What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht

In a short letter to the Wall Street Journal, Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?, Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, retired founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, expressed a simple-minded concern which appeared not at all out of step with the thoroughly judaized contemporary political discourse:

I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?

The response from outraged jews was swift and venomous. Undeterred by Perkins' wealth, power and love of jews, jews big and small have taken to their soapboxes to insult and lecture him. The gist of it all is to self-righteously inform Perkins, and any other uppity goyim who might be under a similarly mistaken impression, that only jews are permitted to invoke the jewish narrative.

To illustrate I've selected a few of the clearer examples of jews getting so carried away with their attempts to describe what Perkins has done wrong and condemn him for it that they effectively end up describing and condemning themselves and their tribe.

Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace correspondent for the New York Times, issued this twit:

As someone who lost numerous relatives to the Nazi gas chambers, I find statements like this revolting & inexplicable

Then this one:

Rather shocking that Tom Perkins seems to embrace Nazi Germany's stereotype that Jews were Europe’s rich 1%

Perkins' mistakes are hardly inexplicable. It's jews who have filled his head with nonsense. He has internalized jewish myths. He has misunderstood jewish self-pity and self-concern as applying more generally to wealthy minorities.

What Greenhouse is revolted and shocked about is Perkins equating the merely rich to the jews. Greenhouse knows there is no such equivalence. His hysterical overreaction probably has less to do with events decades past and more to do with the "stereotype" of jews in the 1% of the right here and now.

For a lecture about the jewish version of history, Greenhouse links a Salon article by Elias Isquith, titled Wealthy venture capitalist Tom Perkins says the 1% in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany:

For those who don’t already know: Kristallnacht was a giant anti-Semitic riot, organized by the Nazi government, that left nearly 100 Jews in Germany and Austria murdered and resulted in the incarceration of some tens of thousands more in concentration camps. It was an act of coordinated barbarism done in service of the Nazis’ ultimate goal, the expulsion (and, later, elimination) of Europe’s Jewish population.

Is it any mystery why accounts that differ from the jewish narrative go unknown or unheeded? Look how jews howl and bring to heel even someone rich and famous who tries to parrot their story in some way that doesn't please them.

For those who don't already know, there are other versions of history that don't excuse the jews. For example, Carolyn Yeager, based on the work of Ingrid Weckert, has made a convincing argument that organized jewry instigated and benefited from "Kristallnacht".

As confused and conflicted as Matthew Yglesias is about jewish identity, he is confident that Tom Perkins is nuts and that his letter "certainly proves you can get rich without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent".

Steve Benen, another ambiguous jew, aims his psychoanalysis more broadly, claiming the letter reflects "a persecution complex at the heart of conservative ideology" "that bordered on self-parody". For one thing, it certainly proves you can get a gig defending the jews at MSNBC without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent.

One of the more telling responses I've encountered so far comes from Mark Suster. If not for his overweening jewish superiority Suster would come closest to being a peer of Perkins. Suster's response to "this terribly insensitive and tone deaf letter", Putting Tom Perkins Comments into Context, begins:

Um. Seriously?

People of middle or lower income families protesting the concentration of wealth in America is the same as a political party in Germany instituting a policy of systematically killing 6 million Jews and countless more who didn’t fit the model Aryan citizen?

It probably doesn’t take much more to explain how disconnected from reality Tom Perkins is.

Perkins, recall, referred to the jewish Kristallnacht myth, not their six million myth. It is Suster and his tribemates who are disconnected from reality.

Referring to a WSJ article in which Perkins claims others call him the king of Silicon Valley, Suster mocks:

Who says out loud that they are the king of anything?

I’m sorry, Mr. Perkins. You are now the bumbling dunce of Silicon Valley.

True enough. How much of a king can anyone be when the jews can so easily transform them into a bumbling dunce?

This is not a mere gaffe that people won’t remember in 3 years. Perkins will forever be associated with greed, insensitivity and lack of historical context.

Never forgive, never forget. Vex the jews and they will ensure that you go down in their history as the one who is greedy and insensitive.

And then there are the Jews of which I am one.

