0 votes

Deciphering Jewish Intellectual Movements - interview


Ron Paul calls out the neocons and says they are aligned with the Zionist Likud party of Israel.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald

Here's a free ebook version of the book being discussed in this video, in case anyone wants to actually discuss the subject of the original post:


those two videos are not related


Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

I am glad this title has been changed. That being said,...

what other ethnic group identifies ALL those who do not belong as "cattle"? Even religious groups who call dissenters, "infidels" or "heretics" do not deny the basic humanity of those dissenters.

If Gd does not make mistakes and Gd created everything, then elitism is an affront to Gd and an abomination. If this really is a basic assumption of Judaism, then it is a fatal contradiction and is the source of all sin commented by and against the practitioners.


...they did the same.

There is NO "Jewish" intellectual movement

Like there is no "class interest" of workers or "class interest" of capitalists, so there is no "intellectual interest" of Jews.

Albert Einstein, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Goerge Reisman, Milton Friedman may agree on some points between themselves but they did not agree with Bernanke, Soros, Karl Marx, Krugman, etc. Religious Jews not only do not agree with either Karl Max or Ludwig von Mises, each sect has their own interest.

Jews are much more diverse than Christians or Muslisms. That is why Israel has 32 political parties with 12 of them elected into Israeli Congress and USA cannot get a single Libertarian Senator in.

Our haters look through collectivist glasses. Their emotion overrides their reason. Anti-Semites are similar to those black racists who see all white people as "arrogant", "elitist", "racists" or simply "evil white men."

Liberty_First, I hear your argument but..

Yes, I hear your argument that there is no such thing as "Jewish" intellectual movement or "intellectual interest" of Jews.

You go on to point out individual trees, naming specific Jews who differ such as Milton Friedman and Karl Marx etc.

Then you go on to say "our haters" are looking through "collectivist glasses"....that emotion is overriding reason and then you say that Anti-semites are similar to black racists who see all white people as the same.


So, if one does see a collective Jewish intellectual movement, then that person is an anti-semite? Surely you do not wish to say that. Or is it a closed subject for you?

Moreover, while you point out the individual trees, can you not step back and see the forest? Imagine hypothetically that you are an American Indian of the Navajo Indian tribe....and yes you see a huge difference among the "white man", namely me and a dozen other white men, does seeing those differences among the trees mean that you cannot see the collective forest of white men?

Is it impossible to generalize? No it is not. And is it impossible to generalize "white man's interests" based upon his collective behaviors in say the period of 1820 to 1880? Could you not say, as an Navajo, an Apache, a Dakota..etc ... "The White man is taking our lands"? And could not that statement be made by any Crow, or Chippewa, or Yuma, or any of a thousand Indian tribes with similar accuracy? The accuracy of the statement that "the White Man has an interest in taking our lands" is not diluted by the FACT that Daniel Boone and Mark Twain are completely different and have different views towards that Indian.

So lets look at that famous book THE BELL CURVE by libertarian Charles Murray. Lets imagine the Bell Curve. And lets imagine 1 standard deviation difference between a blue and red bell curve line. While both hold within its mass nearly the same amount, its the ends of the bell curve that we must look at. Here, a 10% difference in IQ or 10% difference in music ability or math ability or whatever 10% difference you wish to hold for, shows up big. The end lines of the bell curve means, that while say, Jews are just 2% of the population, at the end of the bell curve line, they will be "over represented". So much so that they can be 40% or 60% or even 80% on the extreme ends of the bell curve.

Lets take 2 groups of musicians for example. So a normal distribution comparing one group to one with 10% difference would mean that there at the end of the curve, the group with a 10% difference gets "over represented" 40%.

Now, moving on, when one looks at the whole collective "white man" in the 1820's to the 1880's, one can also generalize as to the direction that "they are going", despite the variety of views within the group (Mark Twain vs Daniel Boone).

And this can be done and is done by Kevin MacDonald and many historians. The fact that many European societies where dominated by Jewish intellectuals is perhaps the 40% thing playing itself out. Not that each and every one of them signed on and 'conspired', just as not all White man signed on and 'conspired'. Yet we can still see the collective forest from the trees. Jewish intellectuals of the time period discussed, where heavily leftist/progressive/socialist/communist. We can also acknowledge they held a common history, myth, tradition, experience and they held similar expectations, hopes and dreams --- distinct enough to be what we could call the European Jewish Experience. We are all born into families and families rest inside super families and super histories as well as the meta culture around. None of this should be cause for alarm, its how mankind finds himself.

