FIRST IMPRESSIONS VS POST-MORTEM DEMONIZATION

 

As a man who has lived through many decades of post-World War 2 media reporting, I have been struck by the relentless demonization of Adolf Hitler. Most WW2 movies, for example, typically include "hate-crime" allegations against Nazis, Hitler (or some other noteworthy Nazi) or against Germany generally. Even WW2 movies focused on the Pacific Ocean front may well include irrelevant aside comments about the "Nazis." Contemporary movies on WW2 tend to be over-the-top, as was the case with the recent Brad Pitt movie demanding German scalps from his all-Jewish squad of cut-throats, operating in a French theatre of war.

The prose of the media has not been noteworthy for its careful, measured reporting of events either. Indeed, the major news outlets and major book publishers appear to be shot through with individuals incapable of summoning the courage to investigate horror stories with an idea of assessing their merits.
This especially applies to the "holocaust."

The recent death of Mr. Benjamin Bradlee, who was managing editor at The Washington Post for Katherine Meyer "Boss Lady" Graham, generated a large response from old "Posters" and other prominent voices which attested to his great merit as a news reporter. Yet, neither he nor any other Post reporter ever questioned one of the great frauds of modern time - the "holocaust." Given the Jewish character of the most prominent voices at the Post, perhaps it would have been too embarrassing for all concerned. Also, it would have irritated the powerful global archipelago whose concerted efforts were essential in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

No member of the Anglo-American Establishment ["Resident Evil"] really wants important issues discussed openly by the citizens. The want trivial matters to be the focus of the citizens, while they quietly attend to important matters as they see fit. The media is owned by members of the Anglo-American Establishment. Their employees know better than to embarrass their bosses by hard-hitting stories of massive fraud and gargantuan theft in the name of reparations.

Adolf Hitler has typically been described as a "madman," "lunatic," "mass-murderer," "megalomaniac," "dictator," "pervert," "anti-Semite," "racist," "warmonger," "slave-master," "anti-communist," "occultist," and generally a threat to humanity. He is never pictured as a man of his time but as an anomalous, freaky, entirely unexpected human eruption from some suspiciously obscure matrix. His ideas have not been compared with those of his time because such comparisons would tend to embarrass members of the Anglo-American Establishment, holding similar ideas.

What, then, might one expect from a credible observer meeting Adolf Hitler for the first time? Consider:

"In a private letter to President Roosevelt [American charge d'affaires Hugh R.] Wilson remarked the...Fuhrer was healthier than Wilson had expected - more solid and erect, though pale. The character in the Fuhrer's face, his fine artistic hands, his simplicity, directness, and modesty were the first impressions that Wilson conveyed to Roosevelt." [D.  Irving, HITLER'S WAR, p.88]

Here, Hitler was not painted in the lurid tones of today's media. Why? Was it merely due to the time (1938)?

Important British figure, Lloyd George, was said by press magnate Cecil King to have "spoke of Hitler as the greatest figure in Europe since Napoleon and possibly greater than him." [supra, p.62]

Without cataloguing positive comments by prominent foreign observers of Adolf Hitler, he was viewed by most as an admiral leader. In private he suggested
to visitors a pleasant, polite, somewhat shy figure who was nevertheless direct in facing and conversing with them. When he was engaged with ideas, he was often described as charismatic. His passion for his vision for Germany engendered such moments. His enemies described his passion as "madness."

Certainly, Adolf Hitler was a visionary. His vision of a Greater Germany which was "of, by and for the German people" is a sensible concept. He was not a proponent of diversity, perhaps intuitively understanding that such unnatural schemes would lead to a Germany wherein the German people were a feckless minority. Adolf Hitler was a German. He did not possess contemporary American ideals about "how to build a happy nation."

In 1933 the leadership of World Zionism declared war on Adolf Hitler. Isn't it strange that Hitler's idea of a Greater Germany lives on in the minds of those people who hated him most and warred against him longest. I speak of the Jews and their Eretz Israel (Greater Israel).

In criticizing Jewry Hitler had stated that they stole all of their ideas. Certainly, "Other People's Ideas" have been lifted by Jewry on occasion. In this instance the irony is resounding.

SINGULARITIES AND IDENTIFICATIONS

 

I often hear news first, rather than see it. I spend much of my day driving. For that reason I tune in the “weather & traffic” station of my choice, which also carries news summaries, sports and the inevitable gaggle of experts and commentators. The station would probably be characterized by people who make it their business to label news outlets as “liberal.”