Mr. Perkins. Jewish people weren’t persecuted merely for their financial successes and it’s total mythology to believe all Jewish people are wealthy despite our population over-indexing in education, arts and wealth. Jews were persecuted for being different. The sort of mindless intolerance that I see lobbed today against Muslim people, African Americans, gay couples and others.

Jews followed their own rituals that made them seem “strange” to gentiles. Jews were excluded from trade guilds across Europe for hundreds of years which made it impossible for Jewish people to have a normal, stable income from the most important jobs of those era. Because they couldn’t have “normal” professions they become traders, peddlers, market makers and financiers.

Again we see Suster's disconnection from reality and arrogance in lecturing others about what is or isn't mythology. His account of the one-sided jewish version of history is quite typical. We're to believe Europeans somehow couldn't ever make the jews leave but could compel them to become financiers.

But...

Jews weren’t persecuted for being rich. Jews were scapegoated whenever countries had economic problems simply because they were different and were an easy target for political leaders. It’s a societal consequence when times turn bad and people affected look for somebody to blame.

This too is a common jewish account of "scapegoating". What the financier jew is saying is that when there are economic problems the people shouldn't blame financier jews, they should instead blame themselves for blaming the financier jews, not to mention forcing the jews to become financiers in the first place.

Mr. Perkins. I am a member of the 1%. Yes, I earned it. But with a lot of help that many of the 350 million other Americans don’t have. I’m ok with you having extravagant houses and competing with the likes of Larry Ellison for extreme spending on Yachts and such. That’s your prerogative.

But when it comes for speaking for our great state or country. When it comes to speaking for Jews around the world. When it comes for speaking up for venture capitalists for which you are simply not a “king” I have but one bit of advice.

STFU.

Not only is there no honor among thieves, in the minds of commissars like Suster only the jewish thieves should be speaking for anyone.

As illuminating as these examples have been, I've saved the most pompously self-unaware for last. Paul Krugman titled his New York Times op-ed Paranoia of the Plutocrats. He begins like Benen, by making it clear that his critique is aimed at a broader group:

You may say that this is just one crazy guy and wonder why The Journal would publish such a thing. But Mr. Perkins isn’t that much of an outlier.

Here's the punchline:

But every group finds itself facing criticism, and ends up on the losing side of policy disputes, somewhere along the way; that’s democracy. The question is what happens next. Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me.

And yes, that’s partly because they have more money, and the power that goes with it. They can and all too often do surround themselves with courtiers who tell them what they want to hear and never, ever, tell them they’re being foolish. They’re accustomed to being treated with deference, not just by the people they hire but by politicians who want their campaign contributions. And so they are shocked to discover that money can’t buy everything, can’t insulate them from all adversity.

I also suspect that today’s Masters of the Universe are insecure about the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics.

There you have it. The jews aren't normal people. They see themselves as somewhere outside and above normal. That's why they can think and write so critically about others without seeing how the criticism applies to themselves, without even thinking that they or anyone else could apply it to themselves.

It isn't self-doubt that makes the jews lash out furiously at their critics, much less at someone like Perkins, who grovels for them. It is an aggressive sadism. A hostility born of racial animus, enabled by a confidence born of racial solidarity. They see themselves having more in common with each other, rich or poor, left or right, than they do with any multi-millionaire goy.

Some jews no doubt fear their group's cover being blown, their depredations being revealed. Not the ones I've quoted here. These jews appear confident that they can say and do as they please, no matter how blatantly overbearing.

The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame

In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family.

We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology - the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, do shape the underlying gene pool. To the extent outbreeding produces a relative shift in identity rather than simply destroying it, this also provides a partial, biological explanation for why Whites tend toward both broader (nationalist, racialist) and narrower (individualist) forms of identity. An even more proximate and substantial cause lies in decades of anti-White propaganda, and it encourages more extreme shifts, whether outward into humanism or inward into solipsism.

hbd* chick has been writing thought-provoking articles about the nature and origins of Europeans for some time. This article on European tribalism is from 2011, part of her inbreeding in europe series. More recently she has written about what she calls the outbreeding project, a subset of her general theory of the west - all based on the realization that clannishness goes hand in hand with consanguinity.

Two of her more recent posts, more on the origins of guilt in northwestern european populations and the transition from shame to guilt in anglo-saxon england (and “core” europe), are a critique of Peter Frost's The origins of Northwest European guilt culture and Part II.

