confused about how to deal with this. I so agree that we need to stop hiding behind these discursive walls that the establishment has built for us, and yet my innate hatred of unproductive confrontation holds me back. (Not to mention that I hide behind pseudonyms in all public media as I would not dare showing my true face publicly, which is not that different a behaviour from not daring breaking these social taboos you are breaching.)
Okay. Perfect. This provides me with the perfect opportunity to say something that needs to be said. FEAR OF CONFLICT (or, as you put it, hatred on unproductive confrontation), is perfectly normal. ITS NOT EVEN BAD!!!!!!!!!!! It is the flipside of the desire for harmony! In personality psychology, there is a trait called agreeableness, and people who rank high in this regard will experience psychological pain when there is disharmony in the group that they are a part of.
Thats why you need people like me and Paul. And just you know: its not fucking easy being disagreeable. You have no fucking idea how much avoidable conflict I get myself into, or how much more convenient it would be for me and my loved ones if I wasnt so fucking stubborn.
And I experience some kind of emotional pain (anger is pain, right?) when someone tells me what to do. Let me ask you this: have you ever used Google Maps? You know that fucking robot who tells you where to go? Have you ever gotten pissed off at her? Nope? Didnt think so. Must be nice.
So just ask yourself next time youre kicking yourself for avoiding conflict: would you rather go through life pissed off all the time?
Anyway, part of knowing yourself is knowing how best you can contribute to the group of which you are a part. On the question of breaking the taboos that need to be broken we need to have so we can have a grownup conversation about the psychopaths who plan to enslave us - if you are an agreeable person, your job is this - when someone breaks a taboo, you stand straight up with your back held high and you say: I agree with this. And bam: just like that, you´re no longer part of the problem. You´ve become part of the solution. Easy. Nothing complicated about it
Thank you for this and other articles. I am very glad to have found you people, having arrived at similar ideas after a long and lonely trip around alt sites, faced with ridicule and indignation from every friend I tried to reason with.
Oh those Rothschilds! Soo much can be, and has been, written about them. Part of low level black nobs, minions really. But yeah powerful worldwide in the finance world.
Don’t worry about the anti-semitic bs…they aren’t really jews anyway. Almost none of who claim to be, actually are. Amost all - ashkenazi. And def not “chosen ones” but will interpret that bible passage to fit themselves no problem.
And most ashkenazi are kzaharian jews - again not really jews.
Frances Leader for black nobs.
Third Paradigm for more truer history before black nobs.
Nefahotep for deepest truer history.
Bibliotecapleyades.net for literally anything you want to know about anything non-mainstream.
Thank you Crow!
I finally got the chance to read through this article.
I thought the interview was excellent and will rabbit hole the linked reference material soon as well.
I found the entire article be equally brave and tactful. Necessary qualities when discussing the taboo subject of critiquing those who are not to be critiqued. I connected with the trepidation of discussing or even researching this subject, for the same fears you illustrated in the article. I even hesitate now to type the word jew or jewish.. so that tells me this is a deep conditioning I am looking to de-colonize.
The programming is real, and in relation to the comments below, I think that post secondary education is the birth place for woke-ism. and a structure focused primarily on teaching one what to think as opposed to how to think. Educators and the educated would have consciously chosen, to gloss over, ignore and divert attention from these historically relevant facts - I'm guessing as a survival technique.
In this current covid era medical professionals were looking at the same grim career choice, recommend and even submit themselves to an unproven, unsafe and ineffective medical procedure in the interests of big pharma, or lose their jobs and position in their community.
Personally, I remember being physically attacked by a pro-authoritarian so called "anarchist comrade" for mentioning the uncomfortable truth that is avoided in most activist communities about real control at the top of the banking pyramid - which I suggested is masked by a corporate media, serving the same overlords that runs a propaganda campaign 24/7 disguised as our entertainment. I was labelled a Nazi, and this guy tried to fight me.
Cognitive dissonance is hard to live with for anyone who is trying to integrate spirituality with their activism. The whole self becomes divided into pieces, and the only antidote I can think of for this fracturing is shining a light on the truths , especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.
You, Corbett, Davis and of course Cudenec are helping to open up this conversation that surprisingly has been avoided by anarchist thinkers for way too long.
So thanks again for your bravery and I look forward to educating myself some more on a rabbit hole that I've avoided myself from digging for too long.
