Reports

Jewish Influence on America

WhatAmerican Domestic and Foreign Policy, the Islamic State, and the Failure of US Democracy

by Organon tou Ontos

THE REDUCTION of European Americans to a minority in their own nation, the increasing loss of representation of white interests in American public and domestic life, and foreign entanglements that in no way benefit European Americans ethnically and nationally, all signal the failure of American “democracy” and call for a reconsideration of its value. At the heart of this failure is the reality of Jewish influence, which reached its height after the end of the Cold War.

The void left by Bush’s war in Iraq and Obama regime change policy in Syria has enabled the Islamic State (IS) to rapidly expand. The US has even resorted to approaching nations that are reeling from US sanctions and that have even previously been threatened by America. It has also been suggested that America is exploiting IS to to further destabilize the region. And even if IS is defeated, there will be no change in a US foreign policy designed by Jews and globalists to serve Zionist interests; these roots reach back a hundred years and solidified at the Cold War’s end.

The two World Wars reshaped America’s identity, tearing up rural, protectionist, and isolationist roots and fusing Wilson’s democratic imperialism with Roosevelt’s globalist and anti-European vision. Spurred by World War II mythology and postwar Churchill cult, the US grew further away from its primordial roots. This change could not have occurred without the decisive cultural and political imprint of Jews that began before 1900, promoting liberal immigration and globalism.

The earliest, decisive step of the US was its entry into World War I, a war that Germany had in effect won by 1917. The US Jewish community pushed America into this war. Twenty years later, world Jewry and Jewish interests in Britain led Britain into war with Germany, believing it would lead to US entry, Germany’s defeat, Europe’s ruin, and world sympathy for a heightened Jewish effort to create a State of Israel. On the ruins of a West wrecked by two World Wars, world Jewry sought to use America to advance its globalist and Zionist vision of a “New World Order”.(1)

The present multicultural and multiracial character of America was also partly shaped by the realities of the Cold War. Forty years of Cold War competition with the USSR led America to actively broaden its appeal, improve its image to the world, and reshape its system to present a system more desirable than that of Communism. Rather than continuing to strictly embody the ethnic stamp of the American people, American democracy came to embody an ideal that was held up as a model for all peoples. The primordial character of the system faded in the Cold War.

The demographic character of the US was also shaped by the Cold War. Immigration policy had to be tailored to permit absorption of peoples displaced by squalid Marxist regimes, such as asylum seekers from the Khmer Rouge, Cubans fleeing Castro, and other refugees from Communism. Many take for granted the demographic, ideological, and institutional changes in America that intensified its drive toward multiculturalism and multiracialism, when in fact these were partly the outgrowth of America’s competition with the USSR for the loyalty of peoples.

The end of the Cold War was a major turning point in the US. A struggle ensued over the fate and direction of America that did not fall neatly across party lines. The impact of Jews was decisive, just as it had been in leading the US into two World Wars over issues as far removed as possible from its vital interests. US Jews, business elites, and neoconservatives steered America, against the interests of working class and middle Americans, in a political direction that favored international finance, global elites, liberal immigration, and a Zionist global foreign policy.

Jewish neoconservative Charles Krauthammer embodied the temper of globalists, Zionists, and interventionists at the end of the Cold War. In a 1992 article attacking Patrick J. Buchanan, he bitterly vilified “nativism”, “isolationism”, and “protectionism”.

Jews in US government exerted a strong influence on the course of US foreign policy, favoring a persisting NATO, US presence in Europe, and a policy of preemptive military intervention. Among them was Jewish neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the “Wolfowitz Doctrine“: US global supremacy, sole superpower status, unilateral digressions from international law, opposition to regional self-assertion, and a Middle East policy centered on the interests of Israel and pursuit of oil. At its core, it entails the use of US to uphold global Jewish interests.(2)

Jewish, Zionist and globalist elements in both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have sustained the basic vision of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Wolfowitz was even the principal agitator in the Bush Administration for the US invasion of Iraq. The Obama Administration extended this foreign policy to Syria, destabilizing the region even further and and creating a void rapidly occupied by Islamic State. And while public discourse focuses on “terrorism” and “extremism”, it disavows any acknowledgement of the role of Zionism in exacerbating hostilities.

The utter failure of democracy in America could not be clearer, either in this loss of control over foreign policy or the more fundamental failure that it reflects: The reduction of European-Americans to a straggling ethnic minority. What clearer examples of the failure of democracy in the US are needed than these fatal directions in its domestic and foreign policies? The ancestors of European-Americans sustained a Republic based on ethnic interests. Immigration was never intended to derail those interests; America is a nation of European immigrants, not a “universal nation” of immigrants.