Frost begins Part I by noting the crucial difference between shame and guilt:

Shame is the primary means of behavioral control in most societies. If you are seen breaking a social rule, you will feel shame, and this feeling will be reinforced by what people say and do (gossiping, malicious looks, spitting, ostracism, etc.). Shame is much less effective if you break a rule without being seen or if you merely think about breaking a rule.

Guilt is more important in European societies, particularly those of Northwest European origin. It operates even when you act alone or merely think about breaking a rule. Behavior can thus be regulated in all possible situations with a minimum of surveillance.

Put more plainly, shame is the means by which more particularist/collectivist non-Whites maintain group cohesion, whereas guilt is the means by which more universalist/individualist Whites are encouraged to selflessly maintain a civil society in which everyone but Whites can thrive. Shame is something groups inflict upon themselves, for their own benefit, whereas guilt-tripping is a weapon of group warfare, used by non-Whites to discourage White group cohesion in any form between family and race.

Ironically, Frost cites Ruth Benedict on how shame compares to guilt:

Ruth Benedict first made the distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures”. Pervasive feelings of guilt are part of a behavioral package that enabled Northwest Europeans to adapt to complex social environments where kinship is less important and where rules of correct behavior must be obeyed with a minimum of surveillance.

Benedict helped establish cultural anthropology, which has since largely displaced physical anthropology, substituting jewish pilpul and narrative for the objective science developed by Northwest Europeans. If nothing else Benedict's cultural theorizing helps explain her own mindset, moved by her "guilt culture" to work with members of a "shame culture" - jews like her mentor Franz Boas, her colleague Gene Weltfish and a swarm of other social science activists who were more or less openly obsessed with advancing the interests of their own tribe.

In order to prevail these cultural anthropologists literally made up stories and falsified data. They shamelessly leveraged tribalist networking, using their power and authority to advance pseudo-science while denouncing, shunning, defunding and otherwise tearing down their opponents. What's more, they never expressed the slightest twinge of shame or guilt about it. They were far too busy feeling morally righteous about themselves and their cause.

The "behavioral package" of jews is adapted to parasitism. They do not empathize with their hosts. They will use shame, guilt, or any other mechanism they can in order to marginalize their enemies and hijack or hoodwink others into serving their interests. In contrast to Whites, who actually do feel guilt and shame each other mercilessly over "racism", jews feel guilt and shame each other for not being obsessed enough about what's best for the jews.

Frost argues that Northwestern European "guilt culture" predates Christianity. hbd* chick argues the origins are more recent, a consequence of the avoidance of cousin marriage. I'm intrigued by the subject and recognize some truth in both arguments. What leaves me vaguely annoyed is the calm Northwestern European detachment with which they discuss the subject. The "guilt culture" is only one facet of White pathology, the more general attribute of which is the absurd pretense that everybody is, or with enough effort on our part can become, "us". The affliction isn't unique to either Northwestern Europeans or Christians. It also, frankly, doesn't seem to be either shame or guilt which keeps Whites who are so intelligent and knowledgeable about history and science and conscious of Northwestern European distinctiveness from taking more notice of the jew elephant in the room.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the main mechanism lies even deeper in the psyche, below guilt and shame. In pain. In the fear of pain. In the fear of even mentioning those things we suspect might cause us pain. Here too I can see the interplay of evil thoughts and breeding. The dysgenic consequence of two centuries of fratricidal revolution and war selecting out Europe's most fearless and noble. The sterile fruit of parasite-fomented, parasite-serving materialism and "enlightenment".

Anti-Whiteness is Trending

In White proverbs the BBC notes that anti-Whiteness is trending, though they try to spin it as something fun and innovative. Don't hold your breath waiting for anti-"racist" groups to sue Twitter over this. They defend jews, not Whites.

The fact is that the Twitter hashtag #WhiteProverbs is just another manifestation of a peculiar form of complaining which has taken several other names in the past few years - "First World Problems", "White Problems", "White Whine", and "Microaggressions". The consistent mislabeling of these trendy expressions reflects their dishonest nature. Names like "#AntiWhiteProverbs", "Anti-White Problems", "Anti-White Whine", or "Micropassiveaggressions" would more accurately convey what's really going on.

