The Elites Know We’re Right
RECENTLY the New York Times published an opinion piece by Anglo-Dutch journalist Ian Buruma, whose specialty is Far Eastern affairs, which contained some very interesting admissions. For one, he states that the book market in Japan has an “insatiable appetite” for books about Jewish conspiracies, which is interesting. He also relates a conversation he had back during the first Gulf War with “a right-wing Japanese politician who still wields considerable power in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.” He doesn’t name the politician. Buruma asked the powerful Japanese about Japan’s role in the Mideast conflict. (ILLUSTRATION: They knew about Jewish power: Left, Arthur James Balfour, whose Balfour Declaration established a power base for world Jewry, though he was a racialist who mainly wanted the Jews out of Britain; Center, British MP Tam Dalyell criticized the “Jewish cabal” around Bush; Right, U.S. Representative from Virginia James Moran, who told Americans that Jews were instrumental in starting the Iraq war.)
After clearing his throat with some perfunctory remarks about oil supplies and United States-Japan relations, he suddenly stopped midsentence, gave me a shrewd look and said:
Look, we Japanese aren’t stupid. We saw Henry Kissinger on TV. We know how America operates. We’re perfectly well aware that this war is not about Kuwait. It’s about Jewish interests. It’s all about Israel.
The Japanese politician has one great advantage over the typical American voter. His worldview is grounded in reality. He is aware of the tremendous power of the Jews over the United States government, a fact that those who pay the taxes to support Israel and who supply the dead sons who fought in Israel’s wars are not supposed to know.
American politicians are usually very careful never to mention the facts of Jewish power, though they — more than anyone else — are painfully aware of those facts.
Jewish power is the centerpiece of the American politicians’ whole life. The Jewish media determine how the boobs will view the politician, therefore he can never afford to cross the Jews, or they’ll rip him to shreds on the air and in print.
The Jewish media determine the range of acceptable debate on all issues important to Jews. They determine how far a politician can go in opposing non-White immigration or in expressing concern for the Palestinians’ plight. Their media (and their corruption in the Justice Department) determine exactly how far politicians can go in standing up for the interests of White Americans — and that’s not very far: Just ask David Duke, recent Republican Party leader and representative in Louisiana and author of the new book Jewish Supremacism, who is now languishing in Federal prison on trumped-up charges. The Jews determine the range of acceptable debate on the war in Iraq, too. Just ask Virginia Representative James Moran, whose liberal credentials did him little good, nor did his apologies, when he blurted out the obvious fact that Bush’s war was driven by Jewish advisors and Jewish interests. It’s quite likely that Moran will have a greatly invigorated opposition this coming election — invigorated with Jewish money and bolstered by slanted coverage in the Jewish media. Bye-bye, Jim!
Next to the United States, Britain is probably the country most firmly under the Jewish thumb. But Ian Buruma points out an interesting difference. Like James Moran, Labour Party Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell opposed Tony Blair’s lockstep march with George Bush toward war with Iraq, and he was honest enough to bring up the Jewish connection. Dalyell, who once was very friendly to Jewish interests and even spent time on a kibbutz, referred to the “Jewish cabal” surrounding Bush, mentioning Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Ari Fleischer, and Paul Wolfowitz by name and adding, “Those people drive this policy.” He also complained about the influence of the Jews in British politics, mentioning British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who has Jewish family connections, and former music mogul “Lord Levy,” who has been acting as a kind of unofficial “Jewish Mideast ambassador” for Blair. Dalyell came right out and said: “…there is far too much Jewish influence in the United States.” Dalyell was even threatened with prosecution under Britain’s “hate speech” laws which criminalize statements about non-Whites which are excessively truthful. But what’s the difference between the Dalyell and Moran affairs? Dalyell hasn’t apologized, though I am sure the Jews would like to force him to do so. Jewish power is somewhat greater in the former “land of the free and the home of the brave.” There’s even greater freedom — practically speaking — for politicians to speak the truth about Jewish power in continental Europe, even though the Jews have managed to impose a Byzantine array of speech laws there which are still theoretically impossible under our First Amendment here in the United States.
The fact that James Moran had to apologize immediately, while the British M.P. was under no compulsion to do so, shows a profound difference between the United States and Europe, or indeed anywhere else in the world. Although Moran’s opinion may be shared by other Americans, it is not something mainstream politicians can vocalize. Even legitimate criticism of Israel, or of Zionism, is often quickly denounced as anti-Semitism by various watchdogs. In European political discourse, not only is anti-Zionism quite acceptable, but so are vague allegations of too much Jewish influence in public life, especially across the Atlantic. And in the non-Western world, it’s not even necessary to keep such allegations vague. Rarely can such a tiny country as Israel, and such a relatively small minority as the diaspora Jews, have been assumed to exercise so much influence in world affairs.
Buruma, writing in the very Jewish New York Times, pooh-poohs the idea of excessive Jewish influence, and he urges that Jews in Israel and the U.S. back off of some of their more extreme positions in order to defuse “myths” about “Jewish conspiracies,” but his piece is worthwhile reading nonetheless. He openly admits that the atmosphere after the Second World War led to an unrealistic “philo-Semitism” which elevated Jews above the status of normal human beings, and that this elevated status has naturally led to resentment. I would say it this way: The unrealistic view is now giving way, especially in Europe and the non-White world, to a more realistic view of Jews and Jewish power.