A couple of days ago, they featured in a sort of “breaking news” style the shootings in Kansas on or about a couple of Jewish facilities. According to the news report, two or three people had been shot and at least two were killed. One was reported to be a boy and the other an older man. The shooter had been apprehended alive and taken into custody by authorities.

The radio station report was presented in such a way as to emphasize the “Jewish” facilities, suggesting that the people who were shot were Jewish. Further, the shooter was identified as one Frazier Glenn Miller, who was identified as a known anti-Semite. He had also, according to this report, an alias, “Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr.” According to the radio report, he had a long association with the KKK.

Most of the news information about the shooter had been provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center [“SPLC”], originally founded by Mr. Morris Seligman Dees, Jr. and Joe Levin. Its first president was Julian Bond. Mr. Dees had previously operated a mail-order business in Alabama which he had been able to sell to a Chicago group for a surprisingly generous price. The funds gained in this sale provided the funds for Mr. Dees to finance the creation of the SPLC. Mr. Dees is Jewish in origins.

Parenthetically, the SPLC has operated a secular intelligence, spying and – some say – a “dirty tricks” operation in the guise of a benevolent organization. It works closely with the FBI, Homeland Security, and other federal organizations to record, store, analyze and publish information on “hate crimes.” The major media usually report the findings of the SPLC. “Hate crimes” have typically been crimes against Jews, African Americans, homosexuals, Latinos, et al, perpetrated by “white people.”

For the above reasons I was not surprised that the radio station reports emphasized buzzwords and phrases such as “hate,” “anti-Semitic,””racist,” et cetera. Also, the sites of the shooting were emphasized. The name reported on the radio of the shooter was repeated, along with mention of the aka “Cross.” They had the SPLC data taken from their large collection of dossiers to identify the shooter more fully.

One felt to shake one’s head at the insane violence.

However, since there were follow-up reports also provided by the radio station of record over the next 36 hours, I began to notice some differences in texture. The people killed were not identified as Jews. Emphasis on the Jewish facility continued along with lamentations about the period in which the killings occurred. Denunciations about “hate” were voiced often.

Then there a report that clearly suggested that the victims weren’t Jewish. Since my initial assumption from the news was that the shooter hated Jews and had gone to the Jewish facilities to specifically kill Jews, I thought of the dread irony he unleashed. While not wishing any injury to Jews, I could not help thinking, ”What an idiot! He wanted kill Jews and, in fact, killed non-Jews.”

With this mood in my mind, I renewed my own analysis of the situation and motivation which created it.

The shooter was 73 years old. Was it possible that he had heard “bad news” from a doctor that made him desperate to accomplish such a horrible deed? Did he want to make “a statement” to America and the world?

I knew from my own experience that many Jews bear the last name “Miller.” Was it possible that Frazier Glenn Miller was himself Jewish in origins? I had read some years back of a man named “Collins” who headed a Neo-Nazi outfit near Chicago, Illinois. He was exposed as a Jew. There have been other such singularities.

To offer some support to my allegations about the name “Miller,” I googled the term “Rabbi Miller” and easily copied a few examples from what must undoubtedly be a large pool of such names. Consider:

1. Rabbi Mark J. Miller – Associate Rabbi. Rabbi Mark J. Miller grew up in Colorado

2.   Senior Rabbi Mark S. Miller

3.  Rabbi Avigdor Miller

4.  Rabbi Jason Miller, West Bloomfield Township, Michigan

5.  Rabbi Bennett F. Miller - Anshe Emeth Memorial Temple

6.  RABBI Tamara Miller

7.  Rabbi Nisson Dov Miller - Etz Chaim Sharon

8.  Rabbi Yisroel Miller - House Of Jacob Mikveh Israel

9.  Rabbi Yitzhak Miller is an experienced rabbi of the Reform Jewish movement

10. Rabbi Shmuel Miller, founder of Midrasho Shel Shem.

As you can see, the name “Miller” is a common Jewish name. The shooter may or may not be a Jew. However, no one ever suggested that the shooter was a Jew. Presumably, reliance on the SPLC is absolute at the level of federal police organizations and the major media.

Why would a Jew perpetrate such a horrible act against Jews?