The attached screenshot and 21 Racial Microaggressions You Hear On A Daily Basis capture the core themes. The grievances come entirely from non-Whites ostensibly incensed by a naive, deracinated White unconsciously trampling on some aspect of their fragile non-White self-image. More than half of the whining boils down to self-criticism couched as an insult. The non-Whites seem most unhappy and insecure about their hair, their looks in general, their alien name/food/customs, or their language troubles. And they blame it all on Whites.

In their minds the worst offense of all is when Whites say that race doesn't matter. As the execrable Bill Maher puts it, denying "racism" is the new "racism". It's not that any of these anti-White assholes want Whites to wake up and have our own racial consciousness. What they want is for us to learn and cater to all the little nuances of their identities.

Whites thinking that race doesn't matter definitely is a big problem - for Whites. Instead of doing what non-Whites want, Whites should be thinking about what's best for Whites.

Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover's answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there's more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and "light unto the nations" excuses for turning everyone else's life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin's response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn't Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it's the jews. It's their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian "anti-semitism". Yanover admits they're all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they'd still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to "convert", to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of "persecution" that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn't have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn't exist. Anglin's argument that the jews wouldn't exist if American Christian Zionists didn't exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can't be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren't the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews "capture" the minds of their "hostages". Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that's their nature. Race is real. The parasite's interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite's interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It's more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

The Country Club Thing

As an addendum to Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare I quoted Rob Eshman's use of the jewish narrative to excuse jewish behavior:

It’s not complicated, really. Poor little Jordan wanted to show those WASPs whose country clubs he couldn’t join that he was smarter, richer, better. What he failed to understand is that just about every Jew, every minority, shares the same impulses. But only a select few decide the only way to help themselves is to hurt others.

Sailer's response to Eshman was:

I really am going to have to write about the country club thing one of these days. I've found an Anti-Defamation League report from a half century ago on country clubs that's pretty interesting.

I can't wait. Of course, the country club thing is only one of several common tropes in jewish tales of woe specific to America. Other, similar tropes focus on the relatively brief period during which there were informal limits on the number of jews admitted to some universities (discussed here) and informal restrictions on where they could work or reside (ala Gentleman's Agreement, discussed here and here). The irony is that the jews are able to tell their one-sided woe-is-me version of this history only because the "WASP" defense of themselves and their institutions was not strong enough.

The explanation for jewish hostility is less complicated than either Eshman or Sailer will admit. It's racial animus. The jews are parasites, hyper-aware of their otherness, the distinction between themselves and their host, in both body and mind. Conflicts of interest between them and their hosts are unavoidable. Jewish excuse-making and guilt-tripping is one mechanism for managing it. They understand the animus. They wish and indeed need to monopolize the explanation of it, to spin it in their favor.

The jewish narrative, stripped to its essence, is: YOU aren't US, YOU should feel bad about that and try harder to please US. The double-think takes root in hosts with universalist, or at least pluralist tendencies. It expresses itself as a form of willful confusion about who US is: B-but, WE are all US, let US try harder to please US!

To see through this, you must be willing to think about what US means, and especially in biological terms, as the jews do. At least a few fans of Sailer's "race realism" and "human biodiversity" are on the cusp of such understanding. As one commenter wonders:

What is this Jewish problem or hangup about country clubs? Freedom of association is a natural and okay thing. If WASPS didn't want to have them, that's their right. It is a PRIVATE club, not PUBLIC property like a library. Why couldn't Jews just have their own clubs? Did it REALLY bug Jews that much that WASPS didn't prefer them over their own kind? Why would they? Do Jews need validation so badly?

Why indeed. It is only a mystery as long as you pretend that jews are part of your US, or even wish to coexist with your US. They don't. You are there to be infiltrated, manipulated, exploited. For their own good. This is why the suicide meme is so insidious. It is premised on, relies on, and even adds to the muddled thinking about who US is, abetting the "suicide" it purports to deplore.

While waiting on Sailer to share his little ADL tidbit, I'd like to recommend something Revilo Oliver wrote. It indicates not just how well established, how essential this "country club thing" is in the jewish psyche, but also how fruitless it is to go searching through history for ways to excuse jewish parasitism.