If there was a minor aberration, it was the libertarian Jews who did not "fit the mold", like Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, etc.... Their numbers were so infinitesimally SMALL, that it means zero when we take a step back and look at the forest to see where its growing. To look at the direction of the forest means we ask, -- Is the forest going up the mountains following the retreating Ice Glaciers, or are they moving down and away from any icy mountains?

When we say things like "In the 20th century Jewish influence over European political life was in a decidedly leftist direction", that is what we mean. When Professor Kevin MacDonald says that the Jews wanted to get rid of the CZAR.... wanted to follow what they perceived was "jewish interests", that is what we mean. MacDonald explains that the 1960s civil rights was deeply influenced if not lead by many jewish intellectuals of the left, but that when the Left went for Palistine, that is when some, (not all, but some) broke off and became the neocon right that we have today.

Now, none of that is anti-semetic or being a "hater". Justin Riamondo has done a great job I think in spelling out the neocon intellectual journey from trotskyites at NYU to Jackson Democrats to neocons.

Again, nothing about that is being a "hater" or anti-semetic, even though we are "looking through collectivist glasses", ie seeing the collective forest and not just the trees. Its neither anti-semetic or pro-semetic to look at the forest. Its neither anti-white man or pro-white man to point out that the white man was out to take indian lands or as much as they could. And of course not all land was "indian land" either.

Finally, you make the claim that Jews are much more diverse than Christians or Muslims. FIRST-- that is debate-able and it will take more facts than mentioning that there are 32 political parties in Israel. You must explain what constitutes diverse". Are you just speaking of political positions? And are you considering other factors? SECOND -- have you just "looked through your collectivist glasses" at all 3 groups, Jews, Christians & Muslims, and in so doing, are you being a hater and a pro-semite?


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

interesting stuff you have there--

even some of the native American (Indian) tribes exploited other tribes. There were some tribes that looked down on other tribes. And yet, in the end, the European Americans ('white man') equally took the land from all of them.

Those who survived gave up their unique culture in order to survive.

A very sad story, and the truth of it, the entire truth of it, needs to be understood.

I am always interested in those Jews who are not mainstream, who don't want to oppress, who are against the oppressors of their own 'group'.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Israel Segregates Buses for Palestinians starting March 01 2013


Roi Tov former Mossad agent who defected from Israel and now lives in Latin America. He has survived several assassination attempts on his life.

Not true...

It's a private company doing this not Israel. It's against Israeli law to prevent any Palestinian from taking regular bus lines. Not that I'm a fan of the Likud party or the settlements.


Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Why lie?

Reuven Schossen (Roi Tov) was simply decided that he does not like being Jewish and converted to Christianity. After he left Israel, instead of working in chemical industry (his education), he spreads his feelings about Israel. I assume that is a well paid job. He has no connection to Mossad. Even anti-Semites should admit that - if Mossad did 9/11, controls CIA, Mi6 and the media, it can handle one person in Latin America with no sweat.

Here is an example from a different religious group--

when Mitt Romney was working his way to the top of the GOP (which I believe he did unethically/illegally, by the way)--

many MSM journalists/scholars/intellectuals began to ask about the "Mormon" question--

began to discuss it. How did Romney get to where he was? What kind of character did he have? How did his Anglo-American/Mormon background influence him? How did his religion enable him? How did it disable him?

Nobody was afraid to ask these questions. And Mormons (most of them) didn't cry out, "anti-Mormon, anti-Mormon!" Some did; there are those who identify so powerfully with a particular group that if one is singled out for discussion, these powerful collectivists feel that their 'toe' has been stepped on.
They asked the questions and discussed some things that were interesting and valid, and some of them even had a ring of truth.

The fact is that Romney is not representative of his religion any more than any Jew who is a globalist is not representative of his religion, and yet these people use their religion AND their 'people'; Romney is fantastically wealthy, and not many members of his church can relate to him. Though he portrays himself as a family man and is surrounded by children who love him and a wife who is loyal to him--

Romney is not a Mormon, but in name only (MINO)--

he does the outward Mormon things, but inside he is a globalist.

And yet, he is, like all the globalists, human (whatever that means), and he was shaped and molded somewhat by a culture. That matters. The fact that Romney can be very generous and also very tight-fisted--
his Mormon family taught him to give, but they also taught him that hunger was just around the corner--
has contributed to what he is now.

Whether Jesuits (fascinating idea and one I have looked at a little, but there again I am suspicious of whether such people are authentic) or renegade Jews--or Mormons . . . (though fewer, because they make up less of the regular population)

the psychopathic personalities that globalists have make it possible for them to compartmentalize, to do horrific things in the name of gaining power and wealth--

and they are not accountable to their 'people'--at all.