A reminder of the reality of Jewish influence and American “democracy” came from Greece, recently. Greek Prime Minister Samaras reassured US Jews that Greece would destroy the nationalist Golden Dawn party, which is critical of Jewish influence.

The existence of Israel and the advancement of its interests is a cause, not a solution, to the problem of Islam in Europe and the West. Americans and Europeans have no vital interest in whether Muslim nations are ruled by secular dictators or democrats. The pursuit of “democratic regime change” in the Middle East only destabilized the region, producing displaced peoples, crises, and asylum seekers, which Europe inevitably absorbs. These policies which only swell the number of Muslims in Europe, which is precisely the nature of the problem for Europeans.

The ideal solution for nationalist Europeans and Americans would be to remain outside of the region while repatriating Muslims to the Middle East. A compact could be made with the Muslim world and mutual noninterference would be the basis of relations.

In tandem with this, Americans need to understand the price they are paying for support of the State of Israel and “democratic” changes in the Middle East. While Westerners support Israel as an exclusive Jewish homeland, Jews have actively promoted multiculturalism in the West. It is not in their ethnic interest to promote the same ethnic identity for others that they promote for themselves. To this end, they have struggled to liberalize US immigration policy. And while the US supports Jewish ethnic imperialism, Jewish lobbies promote Third World immigration to US.

Their own ethnic decline should be the central issue for European-Americans and Europeans. Involvement in the Middle East should reflect, not distract from, this vital issue. The ethnic interests of European-Americans in general is not served by exhausting resources in the promotion of a democratic system that has failed them. They need to reassess the extent to which US “democracy” and its foreign policies have their vital interests at heart. Present US foreign policy is in the hands of a globalist and Zionist clique that has imperiled their very existence.

Notes

(1) The distinction between ‘US Jews’, ‘British Jews’, and ‘world Jews’ is of course contextually significant and should not be conflated. In general, however, I use ‘world Jews’ to convey the overlapping influence and tangled relationships of Jews at a local level and Jewish bankers, firms, and families that have an international presence.
(2) The Wolfowitz Doctrine strongly influenced the so-called “Bush Doctrine“.

* * *

For Further Reading

Previous post

Jewish "Human Rights Activist": America Desperately Needs a Hate Speech Law

Next post

Ukraine: Kiev Regime OKs Monsanto Land Grab

3 Comments

  1. Heinemann
    March 11, 2015 at 7:20 pm — Reply

    The current article by Rosemarie Pennington briefly describes the predominance or monopoly of jewish influence not only in foreign policy but domestically. Most should already know this. It is not news.

    The compelling question emerges: what is this new IS, She implies it as an amorphous aggressor like little Israel, with the same ambition of assimilating everything not only in Mid-East but Europe and America.

    She claims it was created or aggravated by one of the Iraq wars;

    and also that “American Britisch and WOrld Jews have a significant distinction contextually and should not be conflated .
    This statement is provocative. She presumes that it is a fact and not controversial. She needs to explain that to me. Is it beneath Ms. Pennington’s professional dignity to make such a generalization, that is prejudicial.

    Women are very smart today ; have been actually since Eva. I am not a journalist and would like to know what the significance of contextual distinction is.

  2. April 19, 2015 at 3:02 pm — Reply

    Rosemary Pennington reposted this article from my site, and she clearly credited me at the beginning.

    Most of the material on my website is written with the intention of persuading newcomers to my worldview, not deepening already established consensuses among revisionists and nationalists. That is why you find little there that is “news”. I never intended to claim it was.

    I will explain my remark, in my footnote, that the difference between US, British, and world Jews is contextually significant.

    Sometimes, it is meaningful to speak of the agency of “world Jewry,” because that agency involves Jewish individuals and groups all over the world. At other times, it is meaningful only to cite the agency of British Jews or US Jews, because a particular causal impact originates only from one or the other.

    Jewish influence is often contextual and particular. Secular and leftist US Jews participate in and exacerbate pornography. Right wing and radically pro-Israel US Jews exacerbate US involvement in petty conflicts in the Middle East. Yet other Jews and Jewish interests have often distinct influences.

    That is why I claimed that we need to be careful in talking about Jewish agency in historical, cultural, or political events and processes.

  3. Heinemann
    April 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm — Reply

    Thank you for this reply and explanation.

    I assumed Ms. Pennington wrote it . I missed the name which I search at the end of the article . I apologize.

    I am a general reader and understand that any perceptions of the current situation must not degenerate into reactionary and maligning prejudice.

    I am not a social scientist and would never be. The analysis , which is scientific and terms , whose definition I do not know discriminate between the general view and more eclectic scientific observations. Like the penitent and the priest.

    I personally had presumed these articles emanate from the same source and not a compendium of different and perhaps diverse contributors, whose thoughts may be beneficial to broaden or sharpen my own.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.