The following text comes from Oliver's The Jewish Strategy:

III. THE JEWISH STRATEGY AT WORK: ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA

In the early years of our era, the Jews were then (as now) busy selling religion and revolution to the natives, and that is undoubtedly what the Emperor Claudius meant in 41 A.D. when, in his letter of warning to the Jews in Egypt (preserved in a papyrus now in the British Museum, R Lond. 1912), he described them as "the fomenters of a universal plague."

Claudius' phrase is the best description of the biologically innate nature of Jews that I have seen. I hope this does not startle you; if it does, I recommend a little objective observation of Jews engaged in collective action.

The publication of these papyri in the British Museum stopped with Volume V, just short of the group of papyri, beginning with #1912, that deal with Jews and Christians in Egypt. These, however, were edited in a separate volume by H. Idris Bell, London, 1924, which can be found under his name in any good library. Why the official series stopped where it did (and has never been continued), I do not know. One suspects there was a Jew in the woodpile.

P. Lond. 1912 is a long papyrus fragment excellently preserved. It is a private copy of an edict by Claudius that was posted in public places in Alexandria in 41 A.D. and is complete. It is in Greek, not Latin, because in Egypt every literate person (Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and the comparatively few Romans who were there as governors and military commanders) knew Greek, whereas only the Roman officials knew Latin at all. Bell believes that our Greek text was translated from Claudius's Latin, but I am certain that the text is what Claudius himself dictated to a secretary in Greek. Like every educated Roman of his day, Claudius spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and furthermore he was something of a scholar and wrote his two major historical works (now lost) in Greek. This Greek text contains stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of Claudius's mentality, but would probably have been smoothed away by a translator.

Claudius, who was born in 10 B.C., was the son of the male child with whom Livia was pregnant at the time that Augustus married her. If that child was legitimate, it was the son of Livia's first husband and the younger brother of the Emperor Tiberius. If the child was illegitimate, as many suspected, Augustus was probably the father, but never acknowledged the paternity. Claudius's mother was the daughter of Mark Antony. Claudius in infancy suffered from poliomyelitis or a similar disease that left him with a partly paralysed foot, some impediment in his speech, and muscles of the face and neck subject to spastic contractions. Regarded as unfit for public life, he devoted himself to historical and antiquarian studies, becoming both erudite and pedantic. He was quite intelligent, but timorous, excitable, and gullible, especially toward persons who showed him some attention and professed friendship during the first fifty-one years of his life, when he was regarded as an awkward and ridiculous political nullity, the butt of his nephew Caligula's wit. Among those who thus acquired his gratitude and confidence were a number of clever Jews of great wealth and influence in Rome. Among these was Marcus Julius Agrippa (note the purely Roman name; a grandson of the Herod who appears in many versions of the Christ story), who, when the barbarian mercenaries rioted after the assassination of Caligula and, while plundering the palace, found old Claudius hiding in a closet and dragged him out to proclaim him emperor, by subtle and crafty machinations and bribery managed to get Claudius installed and recognized as emperor by the Senate. Claudius rewarded him generously, and was always under the influence of the prominent Jews in Rome. That is what makes his pronouncement so significant.

Alexandria was, of course, founded by Alexander the Great as a Greek city in conquered Egypt, and it became under his Greek successors, the Ptolemies, the capital of that country. Its position as the only real harbour in Egypt added to its great prosperity, and naturally Jews came streaming in from their colonies all over the civilized world. Alexandria became the New York of the ancient world, i.e., the largest Jewish city. The Jews took over two of the five quarters of the city for their ghettoes, from which they unofficially but effectively excluded white people, but naturally insisted on pushing their way into all the other quarters of the city and making themselves obnoxious in their normal ways. Jews always betray the countries in which they are feeding on the natives, so naturally, when Augustus attacked Egypt, the Jews naturally betrayed the Greeks, who remained loyal to Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies. Augustus punished the Greeks for their loyalty by depriving them of their local self-government, and rewarded the Jews for their treason with many special privileges, including the right to have a kind of Jewish government of their own.