So, the guy that you referring to (the one who attacked you) is our mutual former friend and comrade, who Ill call Steve. I encourage you to share this article with him and re-iterate my willingness to debate him. Im still willing to engage respectfully in good faith debate with any of our former comrades. I suspect the reason that theyve been so quiet on the subject lately is because they sense that the tides have turned, and they dont want to plant their flag by taking a position, because the terrain is shifting so rapidly...
Its also worth pointing out that Rio Tinto is very much historically tied to the Rothschilds (Paul scratches the surface of this in Enemies of the People). The city of Kitimat wouldnt exist if not for Rio Tinto, and CGL/LNG Canada wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the port in Kitimat. Weve all been asking ourselves for years what the true motives of LNG Canada, because it makes no economic sense to liquidify gas from B.C. and ship it to China. The Rothschilds were also behind the Churchill Falls mega-dam in Labrador, by the way. Im sure that would be an interesting topic to explore.
I am only imagine how difficult it would be for someone to argue against an anti-Rothschild position from an anarchist position... If my mind was host to that much cognitive dissonance, I might attack someone too, just to make the feeling stop. I suspect thats why he attacked you. Like Ammon Hennessy said, force is the weapon of the weak.
Who won the fight, by the way?
Im glad that you liked it! I should probably clarify that I havent actually gone all the down the rabbit hole myself... I have yet to read To Eliminate the Opiate for instance. I mention it because everything else that the raging Rabbi told me has turned out to be true. Based on his recommendation, I read None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen, which blew my fucking mind. Its not actually that great a book, and I can summarize in one sentence - Marxism was a Rothschild-sponsored plot.
The book doesnt even spell it out for you - you have the join the dots. But I have, and its true. Marx and Engels were commissioned by a group called ¨The League of the Just¨ to write the Communist Manifesto is order to divert the socialist movement into a dead end. Who do you think that the League of the Just was? Well let see what Bakunin had to said to say about it:
I know that in speaking out my intimate thoughts on the Jews with such frankness 1 expose myself to immense dangers. Many people share these thoughts, but very few dare to express them publicly, for the Jewish sect, which is much more formidable than that of the Catholic and Protestant Jesuits, today constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce and banking, and it has invaded three-quarters of German journalism and a very considerable part of the journalism of other countries. Then woe to him who makes the mistake of displeasing it! (Quoted in Draper 1990, 293. For the original French see Bakunin 1911, 243–4. This view is repeated in Bakunin 1872b, 1)
Marx ... has a remarkable genius for intrigue, and unrelenting determination; he also has a sizeable number of agents at his disposal, hierarchically organized and acting in secret under his direct orders; a kind of socialist and literary freemasonry in which his compatriots, the German and other Jews, hold an important position and display zeal worthy of a better cause. (Bakunin 1973, 246. Also see Bakunin 1872b, 1)
What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ... (Bakunin 1924, 209)
(very briefly - yes, the part about the Jewish nation being parasitic a racist statement, and I dont agree with it. But thats a subject for another day. Unfortunately, it gets worse, and I will direct the interested reader to Zoe Baker´s excellent essay Bakunin was a Racist, which you can find on The Anarchist Library website. There are historically relevant details contained therein which will help you join the dots).
Anyway, given the fact that communists keep betraying and murdering us, why are hiding the fact that Marx was, in all likelihood, an agent of the Rothschilds? This is a pretty big fucking deal, isnt it? Keep in mind that Im Mennonite. My ancestors fled Russia after the Bolshevik coup, and my. I am a survivor of genocide, and the people responsible for that genocide were Jewish bankers. And their descendents rule the world today, and were not supposed to talk about them because their co-religionists were also the victims of genocide.
Why? Because more Jews died in the Holocaust than Mennonites in the de-Kulakization of Russia? Guess what? At least as many Russians died as a direct result of de-Kulakization as Jews died in the Holocaust. Im going to go out on a limb and say that it was probably a lot more. In any case, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and we havent even talked about the greatest mass murderer of all time, Mao, which was of course also a Marxist.
(On another note - it may be of interest to some of you that an agent of the Bolsheviks actually followed my ancestors to Canada and tried to make their lives hell, leading to a period of Saskatchewan history known as the Friesen-Braun trial (or the Mennonite civil war)
There´s a book about it called Fangs of Bolshevism, which is extremely rare because the followers that agent apparently bought up every copy of the book they could and destroyed it. My cousin owns one of the few existent copies, and recently uploaded it to his website, which you can check out here: https://www.mentalsymmetry.com/index.php)
Seriously. Its fucking insane. Marxists are our enemies, and have been since the first International.