So, even if (and probably some are) there are some Jews (I would call them renegade) in the globalist ring, and some Jesuits in the globalist ring--or some bhuddists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.--

and a Mormon or three--

these people do not represent "their" group.

However, most of *us* have been brainwashed from infancy to identify with a group (tribe/church/skin color/language/region)--

and psychopathic men/women who are globalists . . . capitalize on this--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Hey Musician,

I think your link is messed up. Did you mean to post the full interview?


I love Jews, Hispanics, Africans, Asians and all the world...

let the downvoting begin.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Love love love

Love is wonderful. Did you even watch the interview?

Ever heard of the Rothschilds? Ever heard of the Rockefellers? The Neocon movement? You know the Neocons that Ron Paul called out and said are aligned with the Zionist Likud party of Israel? http://youtu.be/7o6VKD1Eg-8

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

I didn't take issue with the content of your post...

I took issue with the title and only the title, which you have since changed.

I haven't yet viewed the video, but I was not taking issue with it.

This particular comment was an experiment, given the hostile atmosphere to my previous comments in this thread, I was curious if a comment like this would be downvoted if I specifically invited people to downvote it, or if they would refrain from downvoting it because they assumed it was what I wanted them to do.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I down vote anyone

I down vote anyone who passes judgement on any information that they have not viewed or listened to.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

I wasn't passing judgement on the content of your post...

which I had not yet viewed, I just made that very clear.

I was speaking of the poor choice of title, which you have since altered, which I had viewed.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I wouldn't expect much positive response around here

.. with a thread title like that.

The Jewish people are the perfect scapegoat.

“Why would the Jesuits use their implacable enemy, the Jews, to further their designs for world dominion? The Jesuits never do anything out in the open where they can be exposed. If they are recognized as the culprits, they will be blamed and suffer the consequences, but if they can use someone else as the ‘cause of the world’s problems’, especially an enemy they can destroy in the process, then they have simultaneously accomplished two of their objectives. The Jewish people are the perfect scapegoat. Since the Rothschilds are Jesuit agents operating under a Jewish cover, using them [i.e., the Rothschilds] in forming the Illuminati back in 1776 effectively throws the onus of this conspiracy on the Jews. The Rothschilds are certainly not the only Jesuit agents that operate under a Jewish front.
Bill Hughes (From his book The Enemy Unmasked)

"I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits...Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Loyolas. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum...."
President Thomas Jefferson (The Power and Secret of the Jesuits, Rene Fulop-Miller, 390)

“If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person.”
James Parton (American historian)

“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

“The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States

“It would seem that the Jesuits had had it in mind, from the beginning of the war [the American Civil War of 1861-1865], to find an occasion for the taking off [i.e., the assassination] of Mr. [Abraham] Lincoln.”
Thomas M. Harris (U.S. Army Brigadier General; Author of the book Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln)

"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."
Marquis de LaFayette(1757-1834; French statesman and general who served in under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War)

"The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the starting of the two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict."
Edmond Paris (Author of the book The Secret History of the Jesuits)

"[The Jesuits] are the deadly enemies of civil and religious liberty."
R. W. Thompson (Ex-Secretary, American Navy)

"The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…"
Napoleon I (i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821; emperor of the French)

"Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversion plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Thomas J. Campbell]. …Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection." (1987)
J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian)

“It is impossible to read Elizabethan history [i.e., the history surrounding Queen Elizabeth I of England; queen: 1558-1603] except in the context of an army of Jesuits, masters of deceit, treachery, treason, infiltration, subversion, assassination, insurrection, civil war and coercion, plotting for the good of the papacy, and the defeat of all the Pope’s foes anywhere in the world.” (1987)
J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian)

“The Jesuit Order at last reached the pinnacle of its power and prestige in the early eighteenth century [i.e., the early 1700s]. It had become more influential and more wealthy than any other organization in the world. It held a position in world affairs that no oath-bound group of men has ever held before or since… ‘Nearly all the Kings and Sovereigns of Europe had only Jesuits as directors of their consciences [i.e., as confessor-priests], so that the whole of Europe appeared to be governed by Jesuits only.’” (1927; using a short quote by Jesuit Cordara)
Boyd Barrett (Ex-Jesuit)