The Jews, now riding high, naturally pushed the Greeks around more than ever, thrusting themselves into the gymnasia and other Greek institutions that were traditionally for Greeks only and inciting riots whenever they were so "persecuted" that the Greeks did not recognize them as a vastly superior race. The result was an endless series of civil disturbances that the Romans were powerless to prevent because no government dared to revoke Augustus's grant of special privileges to the Jews. In the second year after Claudius became emperor, there was another one of the perennial riots in Alexandria that became virtual civil wars in the city, which was the most populous in the ancient world.

The Greeks of Alexandria despatched an embassy of their leading citizens to Claudius to request restoration of their local government and explain the cause of the riots, and the Jews, of course, sent an embassy of their own to snivel and whine about being "persecuted" by the wicked goyim.

The edict of Claudius of which the papyrus is a copy is addressed to the Greeks of Alexandria and announces his decision concerning the requests made by their envoys.

Omitted here are the contents of the document, both in the original Greek and Oliver's translation.

The translation could be polished a bit, but it will show the meaning. The sentence in which we are particularly interested, delineated in detail, reads:

But if (they do) not, I shall in every way wreck vengeance upon them inasmuch as (=on the grounds that) they are persons who foment (=incite, propagate) a universal (=ubiquitous, found everywhere) disease (=pestilence, plague) of the oecumene (i.e., the settled and inhabited world, as distinct from jungles, steppes, and deserts).

You will have noticed that Jews were behaving normally in Alexandria, not only whining about being "persecuted" because of their Love of God while pushing their way into every place where the despised goyim hope to have a little privacy from them, but even illegally importing fellow parasites to prey on the white cattle, just as the Jews are constantly importing thousands of their congeners into the United States, not only across the border from Canada, but by ships that land thousands of the dear creatures at Red Hook on Long Island, whence they are carried by limousine to the New Jerusalem commonly called New York City, in open defiance of the immigration officers, who know about it but dare not intervene.

The country club thing is a parasitic thing. It is a pattern of behavior in jews which can be traced back as far back into recorded history as you care to go.

Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare

In PBS: The "Greed Is Good" 1980s as a war on anti-Semitism Steve Sailer waxes sarcastic over the narrative recounted in The Lucky Sperm Club: Jews, M&A and the Unlocking of Corporate America - "the inside story of the development of the mergers and acquisitions movement in the 1980s -- a phenomenon that has ruled global commerce ever since".

Sailer writes:

Back in the 1980s when I believed everything I read on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, the junk bond mergers & acquisition boom was often justified as a war on anti-Semitism in American business life. Eventually, after Ivan Boesky and Mike Milken went to jail and junk bonds contributed to the early 1990s recession, you stopped hearing that interpretation quite so much, but it's still out there. Certainly, nobody is much interested in debunking it.

From PBS.org, here's a preview of a new book that revives the argument that the 1980s leveraged buyout bubble was payback for discrimination against Jews. It's by John Weir Close and is called A Giant Cow-Tipping by Savages: The Boom, Bust, and Boom Culture of M&A

Close, the author, provides the jewish version of how the mergers and acquisitions culture started:

M&A was driven by two Jews, Marty Lipton and Joe Flom, who had simultaneous epiphanies about how to take advantage of new government regulation

America was still an agglomeration of ghettos: Italians knew Italians, Jews knew Jews, Poles knew Poles, Irish knew Irish, WASPs barely knew any of them existed and the Cabots spoke only to God.

"When I came to New York in the '70s, the WASP aristocracy still reigned," the Lucky Sperm Club's Shapiro recalls. "You didn't see an Asian face above Canal Street. You didn't see a black face in a law firm unless it was the mailroom. You certainly didn't see an Hispanic face. Swarthy Italians and Jews? They were not people you dealt with."

As recently as the 1970s, Jews and all others not of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ascendancy were still excluded from any position of real power at the bar, on the bench, at banks and in boardrooms.

Yet again, as happened so often in their history, the Jews somehow found their own methods to carry them past such barriers, and once those blockades were destroyed, other demographics followed.

But it was primarily Jews who first became expert in taking over companies against the will of their existing executives. The white-shoe law firms and elite investment banks found this simultaneously distasteful and tantalizing in the same way medieval merchants viewed the lending of money at interest. Both groups were discouraged from joining in one of the most profitable enterprises of their day: the old merchants by, among other things, an ecclesiastical ban on the practice of usury; the new lawyers, by the establishment's social codes of behavior. Again, the Jews found themselves in control of an industry that then perpetuated the stereotype: the omnipotent, venal Machiavellian, hands sullied by the unsavory. But the business of takeovers paid the rent. And then some.