Fuck ´em all. Suck my fucking dick if you want to make excuses for the likes of the Rothschilds. They are the epitome of everything that anarchists should be against. If you are an anarchist, that means you are against the banks, pure and simple. And try being against banks without making being against bankers. It makes no sense.
The time has come, once again, to ask the age-old question - Which Side Are You On? The side of the Rothschilds, or the side of the people?
For those of you of who like hip-hop, I encourage you to check out the latest adaptation of the classic anarchist anthem. Its got KRS-ONE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSZWslqjfPE
What an amazing richly documented preamble! The beginning of the interview was uncomfortable to read, not because its content was unacceptable or “problematic,” but because it revealed how strong the taboo against talking about Jewishness is, how it has been made unacceptable to discuss this topic, and how this taboo has been used for decades to prevent studying and understanding some of the most enduring seats of perennial oligarchic power.
I love the discussion on fascism and racism, going beyond the ubiquitous narrow equivalency between these two terms, and seeing fascism as an extreme extension of liberalism in need of authoritarianism to achieve the goals of the oligarchy.
Thank you for daring to broach this topic!
Thank you! Im glad you liked it. Since Im not adhering to any conventional formula for making an argument, sometimes I wonder whether Im rambling too much.
What you say is true... I was trying to think if Id ever heard a prominent Leftist (think Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, David Graeber, etc) speak about the Rothschilds, and I cant summon forth a single memory.
Im honestly pretty fucking pissed off at academics. For years, I used to go to the Marxism conference in Toronto, where you have a bunch of highly-educated people which a super-abundance of arcane knowledge, all centred on economics, and yet, when it came to globalist bankers - crickets. As I mentioned, I didnt even know that the B.I.S. existed! Im appalled at my own (former) ignorance. I´ve been politically active since I was a teenager, and could have talked your ear off about the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc... yet somehow the subject of the B.I.S. never came up. How in the hell do you study a pyramidal political structure for years on end without asking yourself who controls it?
It really makes me wonder whether all those professors and grad students were:
a) Keeping mum on this subject out of deference to political correctness
b) Actually ignorant of this history because no one bothered to tell them, and they weren´t curious enough to figure it out on their own
c) Ignorant of this subject because they spent their academic career avoiding coming into contact with information that would contradict what they felt that they were supposed to believe.
I assume that it´s some combination of all three factors, but Im curious what others think. I mean, one need look no further than the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto to see how important banking is to the Marxist program, but one could look also at Lenin´s statement that the establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.
(paraphrasing here, for full quote see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gat7y7/the_establishment_of_a_central_bank_is_90_of/)
Its also incredibly annoying how people are afraid to criticize the likes of the Rothschilds for fear of being perceived as racist, yet the racism inherent in Zionism gets a pass. The example of the state of Israel´s discrimination against African Jews comes to mind, to say nothing of the IDF´s crimes against the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and other Arab nations.
But we could also look to the likes of Noel Ignatiev, who spent decades pontificating about how the white race needed to be destroyed. Can you imagine how quickly it would end an academic´s career were they to call for the destruction of the Jewish race?
Yeah, sure, I get that race is a social construct, but what isn´t a social construct? Was Ignatiev suggesting that Jewishness is not also a social construct?
Let´s have a look at two of his statements, which I pulled from his Wikipedia page:
"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists".
"I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity and whoever calls me an anti-Semite will face a libel suit"
I suspect that the reason that so many people these days seem to have such a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance is because this kind of shit has been getting a pass for way too fucking long. Enough already. People need to locate their fucking spines and speak up when people are spouting asinine garbage like this.
Personally, I blame post-modernism (i.e. lawyerism), and its undermining of moral principles, which are only pure if they´re applied universally. Really, moral principles can be very inconvenient sometimes, especially when you´re motivated by financial gain or a lust for power. Fortunately for the capitalists, a class of professional liars (lawyers, po.liticians, lobbyists, PR people, etc) exists to justify wrongdoing.
Over the course of long enough, reality becomes warped and people accept the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously believing contractionary things. Eventually, their sense of reality becomes so fragile that they will persecute people who make them aware of their own contradiction. And thats how you get the witch hunts, inquisition, etc.
But none of this would be possible if people just spoke their fucking minds. Politeness has been the bane of intellectual honesty, and we´ve got to do something about it. So although saying things that you know will offend people might make you seem like an asshole, sometimes it´s for the greater good.
I just had an idea. Maybe I´ll write something encouraging people to make a practice of overcoming their inner censor, i.e. the cop in your head.
I remember seeing an inspirational quote on a sandwich board outside a cafe once. The message was something like: Do one thing that scares you every day.
So how about this: Say one thing per day that you´re scared to say.
If enough people did this, I think a whole lot of stupid fucking ideas would evaporate right quick.
Anyway, I´m glad you liked the article. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
About why academics never broach this subject, it's probably a combination of the three reasons you give. Academia is part of the establishment and can only go so far in its understanding of reality. Certain topics or perspectives are deemed "below" the scope of legitimate investigation while others are so taboo that they cause academics to commit to a kind of thoughtcrime process of erasure, as if these topics simply did not exist because the Party said so.
I don't know about your idea of regularly speaking our minds on these forbidden topics. There is already so much aggressive screaming on all sides, so little deep communication, so much demonization of "the other side," that I fear a dead-end. And yet, we need to push through these taboos to get to the heart of the criminal enterprise that's been slowly destroying us and out planet through the centuries, leading to today's apocalyptic "doctrine of domination" madness.
Yeah, youre probably right... Although I suppose I would make a distinction between online and IRL communication... I definitely dont think that trollling online is helpful (although some people might think that Im forever trolling pro-compliance Leftists), but I think that its important to speak your mind whether or not it will win you the approbation of your peers. I really do feel like this should be a moral principle, especially for intellectuals.
Really, its intellectuals that are to blame for whats happening to the world right now, and Im not just talking about establishment insiders like Zbigniew Brezinski or Yuval Harari. Im talking about your random academic who knows enough to know whats going on, but is too cowardly to speak up about it. I really feel that smart people bear more culpability for their complicity with the Babylon system than do people of average intelligence. But one of the unfortunate effects of wokeness is that demonstrating a superior understanding of complicated issues is not well-seen. We can see this in the newly-discovered sin of ¨man-splaining¨, in which attempting to share information can now be taken as an insult, regardless of the intent of the man-splainer.
If God gave you the gift of intelligence, it´s because you´re meant to use it. If you don´t use it for the benefit of the society of which you are a part, you are a part of the problem.
Of course, if you have views which have been demonized by the MSM, the reality is that when you do share them, some people arent going to like it. Theyll perceive it as arrongance, thoughtcrime, or worse. A lot of people don´t like it when they feel like you´ve got the upper hand on them intellectually, and dont want to be persuaded by rational argument. But so what? Fuck ´em if their ego is more important to them than the truth. Im sick of pretending that everyones opinion is equally valid. Its not conducive to solving societal problems. Sooner or later, someone will come along and take action without waiting to get permission, and thats how things actually work in the real world.
btw, I made some edits to the piece... The biggest change is that I added a part reflecting upon taboo in the 21st century.
Check it out:
Okay. I want to pause for a second here for a moment and reflect a bit about Taboo and the Zeitgeist. In the past twenty years or so, there has been a rapid narrowing of the range of permissible discourse. During the COVID psy op, the Overton window shrunk. More and more ideas became unthinkable. Rigid conformism was de rigueur.
The Long Con And The Overton Window
But, obviously, you can´t just keep narrowing the range of allowable thought indefinitely. At some point, something´s gotta give, and when it does, things will start moving the other way. And it´s clear to me that has already started happening. The tides have turned. And praise be to Allah for that.
I predict that the next decade will bring with it a spirit of radical inquiry, as more and more people are forced to think for themselves as the propaganda pumped out through the media become more and more unbelievable as Technik enters into its death throes.
And what does radical inquiry mean? It means questioning assumptions that everyone takes for granted. It means breaking taboos. It means thinking thoughts that your teachers didn´t tell you to think. It means examining your own beliefs, and considering alternative ones.
The COVID era has shown us that people are capable of rapidly changing their beliefs, and as the system flails and thrashes, a whole lot of people are going to be re-evaluating their own reality tunnels.
That´s when (some) people will figure out that the world is made out of ideas, and that ideas are more powerful than weapons. If you ask me, that´s what we should be preparing for - the moment of revolutionary potential that will come when the old paradigm finally gives way, and we´re able to cross the chasm, and if we get to the other side first, we´ll be a much better position to actually execute effective strategies.