Only weeks before this shooting in Kansas, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith [“ADL”] had been warning Jewish congregations and organizations to be on alert for possible violence. Therefore, within the Jewish community there must have been heightened awareness of danger.

Organizations such as the SPLC and ADL have been alleged to have infiltrated “far-rightwing” organizations, aka, “extremist” organizations for many years. Their value to FBI and other federal police/intelligence organizations was born of this sort of work. Could Frazier Glenn Miller be such an undercover spy? Was that why he used the name “Cross?” There are still Jews who hate the “man on the cross” and might use his name in spite.

With these speculations in mind consider Frazier Glenn Miller. He must be brave if he infiltrated such a notoriously dangerous group as the KKK. If he also learned from his doctor that he had only a few months to live, then he might have been moved to that state of mind where violence is easily entertained. If a Jew, he would not be interested in hurting Jews. He would, however, given the nature of the ADL and the SPLC, have felt “his people” were threatened by an anti-Semitic world.

Therefore, he may have decided to kill the “enemies” of Jews, while at the same time reinforcing the image of the persecuted Jews. He would go to a Jewish facility where non-Jews were known to be, and his dread beau geste for his people would also be a kind of “swan song” for a man already dying. He would kill – but not Jews. He would die as a vile man. The KKK organization he joined would reap the enmity for his deed.

Insanity?

To paraphrase Lord Byron: Truth is stranger than fiction.

Post Script:

I saw today where the shooter had been born “Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr.” Yet, given the initial information reported on the radio, no one even thought to look more broadly at this violence. That is odd, as it was centered in a realm of “false flags” and misinformation meant to achieve an approved consensus.

IDI AMIN DADA ON ISRAELIS

NAMES & RACE

 

A few days ago, I was driving and listening to my radio. I was listening to a “traffic & weather” station which also featured news reports and commentators. On this occasion a reporter or columnist for The Washington Post was giving his opinion on some issue that involved African Americans. What got my attention was his use of a common expression today: “people of color.” His employment of the term seemed pompous and implicitly racist.

All Americans today must surely understand that “people of color” is an exclusionary phrase. White people need not apply. However, African American thinkers have generously opened the door to all non-white minorities. Many such minorities have graciously accepted this offer, joining African Americans in this non-white-only socio-political “club.” They, too, can be encountered talking pompously about “people of color.”

It appears that the United States has become polarized.

Further, a special group such as Jews, who have traditionally played the “white card” when it benefited them and the non-white one when that card benefited them, have recently been nudged into a bifurcated persona. This has caused some to liken the two colors of Jews to “Siamese twins.” To separate them is to annihilate them. What to do?

For many years white people have watched new generations of African Americans insist on a new, respectful term for them collectively. From Negroes and Coloreds to Blacks and Afro-Americans to African Americans and People of Color. As mentioned, the last category is unique for African Americans, as it also embraces anyone who isn’t “white.”

“White” appears to be slated to be the “nigger” of the future in an America filled with “People of Color.” No wonder that this term, “People of Color,” is spoken in terms that are not only infused with pride but pompousness.

It goes without saying that African Americans should have a collective term for themselves that’s inclusive, accurate and respectful. Such a term would not change with each generation nor offend any other group.

Inferentially, the term “African American” does not “cut it” with the hip, glib, sophisticated quasi-African-derived Americans of today. Yet, “People of Color,” having been extended to all non-white minorities, is no longer specific enough. There must be a term for African Americans that excludes all non-African-derived people – not in a racist way but in a racial, or categorical, way – and that was not burdened by disagreeable connotations.

As a white person categorically, I have found the term “People of Color” engenders ambivalence in me. I had been educated years ago to know that “white” was the status acquired when all the colors of light “come together.” At the other end of the “pole” was the place that no colors of light escaped to manifest themselves somehow. The term “black” was coined for this pole. Hence, white could be called “all-colors.”

For that reason I supposed that white people were inherently “People of Color.” As such, I viewed white people to be inherently the most diverse group of people on Earth. There was no need for them to seek “diversity,” as they were already as diverse as anyone could ask for and still maintain their categorical identity. The colors, features and shapes of white people are breathtakingly diverse.

Except in the case of albinism, all white people are, in fact, non-white. You see, we’re not perfectly white. Some of us are a very light brown, some of us are slightly pink, and some of us are slightly “off-white” to some degree or other. Admittedly, from a distance we all may appear to be “white.”

White people are a thoroughly admirable, diverse people. They should not have to face discrimination from an array of darker faces building a new idol called “The Face of Change,” which only serves its devotees – People of Color.

All Americans should be interested in protecting our valuable concept of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Establishing exclusive categories of people and attempting to advance them above all others styrikes threatening, discordant notes.

CONTENT OF CHARACTER?

  

 

This recent Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the ongoing Black History Month has spurred much thought and soul-searching. Have such concepts as “affirmative action” and “quotas” become obsolete? In fact the opposite often is the case. Increasingly, integration has failed to achieve a meaningful integration.

When I was a lad about the time of Brown Vs Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the white population in America was about 88%. African-Americans made up the great bulk of the remainder – about 10%. American Indians, Asians, et cetera, completed the demographic map.

One of the issues of the time was the Southern system of “
separate but equal.” Although derided today, the system had been vindicated around the turn of the Twentieth Century by the Supreme Court case of Plessy vs Ferguson. The prevailing opinion of the court at that time was given by Justice Henry Brown of Michigan. His opinion went, in part, thusly:

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it… The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.”

Any possibility of the “separate but equal” policy operating Constitutionally was obliterated by the systemic sabotage of the concept by the very people who fashioned it. The Americans known as “Coloreds” and “Negroes” were premeditatedly deprived of equal access to public funds, public laws and public maintenance and improvements. Such things as sewerage pipes, water pipes, sidewalks, parks, et cetera, were typically ignored. Pay scales were unequal. Indeed, the whole system was transformed into another form of oppression. “Benign neglect” characterized the practice of the ruling white majority. It had to be replaced with something more effect.

It was the long practice of white people of sabotaging their own system in the South that led to the idea of a kind of quantum leap to achieve that elusive equality that “separate but equal” sabotaged. “Affirmative Action” was that social formula by which federal leaders meant to scientifically repair and heal the damage done by the now overturned Plessy decision.

Now, I find myself watching television news in which the reporters are at least 50% African American. The white reporters are typically Jews. It may be true that these massive media enterprises are private, and, hence, they need not apply federal law beyond the letter. In some ways they do reflect the “New America.” The old WASP image has given way to Latino, Asian and Muslim images.

In sports a team may field 100% African Americans, and few, indeed, consider the matter odd. In basketball it is commonplace. In professional football it occurs, and no one blinks an eye. Professional teams may import white players from Europe. Apparently, none could be found locally. Yet, the fee paid professional athletes for services rendered suggest that many skilled white players would be interested.

Since our leadership in America has been pressing the concept that we are all equal, I can only infer that some folks are more equal than others. I don’t believe that affirmative action explains the issue adequately.

I am not naïve about the two dominant minorities usually setting “public policy” for America. These two are Jews and Freemasons.

As Abraham Lincoln observed, someone must lead. He stated he preferred that whites lead, rather than blacks. This view has changed to accommodate “new realities.” Our leaders cannot be adequately described by the term “white.” Most white people are described as “profane” by Freemasons, and Jews have used a correlative “other” term such as “stranger” or “alien.” They also use the term “goy,” when presenting themselves as “Israel” (sic). White people may as well be “honkies” to Masons and Jews; that way they can show solidarity with radical African Americans.

I believe that the present white proportion of the total American population is presently in the 66% range. I believe that African Americans have a demographic percentage of about 14%, and that Latinos have bulked up to about 16%. That would give Asians and others about a 6% proportion of the American population.

If one considers that the percentage of whites in the American population who are 40 years old or younger is probably about 45% to 50%, then you can begin to perceive the rationale of the dominant minorities who set America policy. They are looking ahead. After all, kids in school can see that white kids aren’t overly prominent as a proportion of the school population.

Hence, the owners of major media outlets are hiring for the future. A visibly proportionate white representation on news stations is not thinking “ten years ahead.” WASPs are too yesterday.

Further, one must assume that our leading minorities in the major media feel that the content of white people’s character is shockingly low and reprobate. Hence, rejecting them is only pursuing a positive educational approach. Change and prosper.

This may prove to be a success, as the fees paid to news reporters – especially at the center desk – is reputed to be rather good. Many reeducated WASPs might like to give the job a try. Good jobs seem to be getting scarcer.

One of the last vestiges of state-supported inequality is the disproportionate amount of wealth in white American hands. The transfer of white middle-class wealth to the deprived people of the world is running apace. It’s a small world after all.