This is the jewish narrative. Jews oppressed by Whites. Who forced them into finance! Then the jews prevailed and turned their narrative into a template for other "minorities" - neutralize the White oppressors so everyone can pay their rent (to the jews, of course).

Sailer notes that it was Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, two more jews, who invented the "junk bond" fraud that helped finance their takeovers of corporate ownership. I wonder who the jews were who actually started it all by lobbying for and writing the government "regulations" all these other jews took advantage of.

At any rate, it was only the prosecution of Boesky and Milken in the 1990s which broke through into mainstream consciousness. The jew-dominated media was busy spinning the whole affair not as an ethnic war, but as an internecine corporate struggle, a hopelessly complex story best reduced to a parable about the excesses of greed. One clear indication that it was in fact part of an ethnic war came when Milken retained professional hyper-jew Alan Dershowitz for his legal defense. Throwing off the cloak and doubling down on the jewish privilege and aggression which had characterized the raiding all along, Dershowitz immediately went on the offensive. Aiming not so much at the courtroom as at the court of public opinion, Dershowitz leveraged the jew-dominated media to finger "anti-semitism" as the source of all the trouble.

Any perception that Dershowitz lost his battles - whether to keep Milken out of prison or to transfer blame for jewish malfeasance to "anti-semitism" - is wrong. Milken was sentenced to just 10 years in prison for the incalculable damage he had wrought. He served only 22 months. Purportedly disgraced, Milken remains rich and famous. He continues to advertise himself as a financier. At the time, the culprits were described in disapproving but deracinated terms, like "Den of Thieves", and jews like Dershowitz howled that this was an example of jews being wronged. Today jewish power is even greater and more overt, so now the story is that jews were waging war because they had been wronged.

In fact, by the 1980s the jews had been waging an unrequited war for decades. Sailer points out that the "battle for Revlon was written about endlessly in the 1980s as a struggle between the dying WASP past and the new money meritocracy" even though the raider (Ron Perelman) and raidee (Charles Revson) were both jews.

This is no surprise to students of the jew. Henry Ford's The International Jew well documented the distasteful qualities and startling extent of jewish power as of the early 1920s, before their hegemony was complete. The jews used the same playbook in the 1920s and 1980s as they do today. First they pillory the goyim for imagining jews are pillaging them. Then they pillory the goyim for making the jews pillage them. Pillory and pillage, pillage and pillory. Even when it's nothing more than jews fighting jews over who gets to pillage the goyim, their age-old canard is that they're fighting the discrimination and intolerance of an omnipotent "anti-semitic" conspiracy.

Sailer concludes with a lame plea of ignorance:

I don't really know why the Revlon takeover of 1985 was seen in the media as such a milestone of Jews overcoming WASP discrimination. It just was.

In summary, the Revlon takeover as a plucky triumph over anti-Semitism is a good example of how malleable accounts of one's people's past oppression can become for the purpose of justifying dubious dealings in the present.

The corporate raiding was but a mopping up operation, a battle that could take place only because other political and social battles had been fought and won in prior decades. It was the jews' overwhelming financial and media power, and partial control over business, which made mopping up on the corporate front possible. They prevailed mainly by default. Their whining about "WASPs" notwithstanding, in the US the jews have never faced any comparable opponent as aware, cohesive or ruthless, who clearly saw themselves at war and with whom.

The dominance of the jewish narrative today is an indication of jewish dominance not only over media, finanace and business, but over the very thoughts of non-jews. Yet the jewish narrative doesn't spring from jewish dominance. Just the opposite. It is only an uncompromising belief in their righteousness, in the moral legitimacy of their cause, through which any people have any prospect of prevailing in the long term.

Armed with such beliefs the jews have, time and again, cultivated the opposite in their hosts - unawareness and disorganization - and thus prevailed. The very first step to combat jewish parasitism is recognize it as such. Jewish lies are not harmless, but are more properly regarded as the acts of a hostile adversary, an essential element of their stealthy struggle to attain and maintain dominance.