Early Adopters: How to Find Early Adopters for Your Product Today
Or maybe this is wishful thinking. I guess we´ll see. But I´m pretty sure that people are going to start using their brains at some point, and at that point, all bets are off.
But I digress.
Anyway… How are you feeling?
I really am curious, because that´s the thing with taboo, isn´t it? If no one is allowed to talk about certain things, it means you don´t know how others feel about them. And that tends to produce a lot of unease, especially among the more self-conscious types. Everyone want to be approved of by their peers, which means that they want to think the right kind of thoughts. But when something is truly taboo, no one knows what the right kind of thoughts even are! All they know is that it´s safer not to to talk about certain things, and they might get in trouble if they ask too many questions.
So let me ask you again: How does this article make you feel?
Does it make you nervous? Are you scandalized? Do you think it would scandalize your friends? If so, which ones? What would your other friends think?
How does the cop in your head feel about the fact I´m saying things that you´re not supposed to say? Have I gone too far? If so, what are you going to do about it?
Does the fact that I´ve written these words change the way you feel about me? Do you think that I´m doing something dangerously irresponsible? Do you think I´m confused and misguided? Or do you respect me more?
Now, let me ask you this: If it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that some of the most powerful people in the world are Jewish bankers, would you really be that surprised? Or would it merely confirm something you´ve long suspected?
I encourage you to pay attention to your first thoughts, because those untamed thoughts are YOUR THOUGHTS. I´m guessing that many of the people who read this article will get to the end of it and not be sure how to feel about it.
And that´s the thing about taboo. It makes people strangers to themselves. It makes people crazy, because it makes people unable to recognize their own thoughts as their own. It makes people scared to think, because they might accidentally think a forbidden thought. It makes people weak.
I like your addition. Your invitation to the reader to share their feelings is a good idea - it acknowledges the courage it takes to break unbreakable taboos and it deflates potential aggressive reactions.
I don't know, I am confused about how to deal with this. I so agree that we need to stop hiding behind these discursive walls that the establishment has built for us, and yet my innate hatred of unproductive confrontation holds me back. (Not to mention that I hide behind pseudonyms in all public media as I would not dare showing my true face publicly, which is not that different a behaviour from not daring breaking these social taboos you are breaching.)
Okay. Perfect. This provides me with the perfect opportunity to say something that needs to be said. FEAR OF CONFLICT (or, as you put it, hatred on unproductive confrontation), is perfectly normal. ITS NOT EVEN BAD!!!!!!!!!!! It is the flipside of the desire for harmony! In personality psychology, there is a trait called agreeableness, and people who rank high in this regard will experience psychological pain when there is disharmony in the group that they are a part of.
Thats why you need people like me and Paul. And just you know: its not fucking easy being disagreeable. You have no fucking idea how much avoidable conflict I get myself into, or how much more convenient it would be for me and my loved ones if I wasnt so fucking stubborn.
And I experience some kind of emotional pain (anger is pain, right?) when someone tells me what to do. Let me ask you this: have you ever used Google Maps? You know that fucking robot who tells you where to go? Have you ever gotten pissed off at her? Nope? Didnt think so. Must be nice.
So just ask yourself next time youre kicking yourself for avoiding conflict: would you rather go through life pissed off all the time?
Anyway, part of knowing yourself is knowing how best you can contribute to the group of which you are a part. On the question of breaking the taboos that need to be broken we need to have so we can have a grownup conversation about the psychopaths who plan to enslave us - if you are an agreeable person, your job is this - when someone breaks a taboo, you stand straight up with your back held high and you say: I agree with this. And bam: just like that, you´re no longer part of the problem. You´ve become part of the solution. Easy. Nothing complicated about it
Thank you for this and other articles. I am very glad to have found you people, having arrived at similar ideas after a long and lonely trip around alt sites, faced with ridicule and indignation from every friend I tried to reason with.
Oh those Rothschilds! Soo much can be, and has been, written about them. Part of low level black nobs, minions really. But yeah powerful worldwide in the finance world.
Don’t worry about the anti-semitic bs…they aren’t really jews anyway. Almost none of who claim to be, actually are. Amost all - ashkenazi. And def not “chosen ones” but will interpret that bible passage to fit themselves no problem.
And most ashkenazi are kzaharian jews - again not really jews.
Frances Leader for black nobs.
Third Paradigm for more truer history before black nobs.
Nefahotep for deepest truer history.
Bibliotecapleyades.net for literally anything you want to know about anything non-mainstream.