Our leaders tell us that it isn’t wise to tax the rich beyond a pin prick, as they are our “job creators.” Naturally, taking money from them would stymie job creation. Guess who the rich tend to be?

As an aging white man, I can only wonder if “what goes around, comes around.” Since I’m not convinced of the elevated character of African Americans collectively, I can see another era of “separate but equal” looming – to the distinct disadvantage of white people.

ON BRASS AND BANDWAGONS

When arguments are presented as caricatured images, should they be treated with a sober embrace? Should they be seriously entertained? Should “tall tales” and “fraud in fiction” be honored by serious minds? If the “king has no clothes,” should he be so advised? Should his subjects pretend that he has on a respectable, royal robe?

A positive response by academic and working stiff types may well be expected in a few instances. In such cases naysayers are the “fools-rushing-in” where wiser heads stand immobile and mute.

Exaggeration is employed by all of us at certain times. However, there are people who have such remarkable ability to grotesquely enlarge that, rather than be chided, they are listened to with rapt attention rarely encountered outside a religious ceremony. I would like to focus on them.

An assertion was made during and after World War II that Nazis were making soap, fertilizer and the like from the bodies of murdered, or otherwise deceased, Jews. This claim was presented as anecdotal evidence from sources in and about Nazi-controlled territory, or freshly escaped therefrom, by well-funded Jewish organizations. Associate Professor Arthur R. Butz cited such instances in his THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, which is a best-seller of which most people have never heard. Others have also cited such allegations, and the whole fraudulent claim has now been admitted by most authorities.

Nevertheless, I possess an article appearing in a tabloid describing a gathering of Jews, including a presiding rabbi(s), in or about Atlanta, Georgia who were “burying” a bar of soap said to be the last remnant of a Jewish victim of the Nazis. This “burial” occurred, as best I can remember, in the mid-1990s. That’s long after the whole business had been dismissed as a myth by all respectable authorities.

Merchants of fraud can get away with such matters because of the abysmal ignorance of the general population on the true history of World War II – and almost any other significant historical event. Of course, the media helps spread darkness.

Frankly, Jewish storytellers have told some “whoppers.”

In regard to the “Diaspora Revolt” that occurred around the death of Trajan and the assumption of power by Hadrian, the Talmud recorded that the number of Jews killed at Alexandria, Egypt was “sixty myriads on sixty myriads, twice as many as went forth from Egypt.” Assuming that addition would be called for, that indicated a figure of about 1.2 million. Although Alexandria had a large and prominent Jewish population so that they had their own quarter, the entire city was not likely to be larger than Rome itself, which it would have to be to suffer such a loss of Jews.

However, Jewish imagination can really soar, when the “spirit” seizes them.

During the Palestinian Revolt of 132-135, a man of extraordinary abilities arose. He was Bar-Kokhba. He was said to be so tough that he could catch catapulted stones with his knees and cast them back at the unexpectant Romans. He also claimed to be – or was proclaimed to be – the messiah.

Bar-Kokhba commanded a fortress at Bethar. The Romans laid siege and eventually overran it. According to the Talmudic account, the total Jewish losses killed by the Romans was 4 billion “or as some say” 40 million. The Midrash Rabbah reported that Jewish martyrs numbered 800 million.

Now, some readers might assume a “typo” with those figures. Not!

Further, to emphasize the immense loss, it was recorded that the Jewish blood reached the nostrils of the Roman horses and, like a flash flood, carried all before it, including boulders, either one mile or four miles to the sea. The Jewish blood stained the sea for a distance from the shore of four miles.

The diabolical Romans were a match for the Nazis. Bodies of slain Jews were used to build a fence around Hadrian’s grape fields. Since it was estimated that Hadrian’s vineyard was 18 miles square, the number of slain Jews must have been immense – right? Furthermore, the Jewish blood which the Romans were able to save from the remnant of the tidal wave was used to make fertilizer for the grapes. Although we assume they were a red grape variety, a miracle cannot be discounted; white grapes may have turned under the power of Jewish blood. Be that as it may, the Talmud apparently alleged that the fertilizer was made for seven years from this remnant of Jewish blood. That might be another miracle. Too, it does indicate a practical – even efficient – Roman aptitude. “Waste not, want not.”

This material was gleaned from Arthur R. Butz’s book (pp245-46-47), cited above. In it his indicated his source.

One last thought on the numbers claimed in the Talmud. I believe that it was an attempt to indicate that Jews were once as plentiful as the stars in the sky or grains of sand on the beach. Hence, I believe it was a way to be at one with the Abrahamic Covenant, which otherwise Jews have never met even remotely. Hence, there seems to be a belief that “all is possible with chutzpah.”

AMERICA'S A-CHANGING

The supreme Court (as provided in the U.S. Constitution) seems to me to be a kind of bell weather sounding a warning about the near future. Others have likened it to a bell cow, leading the other cows back to the safety of the evening containment. Surely, its human constitution will augur something meaningful about America’s “Ship of State.”

Some observers believe that the fact that at least one-third of the nine members of the supreme Court are Jews is the most significant anomaly. Jews are thought by some to adhere to “their law” rather than the organic law of the land in which they dwell, Jewish protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I have read on good authority that Justice Ginsburg reads the Talmud daily. No doubt, she finds it edifying. I am certain that she doesn’t spend the same amount of time reading about the U.S. Constitution, exegeses written over the last two hundred years on it, or the beliefs of those who wrote the organic law of America. Certainly, the beliefs of the people who ratified it are not likely to interest Justice Ginsburg. On the other hand, insights derived from Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Hillel, the Sage of Vilna and Rambam might well influence her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

In the past Justice Breyer has sought the wisdom of the leadership of Zimbabwe and other countries to find “new precedence” for constitutional interpretations. People who commonly form international organizations with global ambitions must feel compelled to tap into the font of wisdom typically found in third world countries, and, surely, this has been the case with Justice Breyer. Too, nations are just too constricting to people who have outgrown them.

Justice Kagan is from Chicago. Her fellow Chicagoan, President Barack Obama, passed over the likes of Eric Holder to choose her. In the “City of Fixes” political animals know how to schmooze.

The present supreme Court may be viewed from other perspectives. Consider the fact that a majority of the Court are minorities. Besides the three justices listed above, there are Justices Thomas and Sotomayor. What might this mean?

Years ago in the 1950s, the cry went up about the “tyranny of the majority.” At that time approximately 88-90% of the American population was classified as “white.” One can infer that this was a highly accurate census count, and that the “white” category was filled with Anglo-Saxons and other clearly white types of people. No one dared at that point in America’s history to describe an Egyptian as “white,” as may commonly happen today.

Hence, the term “tyranny of the majority” was aimed directly at them. The view that our Republic, reflecting democratic properties, would normally pass laws that were approved by that majority was given little note. Some group, or groups, with ulterior motives convinced “educated Americans” over time that such commonplace expectations as majority rule in point of fact was based on “tyranny.” Newspapers pointed the finger of guilt at the “majority,” and they were all-to-ready to wallow in guilt [“It hurts so good!”]. This set the stage for the “tyranny of the minorities.” Soon, white society seemed to be on the road to decline.

A minority supreme Court naturally follows.

Still another way to look at the present constitution of the supreme Court is from the point of view of religion. One can observe the three Jews. Whether an observant Jew or a “secular” Jew, Jews still consider themselves to be “Jews.” This status is held on to tenaciously. One should respect that desire. However, deranged ideas embraced by and emanating from this category need not be respected.

I have read somewhere that five or six of the justices were Roman Catholic. Usually, this means that they plan to make a “perfect act of contrition” just before dying, allowing them to schlep into Purgatory. If this obtains with the justices falling into this category, then an ordinary citizen might feel some cause for wariness.

Lastly, one of the two minority “ruling circles” (to use that oddly apropos terminology of former Soviet Union rulers) in America are the Freemasons. I don’t know if any members of the present Court are Masons, but in the past they have numbered upward of six.

The really stark change in the modern supreme Court is that there are no Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Not counting Freemasons, the Anglo-Saxon, Scott, Welsh, German, Scandinavian and kindred people have been marginalized. No politician or pundit wastes much ink trying to “win their vote.” Since they have ceased to be an effective majority, the “tool of tyranny” is wielded by dominant minorities.

By effectively using immigration policy the “ruling circles” have assured a continuing downward trend in the power status of the once dominant white population. This protects the status quo of the two ruling minorities, while giving them additional sets of human blocks to manipulate.

Both dominant minorities are globalist and constantly market its benefits and inevitability. Hence, it is hardly unexpected that nations such as the United States fare worse and suffer decline.