The realistic view of Jews and Jewish power is not enough by itself. Also needed is an absolute determination to secure freedom and self-determination for our own people — in other words, a non-negotiable demand for White living space. An interesting figure in this regard is British Prime Minister and Member of Parliament in the early years of the 20th century, Arthur James Balfour. Balfour was the author of the infamous Balfour Declaration, which in 1917, for the first time, gave the imprimatur of a major European power to the Zionist plan for a Jewish state in Palestine.
We’ve presented anti-Zionist Jew Benjamin Freedman’s account of the origin of the Balfour Declaration on this program before. Freedman tells us of the Jewish pressure to bring the United States into World War I on the side of Great Britain, and how the Zionists’ price for saving Britain from losing that war was the Balfour Declaration, which in its one sentence set the stage for so much death and destruction. The Declaration reads:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The flagrant degree to which the provision protecting non-Jews has been ignored is a measure of both Jewish duplicity and Balfour’s naiveté — in this case, a stand-in and symbol of White naiveté in general. The Jews wanted a policy statement from the then-dominant world power, the British Empire, and they got and used it to the hilt, not hesitating to kill Britons when it suited them, as in the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel, and while other Jews were, especially after World War II, doing everything in their power to undermine the status of the White nations including Britain. The Zionist entity has outlasted the British Empire which gave it birth, though Little Britain is still of some assistance in some projects, like the murder of Iraqis, currently being undertaken by the self-styled masters of the world.
What’s really interesting about Balfour, who gave the Jews their foothold in Palestine, was that he didn’t particularly like Jews — and that he was a racialist. Like Adolf Hitler later, Balfour was enamoured of the idea of the Jews leaving Europe to found their own state elsewhere. Both men negotiated with Zionist Jews to effect that end. Hitler offered them Madagascar in 1938. In 1903, while he was Prime Minister, Balfour offered them Uganda. In debates on the Alien Act of 1905, Balfour sought to cut off Jewish immigration into Britain. Balfour openly admitted in 1914 (to leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann, no less) that he shared the extreme anti-Jewish sentiments of Cosima Wagner. Balfour spoke against Jewish immigration in the House of Commons:
A state of things could easily be imagined in which it would not be to the advantage of the civilization of this country that there should be an immense body of persons who, however, patriotic, able and industrious, however much they threw themselves into the national life, remained a people apart, and not merely held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow-country-men, but only intermarried among themselves.
Balfour refused to intervene in Russia when Jews complained they were being persecuted there, stating bluntly that, although the Jews were inhumanely treated, “the persecutors have a case of their own.” Like Churchill and Harry Truman and Nixon, Balfour regarded Jews as a people with interests different from ours. He resented their influence. Balfour went even further. He wished to be rid of them. But, for whatever reason, he thought he could use the desire of some Jews for a Jewish state against them. He thought that helping the Zionist Jews, on their terms, was a steppingstone to cleansing Britain of their presence and their power. How wrong he was. Like Churchill and Truman and Nixon, he gave them exactly what they wanted. His mistake is an object lesson in the utter futility of halfway measures or compromise in dealing with Jews. The only thing that works with them is power; reconstituting our White community and building that power is our prime imperative.
Just the other day, the newly-appointed French ambassador to Israel, Gerard Araud, was having a private conversation at an exclusive cocktail party in Paris for senior French diplomats given by Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister. One would assume that senior diplomats can occasionally have some private time together, away from the pressures of formal diplomacy and the press to discuss matters frankly — in fact, I would assume that such private time is an absolute necessity. But, in this Jewish age, one should never assume that even our highest officials are far from Jewish ears and Jewish censors. In fact, a Jewish journalist, Boaz Bismout, was there and listening carefully when Ambassador Araud stated to a fellow diplomat that Israel was “a paranoid country” and repeatedly referred to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a “voyou,” which can be translated as something roughly equivalent to a punk, a crook, or a thug — a most apt, if incomplete, description of terrorist Sharon I might add. Now, of course, the Jew Bismout, even though told that conversations at the private party were off the record and not for publication, made a decision that Jewish interests were best served by writing up what he had overheard and sending the article to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, where they were dutifully published, and the customary Jewish “outrage” at “anti-Semitism” immediately followed.
Now, Gerard Araud may never get posted to Tel Aviv after his truth-telling was made public. And denials are being made. But the comments ring true, and they echo the comments in late 2001 of Daniel Bernard, France’s ambassador to Britain. What is interesting to me about the Araud affair is this: Araud sees Israel in a realistic light. He sees Ariel Sharon for what he really is. And he says so without rebuke to his fellow senior French diplomats! These people have to be aware of Jewish power and, it is clear, they do not see Jewish interests and French interests as being the same. They must rankle at the open exercise of Jewish power at their own expense and at the expense of France and Europe generally. And they named the man who made these remarks to the highly sensitive post of Ambassador to Israel! That speaks volumes. This awareness of and concern about Jewish power in these high circles bodes well for the future. The apparent “philo-Semitism” of the White elite is thin and forced. The right crisis at the right time could break it wide open. Zionism is already dead in Europe. Support for Israel is drying up fast everywhere except the United States, and even here the Left is waking up. If France or Germany or Russia or even Britain finds itself plunged into chaos or hunger, the politicians there might quickly discover that loyalty and open allegiance to their own people — and not Jews or their pet aliens — is the only way to survive. The Jews’ mirror-house of illusions — their false paradigm that Jewish interests and White interests are always identical — is already known to be false by those Gentiles who shout it the loudest in public. A general strike, a prolonged blackout, a serious crop failure, a serious mistake by America that brings a 9/11-like event to London or another European capital — any of these could transform the covert resentment of Jewish power into open opposition. You heard it here first!
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast of September 6, 2003