“[Jesuit Adam] Weishaupt established the [modern version of the] Illuminati specifically to be a front organization behind which the Jesuits could hide. After being [formally] abolished by [Pope] Clement XIV in 1773, the Jesuits used the Illuminati and other organizations to carry out their operations. Thus, the front organizations would be blamed for the trouble caused by the Jesuits.”
Bill Hughes (Author of The Secret Terrorists and The Enemy Unmasked)

“[Jesuit-trained Illuminist Adam] Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; [and] …by eventually having Napoleon throw Pope Pius VII in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order. This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona.”
Emanuel M. Josephson (American physician and historian)

Red Mass Pics

Your Soul Is Owned By The Vatican - Santos Bonacci

The Secrets of the Jesuits (Jim Arrabito)

Eric Phelps on the Jesuits

Vatican Assassins

ROMAN EMPIRE rules today 1

ROMAN EMPIRE rules today 2

Those who fall for the Jesuit game

fail to research the whole scheme. If you go back and read about Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, both claiming to be the Jewish messiah, told their followers to infiltrate the Turkish Muslims (Sabbateans) and the Vatican (Frankists). The false Muslim converts were called the Donmeh and the Catholic false converts the Marranos. Both of these scum preached sin is good and will bring redemption to god (Lucifer). I'm not going to go through all the evil brought about by these two factions, you can do this yourselves. However, I will point to the fact the Rothschilds took control over the Vatican Bank in the mid 1800's, after a foolish pope needed funds after getting caught in the 'money changer' trap of usury. Rather than sell off their treasures and properties, they let them take over their Bank. Now, let's go the the famous remarks make by Mayer Amschel Bauer aka Rothschild "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". Yes, the Jesuits have always been the murderous warriors for the Vatican, but since the HOR controls the Vatican, they control the Jesuits. Also, we must look at the pedophilia, which has plagued the Vatican Church, and look to the infiltration by the Talmudic (Pharisee) followers initiated by the Frankists. Note: Judaism is the following of the Torah and the Talmud. Here, this is from a Catholic group telling the Talmud teachings, even though he tries to be apologitic for making the reference. http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B366_Talmud.html
People can attempt to sell most of the evil, immoralities found throughout the world on Satanists, atheists, liberals, ect, but the Talmud was written in the 600's, so it must be looked upon as a major source for these learned actions. Oh, not to forget, it was Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th century, who first alluded to the creation of a Jewish homeland, which we now call Zionism.

Nice explanation

Nice explanation on how some nefarious group infiltrated the Vatican. I have heard this argument before and I even briefly addressed it here. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2657830

Your claim that 2 guys and a band of their merry or Luciferian followers infiltrated the Roman Empire may or may not be correct.

I believe the priesthood IS Luciferian, I'll give you that.

But that still does not disprove my theory that the Roman Empire is still in control.

So what we're really discussing here is who controls Rome?

My opinion is, to say that "the jews" are in control is wrong because for one, I don't believe the Rothschilds to be real "jews".

So as I pointed out in another comment on a different post (http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2657830) I think these people are family first (like The Black Nobility)and then "jews" or "catholics".

But make no mistake government is the tool used for control and the Roman Empire is the tool being used by this group to gain control of the world. (whoever they are)

Jews are indeed an excellent scapegoat

ironic isn't it? However, we cannot omit the evidence of criminality from one suspect or group of suspects solely on the basis of evidence against another, possibly more nefarious collective. Because the Jesuits exist, the Bolsheviks do not cease to exist, follow me?

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα


I agree. But if we're going to point the finger at a "nefarious collective" (other than ourselves) then all I'm saying is, let's give credit where credit is due.

Other than ourselves...

Touché. :) I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm just not willing to give the pass to anyone simply on the basis that they happen to be an ethnic group, as our friend in AZ seems to be wanting to do.

Given your perspective on the Jesuits, I would be very interested in hearing your take on recent Vatican events and the future of the Unholy Roman Church.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

I judge people by their merits as indviduals...

not by their ethnicity, class, religion, or nationality.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

It would be nice if this could be done, but . . .

evil men/women claim a 'heritage' of some kind of: race, religion, ethnicity, language--

and then try to drag the entire group down with them in order to become more . . .


THIS is the significant problem.

Obviously evil men/women who are globalists are drawn to other evil men/women who are globalists, but they will use their 'little people' for their nefarious ends--

Romney did.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

It's apparent

some people find the subject title offensive, so rather than argue, why not change the title to better reflect what your subject is in a manner that does not apparently offend some here?

Point well taken. The title

Point well taken.

The title put off the uninitiated.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

I don't see where the OP

is even engaged in the conversation, but an excellent idea just the same.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Oh boy....

Even more blatant anti-semitism...

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard