Apr 12, 2016

The Daily Traditionalist: Host Matt Heimbach Talks with Orthodox Priest Dr. Matthew Johnson

via Radio Aryan

Listen Now

Orthodox priest Father Matt ‘Raphael’ Johnson joins Matthew Heimbach for today’s podcast. Dr Johnson will be producing a new series of The Orthodox Nationalist for Radio Aryan starting next week and he starts by talking about the original series and what a pleasant suprise it was to see how well they were recieved. It became one of the most popular shows on Voice of Reason, despite just being based around lectures that he used to give at college. Much of the subject matter had a huge bearing on the events of today involving Russia and the Ukraine and it gave a chance to hear that history from a Christian Nationalist viewpoint, as opposed to the usual politically corrected version.

 It also dealt with some of the more obscure former Soviet countries and highlighted something which Father Raphael calls ‘Johnson’s Law’ – that the smaller and more obscure the country is, the greater the lies that can be told about it by the media are. This probably has something to do with there being less people around to complain about it.

 The discussion then moves on to Russia and the reasons for why Putin is hated so much by the Western establishment. Johnson puts forward three main reasons for this, that he nationalised the oil, did not use the IMF to rebuild the economy and refused to have Russia play a subservient role to the US. Because of this, Putin has been more demonised than any Soviet dictator ever was.

 Heimbach then asks Johnson to define what the ideology of the West actually is, since Democracy has now become a code word for Liberalism and has nothing to do with elections, as we saw in the Crimea.

 Johnson replies that the West is as close to an ideal oligarchy that you could ever get. In fact in the nineties, the establishment were openly defending oligarchy and saying that this is what real freedom and capitalism are all about! Putin rejected these oligarchs and prevented them from working against Russian interests, which turned out to be Putin’s ultimate sin.

 The US cannot defeat the military alliance that Putin has now formed with China and elsewhere because the US does not have the resources to fight back. The public debt is now the same as the private debt and at some point China is going to close the checkbook and stop lending money to America. It will be at this point, that our organisations will come into their own and replace the establishment’s collapsing institutions which will no longer be able to function. The Traditionalist Worker Party and others are already taking steps to provide the essential services to White people that the government are no longer able to provide.

 Finally Heimbach puts Johnson on the spot and asks him when we can expect to see some new Orthodox Nationalist podcasts, to which he answers that he will be back in the studio within the next couple of days.

The Myth of Hamlet

via Inglinga

Amleth
Hamlet was made famous by William Shakespeare, but few people realise that the tale was taken from Danish Mythology. In this he is named Amlethus which is a Latin version of Hamlet. His father is Orvendel which is a name that should be familiar to Folkish Wodenists since we know this figure as Or-Waendal. I will recount the tale as told by Saxo Grammaticus (c. 1150 CE to 1216 CE). 

Orvendel achieves a victory over King Koll of Norway which makes his brother Fengo rage with jealousy. Fengo's rage causes him to murder Orvendel, the murder being witnessed by Amlethus. Amlethus plotted revenge for his father's murder but he was shrewd enough to realise that if Fengo suspected this his life would be in danger. He chose to feign dullness, and to pretend that he was a witless fool. 

To do this he remained in his mother's house, listless, inactive and without cleaning himself. He threw himself into the mud and covered himself with foul and filthy dirt, feigning madness. He sat by the fire, raked up some of the embers, fashioned wooden stakes, hardening them in the fire and then shaping the tips into barbs. When asked what he was doing he replied that he was preparing sharp spears to avenge his father. This made people scoff even more, as he appeared quite mad.

But some began to see through this, since he took care to always guard the pile of sharpened stakes, and they muttered that he only played the simpleton. To test him they suggested getting a woman with him in a secluded place, and if he was feigning he would be tempted to take her. 

Some of the men drew him into a secluded place in a remote part of the forest, amongst them the foster-brother of Amlethus who had not ceased to see himself as his kin. He tipped Amlethus off about the plan. Amlethus sat on his horse facing the rear, looking quite ridiculous in the process. On his way a wolf crossed his path amid a thicket; when riding he used cunning to answer those present, and in the process give hints but not far enough to be seen through. As they passed along the beach his companions found the rudder from a ship-wreck, and said to him they had discovered a huge knife, to which he replied that it was the right thing to carve such a 'huge ham' - meaning, of course, the sea. When they passed some huge sandhills and made him look at the 'meal' - meaning the sand - he replied that it had been ground small by the 'hoary tempests of the ocean'. 

The woman sent by his uncle met him in a dark spot as if by chance; remembering his foster-brother's warnings he caught up the woman and dragged her off to a distant and impenetrable fen. After laying together he warned her not to disclose anything of the matter, which was not hard since he had known her well since childhood, both of them being fostered together. When he returned home he was asked if he had given way to love and he replied that he had ravished her. When asked where he did it and what was his pillow he replied that he had 'rested upon the hoof of a beast of burden, upon a cockscomb, and also upon a ceiling. The maiden was asked too and she said he had done no such thing. 

A friend of Fengo was not sure of this whole thing and suggested Fengo went away, and whilst away Amlethus would be left alone with his mother and they should hide someone in the room to listen to what was said. Amlethus was shut up in the room with his mother and he saw through the treachery, and thus used his feigning of madness. Then he mounted upon the straw in the room, jumped up and down upon it to see if anyone hid there, and feeling a lump beneath his feet drove his sword into the spot. He dragged the man out and slew him, cut his body into pieces, boiled the pieces in water, and then flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat. His mother scalded him but he got back by scolding her for wedding her husband's slayer.

When Fengo returned he could find no trace of the man, and when Amlethus was asked about him he replied that the man had gone to the sewer and fallen through its bottom, and had been eaten by the swine. Seeming senseless this was laughed at by those present, though it had been the truth. Fengo sensed that Amlethus was full of cunning but he could not slay him himself because of his own wife and also Amleth's grandsire, Rorik. He thought that the King of Britain should be employed to slay him, and he remain innocent of the dark deed. On leaving Amleth gave secret orders to his mother to hang the hall with knotted tapestry and to perform mourning for him one year hence.

Two of Fengo's retainers went with Amleth bearing a letter graven in wood; the letter asked the King of the Britons to put to death the youth. Whilst they rested Amleth searched their coffers, found the letter, erased the letters and put in fresh ones, shifting his doom to Fengo's retainers. He also put in that the King of Britain should grant his daughter in marriage to Amleth. 

Cutting a long story short, Amleth showed through his knowledge and wisdom how he understood many things not known to others, and the king gave his daughter to be his wife. He hanged the companions, to which Amleth feigned offence. so that the king paid him weregild of gold, which he melted and poured into hollowed sticks. After one year he got leave to return to Jutland, taking with him only the sticks holding the gold. Once more he dressed as the simpleton he entered the room where the mourners were he was asked where his comrades were, to which he replied - 'Here is both the one and the other' - pointing at the weregild. 

He got everyone drunk and when they were sleeping around the hall he brought down the hangings of the tapestry and thus applied the crooked stakes so that they could not move. Then he set fire to the place and they and the whole palace were burnt to the ground. Going to his uncle's room he switched a sword hanging by the bed, awakened his uncle telling him the hall was in flames and that his nobles were dying, and that he was now going to exact his revenge upon Fengo himself. Fengo could not draw the strange sword and Amleth slew his uncle. 

Hamlet here plays the fool, the simpleton, the madman, and yet he is the one who has the power to dispense good and evil, the avenging power that brings divine justice. He is the one who is inspired, has great knowledge, wisdom and above all, insight. The hidden meaning of the Myth of Hamlet is that evil is never attacked head-on, for it is made to defeat itself. Hamlet is never a misfit, though he plays the fool and simpleton, for he is the bringer of justice. This is made clear in the later Shakespearean version where we find the saga in the light of its higher clarity. 

The myth is plain to see, and Hamlet is the Archetypal Avenging Hero -

  • The uncle slays his brother.
  • The son of the brother plots his revenge but plays the fool or simpleton in order that his uncle does not suspect his plot.
  • The son revenges his father by slaying the uncle.
Hamlet is connected to the North Sea, the stormy ocean of the North, and its breakers grind away the granite rocks, thus being called Hamlet's Mill. This is indeed an important concept since Or-Waendal is in fact the same as Mundilfore who is the Turner of the World Mill. Thus, Hamlet's father is the Cosmic Turner whilst Hamlet himself is the World Turner - the former turns the Cosmic Mill and the latter the World Mill. I have shown before how Or-Waendal is the Long Man of Wilmington. 





Hamlet's Meal is ground by the Nine Giant Maidens or Nine Maids of the Island Mill; here we find the Nine Wave-Maidens and mother of Hama (Heimdall). We can find this tale of Hamlet in various guises from different areas of the Indo-European world -

  • Kullervo from Finland.
  • Kai Khusrau of Persia.
  • Horus slaying his father's brother Set.
This can, to a degree, be found in the figure of Wid-Ar whose father, Woden, is slain by Fenris (Loki's son), and thus he avenges the death of his father. We do not find the fool or simpleton in his tale but the theme is similar. We can also find hints of this in the Swiss tale of William Tell, since the name 'Tell' actually stems from 'Tol' which means 'fool' or 'simpleton'. This, of course, as familiar to Folkish Wodenists, is The Hooded Man. Indeed, in the Robin of Sherwood series Robin is linked to the Tarot Card named The Fool. 





We should note here that The Fool is numbered '0' which would hint at The Void, and thus that the figure of The Hooded Man appears when the worlds sink into chaos and into the Void. Note also the 'dog' in this card since we find a 'wolf' in the story of Hamlet - this can be no coincidence, and shows that the Tarot cards once held knowledge and wisdom, though much of it is no doubt distorted with time and those who passed this on. The figure above also wears the 'coat of many colours' which is that of the Harlequin; he also carries the White Rose of Albion. We should also note that the 'coat of many colours' was worn by Joseph, father of Jesus; this shows us how the Initiates worked, since they passed on the knowledge through symbols and those who followed would pick up on the symbolism to know what was being said. Thus various different traditions would hold the same secrets which were unlocked through a knowledge of the symbolism used. 

The dog is also an important part of mythology since it has connections with the dice and with dice-throwing, and thus with board-games such as taefl. Today the dice is not used, but it is most likely that in ancient times dice were cast to make each move. Hence, a game of chance, was altered into a game of intelligence, the 'chance' really being the key to understanding the game. Chess is a game of intelligence today, and is played out as a battle between Good (White) and Evil (Black); 'chance' does not come into this at all and it is only through clever thinking or making a mistake that causes the outcome and the winner. 

In the Rig Veda the gods are said to go around like ayas which means the cast of dice; indeed, the four ages - Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali - are casts of the dice, the last one, Kali. being the 'Dog Dice' and the worse cast. We cannot but feel that here we have a link to the 'Warg Age' of Norse Mythology. The divide in the Great Battle (symbolised in the board-games) is the Milky Way, and in the number of the Einheriar, 432,000, we find the reference to the Precession of the Equinoxes. This is part of the sequence -

  • 432,000
  • 216,000
  • 108,000
The number of stanzas in the Rig Veda is 108,000, each stanza being made up of 40 syllables; there are 10,800 bricks of the Indian Fire-Alter, Agnicayana. The Babylonian Great Years was 432,000 years, and in certain Greek texts the duration of the Aeon was 10,800 years. As I stated before these are symbols used to understand that what is being spoken of is the Precession of the Equinoxes, and in this case the end of a cycle and beginning of another cycle. 

In many traditions we see the 'Churning of the Ocean' linked to the above numbers, and here again we must recall the idea of Hamlet's Mill in the North Sea, and to the Cosmic Ocean 'churned' (turned) by Or-Waendal. As I have mentioned before this 'churning' is a backwards and forwards motion, which suggests that the world may reverse its axial spin at certain times. The 'rope' that does the churning is the Serpent and in both the Vedic and the Mayan a tortoise is the base of the churning - no doubt symbolising a slow process.

We are talking here of the Ragnarok and the Fall of Troy in which time the world falls into chaos, but this chaos and disorder is the wreck and ruin of the world, out of which will arise a new world. This is the Time of the Wolf and it is also the Time of The Hooded Man. 





There are links to both Mars and Saturn in the tales connected to the Precession of the Equinoxes and to the Myth of Hamlet. We should note that Mars is associated with the colour Red and Saturn with the colour Black - both linked to the colours associated with anarchy. This is no coincidence, and thus we find the association with such times of Chaos. Everything we see has an inner meaning which relates to symbolism. In the above we see the 'Four Beasts of the Apocalypse' - Lion (Leo), Man (Aquarius), Bull (Taurus) and Eagle (Scorpio, originally Aquila the Eagle). We see Mars in Scorpio and Saturn in Taurus - Aquarius is ruled over by Uranus (Ur-An-Us). Mars is the Avenger, whilst Saturn is the Destroyer, which is why these two forces are paramount in the destruction of the old world-age and old cycle. 

Virgil describes Mars as 'caeco Marte' which means something like 'blind fury' and here we can see a hint of a god such as Woden, and maybe why Woden was seen as being Mars by some Roman scholars. Orion the Hunter is also associated with blindness, and we can see here a link once more to Waendal since the figure of the Herne Giant is an aspect of the Hunter-God. Saturn is, of course, Kronos who is the God of Time, Old Father Time, and thus also the Grim Reaper. Orion the Hunter is also Nimrod, the Great Hunter, and is the Blind Giant. We should also note how in one tale of Robin Hood at the end of his days he is blinded

In the above Daily Mail clipping of August 1999 we see not only the Divine Marriage of the Sun and the Moon, together with Venus the Virgin (in Leo the Lion) but the twin forces of chaos and destruction (Mars and Saturn) that rule over this particular period in between the cycles. We know from the various prophecies that I have mentioned in other posts and articles how the Solar Eclipse (Black Sun) resurrected the King of the English (Ingwe) and that at the time Nostradamus tells us that 'Mars reigns before and after'. The hope for our Folk here lies in the ruler-ship of the New Age - Uranus. The coming age will be the Age of Aryan Man.

In the figure of 'Saint Christopher' (Patron of Travels) wading across the fierce waters with the Krist-Child upon his shoulders we find that of the Blind Giant bearing Tom Thumb upon his shoulders, whose eyes guide the giant across the fierce Northern Waters. 'Saint Christopher' was said to be 'half-hundinga', i.e. 'half-hound' and thus (again) associated with the dog. Or-Waendal is also connected to such legends, and even the blinded Samson in the biblical account where he acts as the destroyer.

Most people are familiar with the Myth of Orvandil and 'Orvandil's Toe'; if we see Orvandil as being associated with Orion the Hunter (The Herne Giant) then we should note that the bright star in this constellation, Rigel, means 'foot' in Arabic. The Three Stars of Orion's Belt (Frigg's Distaff) look across at the Dog-Star, Sirius. In Persian Mythology Sirius is called Tishtriya and it is said -

'We worship the splendid, brilliant Tishtriya, which soars rapidly to Lake Vurukasha, like the arrow quick-as-lightning, which Urxsa the Archer, the best archer amongst the Aryans, shot from Mount Aryiosutha to Mount Huvanvant....(it causes) Lake Vurukashs to surge up, to flood asunder, to spread out; at all shores surges Lake Varakusha, the whole centre surges up.'

(Avesta: Eighth Yasht.)

Sirius has always been associated in Egypt with the flooding of the Nile, and here we see an ancient Aryan Myth where Sirius is seen as being associated with flooding. Sirius is also known as the 'Dog-Star' and here again we have the dog motif. Sirius has also been known as the 'Arrow-Star' and it is thus perhaps significant to note that the Persians also called this star - Tir. Or-Waendal is the Archer, as is Robin Hood, as is Aegl the Archer, etc. etc. We should here make clear that the idea of flooding and the waters refers to the dissolution of the worlds which plunge into the Waters of Chaos at the end of a Cosmic Cycle, and from this emerges a new world. 



Here we see the Red-Haired, Red-Bearded Aryan Thunder-God bearing his Twin-Hammers, sailing in the Dragon-Ship on the Waters of Chaos, standing beside the White Stone of Ingwe - the 'Gift of Ingwe' (as shown on the twin figures at the side X-XX). 

What we see here are subtle links with the Fall of Troy, with the destructive hordes of barbarians from the East, with Attila the Hun, driven by Nimrod the Great Archer - with the Ragnarok. Yet, from Troy a few remnants, guided by Wid-Ar (AEnius) left to found the mighty Empire of Rome, and so a New Era dawned from out of the chaos, disorder and destruction. What comes down to us through Christian eyes - Ragnarok - is the time of doom - the Doom of the Gods. Yet this wholesale destruction is not the whole story, for though only a short piece remains to us, the whole thing is not about death alone, but about a rebirth and renewal - about the hope of a better tomorrow. 

At this time we who have seen these things are ridiculed and even declared to be 'mad' or 'insane'; and yet, throughout this tale the 'madman' and the 'insane' are indeed the wise ones. They are the ones who wait, who are to bring justice to an unjust world, who await the time when the Evil Forces will indeed destroy themselves through their folly and madness. This Archetypal Myth will be played out on the Stage of Life, and there is nothing that can be done to stop what is coming. Their evil world shall burn and the Sword of Wid-Ar will bring justice for the slaying of Woden. This is the Time of The Hooded Man - 'And the guilty shall tremble!'






Rune-Stave of The Hooded Man



Both of the above rune-staves contain the secret of The Hooded Man and also of the Rising of At-al-land from out of the 'waters' - the 'Waters of Chaos'. The Hooded Man is The Fool and the April Fool is depicted by the Long Man of Wilmington - the Great Initiator. I have shown before how the name 'Robin' adds to the Number 58 and is thus the key to the 58 Words of The Hooded Man Prophecy. I have chosen to use the term Ingwe now rather than 'Ing', since this is the most ancient spelling - the name Ingwe, using English Gematria, adds to the Number 58

'Who is the more foolish, The Fool, or the fool who follows him?'

Obi Wan Kenobi - 'Star Wars'.

When Common Sense Is a Crime

via American Renaissance

Police department under investigation after chief states the obvious.
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance explains why racial profiling--which is illegal--is no different from age or sex profiling, both of which are legal. To ask police to pretend that blacks are no more likely than whites to commit crime is like asking them to pretend that 17 year olds are no more likely than 70 year olds to commit crime.

Storing and Retrieving Data from DNA Molecules

via Transudationism

Researchers at the University of Washington and Microsoft are developing one of the first complete storage systems to house digital data in DNA. The news comes as the digital universe is expected to hit 44 trillion gigabytes by 2020. 
“Life has produced this fantastic molecule called DNA that efficiently stores all kinds of information about your genes and how a living system works. It’s very, very compact and very durable,” said co-author Luis Ceze, UW associate professor of computer science and engineering, in a press release. 
“We’re essentially repurposing it to store digital data, pictures, videos, documents, in a manageable way for hundreds or thousands of years.”
The team of bioengineers and computer science and electronic engineers were able to encode data from four image files into the nucleotide sequences of synthetic DNA snippets. This was achieved by converting the long strings of 1’s and 0’s in digital data into the four building blocks of the DNA sequence – adenine, guanine, cytosine and tymine. The synthesized DNA molecules were then dehydrated for long-term storage.
Miraculously, researchers then reversed the process by retrieving the correct sequence from a large pool of DNA and reconstructing the images without losing a single byte of information, according to the University of Washington.

To make it easier to find the images they had encoded, researchers put the equivalent of zip codes and street addresses into the DNA sequence to facilitate easier retrieval. Researchers also used Huffman coding for lossless data compression, according to Techworm. 
“How you go from ones and zeroes to As, Gs, Cs and Ts really matters because if you use a smart approach, you can make it very dense and you don’t get a lot of errors,” said co-author Georg Seelig, a UW associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science, said in the press release. 
“If you do it wrong, you get a lot of mistakes.” 
Researchers were up against a punishing deadline. The world is producing data faster than it can create new storage. The digital universe – all the data contained in computer files, historic archives, movies, photo collections, plus the exploding volume collected by businesses and devices worldwide – is expected to hit 44 trillion gigabytes by 2020, according to the UW. That’s a tenfold increase compared to 2013.

Ceze and his team think they can go much further, moving on to store video and large digital files. They claim it could be possible to “shrink the space needed to store digital data that today would fill a Walmart supercenter down to the size of a sugar cube.” 
Researchers said DNA molecules can store information many millions of times more densely than existing technology for digital storage, such as flash drives and hard drives, as well as magnetic and optical media. Those systems also degrade after a few years, while DNA can preserve information for centuries.

Abortion & White Nationalism

via Counter-Currents

Salvador DalĂ­,
The Madonna of Port Lligat
An acrimonious debate about abortion has broken out in American White Nationalist circles. There are two contexts in which White Nationalists should discuss abortion: present-day political reality and the ideal political orders we wish to establish some day.

Abortion Today

Although statistics vary, in the United States today, around 50% of black pregnancies, 25% of Hispanic pregnancies, and 14% of white pregnancies end in abortion. Since about 2% of babies born to white mothers have non-white fathers, we can assume that some white women are aborting non-white babies. Also, since Jews are counted as white, and secular Jews have extremely low fertility, it is reasonable to assume that some white women who get abortions are actually Jewish. Non-European Caucasians are also counted as whites, and presumably they too depress the genuine white abortion rate even further. In terms of overall percentages of abortions, white women get about 1/3 of all abortions, which means that 2/3 of abortions are obtained by non-white women.

Patrick Le Brun has calculated that without Roe v. Wade, the US black population would be 50% larger than it is at present. The aim of White Nationalism is to prevent our race from being demographically swamped by non-whites — today by combating anti-white policies, eventually through the creation of homogeneously white homelands. Thus abortion is good for whites in America, because it has postponed, perhaps by decades, the date that we will become a minority in this democracy.

I don’t approve of mass murder as a method of changing the ethnic balance of society. But in the case of abortion, the Left has worked fanatically to institute and maintain a form of mass murder that actually works in our demographic favor. It also works in our favor culturally: since liberals and anti-natalists abort more of their offspring than conservatives and pro-natalists, abortion shrinks the white Left as well as its non-white voting blocs.

Given that American White Nationalists have very limited political capital, it frankly seems nutty to spend one iota of effort combating abortion, which is working in our demographic favor, when we could be working to cut off immigration, which is our primary demographic threat. It also seems nutty to spend any more time debating this issue, especially since some parties don’t really care about discussing the merits of abortion in either context but are merely venting their personal resentments and, they imagine, raiding the donor lists of their rivals.

Of course if the racial balance of American abortions changed to our disadvantage, I would support abortion restrictions. And in European countries, where white abortion rates are high, I favor restricting abortion today. The only political absolute in the present context is white racial survival. 

Abortion in the Ethnostate

The position I favor on abortion in a White Nationalist society is that some abortions should be forbidden, others should be mandatory, but under no circumstances should they simply be a matter of a woman’s choice. I am pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And I am pro-abortion only in very limited circumstances, which means that I would ban almost all abortions that take place today.

From a biological point of view, life begins at conception. A fertilized egg is not a part of the mother or the father, but a distinct organism at the earliest stage of its life. Abortion, therefore, is the killing of a human being.

Now there might be good reasons for killing some human beings. But to leave that decision up to the mother alone is simple barbarism. It is indecent to allow children to be killed arbitrarily. Once a woman gets pregnant, her bodily autonomy is over. It is not just her life and her body any more, because another life, another body is growing within her.

Fathers should have just as much say in abortion as mothers. Moreover, the interests of the unborn child should be represented as well, and they should be given far more weight than the mere convenience of the parents. To obtain an abortion, both parents and an advocate for the unborn child should have to appear before a judge, who could in effect sentence an unborn child to death under certain circumstances.

There are three circumstances under which I would countenance abortion.
First, in cases in which an unborn child has genetic defects that would make it impossible to lead a normal life, and thus make it a burden on its parents and society, abortion should be an option. Indeed, it might be desirable to slowly make such abortions mandatory. Parents burdened with defective children often lack the time and resources to have healthy children. Thus giving birth to defective children in effect aborts potential healthy children. This is not really “eugenic” abortion, since profoundly defective people seldom reproduce, and if there were any danger of them doing so, they could be sterilized.

Second, in cases in which carrying a child to term would kill or severely injure the mother, abortion should be an option — although I would also applaud women who choose to sacrifice their lives for their children.

Third, in cases of miscegenation, abortion should be mandatory. Of course, in an all-white society, opportunities for miscegenation will be eliminated. But if a woman gets pregnant on a vacation in Jamaica, an abortion should be a mandatory if she wishes to return to white society.

Although even restrictive abortion laws make exceptions for cases of rape and incest, it makes no sense to kill a child simply because his father is a criminal or a creep. Rape and incest should be punished in the perpetrators, not their children. Children do not inherit the guilt of their fathers.

Abortion refers to the killing of an unborn child in the mother’s womb. But with in vitro fertilization, it is now routine to fertilize eggs that will never be implanted. For eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain. But no decent society can countenance such casual killing of healthy human beings.

Every social system inevitably incorporates incentives that encourage some people to reproduce more and others less. The only choice is whether these incentives are eugenic or dysgenic. A White Nationalist society must shoulder the responsibility of eugenics. But eugenic policies have to value those who are alive today as well as future generations. This means that we should not kill or otherwise harm people for eugenic purposes. Instead, we should give positive incentives to raise the fertility of some and lower the fertility of others.

But all this is just utopian daydreaming. We can argue about ideal abortion policies when we have regained political control over our destiny. Frankly, simply living in a society in which all arguments about abortion and taxes and environmentalism are between white people alone would be utopia enough for me.

In the meantime, we need to focus our limited time, energy, and resources on fighting against immigration and other trends that are promoting white extinction. But in the United States at least, abortion is not among them.

Congressional Bill Forces States to Aid “Holocaust Survivors”

via The Realist Report

A new provision in the Older Americans Act, which was recently reauthorized by Congress, “directs the federal government to issue guidance to states on serving Holocaust survivors,” according to a recent report published by The Jewish Daily Forward.
A new provision in the bill funding assistance for the elderly directs the federal government to issue guidance to states on serving Holocaust survivors.
The Jewish Federations of North America lobbied for the inclusion of the provision in the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, first approved in 1965.
In a statement on April 7, the day the Senate reauthorized the Act after the U.S. House of Representatives had already done so, the JFNA praised Congress for the vote and for including the Holocaust survivor provision.
“With more than 1 in 5 Jewish Americans over 65 years old, Federations have been a steadfast supporter of the OAA, which helps enhance vital services at Federation-affiliated agencies,” said William Daroff, the director of JFNA’s Washington office, in the statement.
Federations draw on funding provided through the act for day care and transportation for the elderly and kosher meals on wheels, among other services.
“We are also thrilled about the new provision that will ensure the comfort and security of Holocaust survivors, and look forward to working on its implementation with the Administration for Community Living,” Daroff said.
The act directs the assistant secretary for the aging “to issue guidance to states on serving and conducting outreach to this vulnerable population,” the JFNA said.
Last month, the JFNA distributed the first funds to assist Holocaust survivors made available under a separate federal government program.
Of more than 100,000 survivors in the United States, the JFNA estimates that one in four is 85 or older and that the same number live in poverty.
Why are American taxpayers funding the retirement of “Holocaust survivors,” whose alleged plight and suffering occurred on another continent?

The answer is simple: it’s because we allow Jews to influence and control our government. We allow Jews to dictate our historical narrative, and we fail to recognize the parasitic nature of the Jew.

The fake “Holocaust” narrative of WWII has created a massive multi-billion dollar industry for the organized Jewish community. They receive endless sympathy and billions of dollars annually as a result of the racket they have created using this false historical narrative. Studying the “Holocaust” industry demonstrates perfectly how Jews operate as parasites in our society, feeding off of the hard-work and productive activities of the American taxpayer. What an outrage that we continue to fork over billions of dollars every single year to these lying parasites!

Dark Enlightenment

via Radix

Beyond the usual name-calling, when self-described “conservatives” attack the Alt Right they usually accuse us of being insufficiently “conservative,” “constitutionalist, or “classically liberal.”
Ian Tuttle of National Review claims that the Alt Right’s racism is in and of itself a rejection of classical liberalism.
Most on the Alt-Right do not only reject the “conservative Establishment” or some other contemporary bogeyman; they also reject the ideals of classical liberalism as such. That rejection grounds the thinking of Jared Taylor, and Richard Spencer, for instance—representative “intellectuals” of the Alt-Right, according to Bokhari and Yiannopoulos. These men—the founders of the publications American Renaissance and Radix Journal, respectively—have not simply been “accused of racism.” They are racist, by definition. Taylor’s “race realism,” for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally—that is, biologically—different.
Writing in The Federalist, Robert Tracinski argues that the Alt Right “is not really part of the ‘right’ because it is thoroughly collectivist in a vile and personal way.” Tracinski is especially bothered by expressed opposition to interracial marriage.
[The Alt Right] says that your most personal, individual, deeply meaningful decisions—such as whom you marry and have children with—should be determined by some larger social program based on group identity.
That’s why they are openly opposed to free markets in favor of economic nationalism: this is an anti-freedom, anti-individualist movement. And it’s a big reason why the distinction between “identitarians” and white supremacists is a false one. Both are joined by the premise, “Du bist nichts; dein Volk ist alles.” You are nothing, your race is everything.
William Regnery, the co-founder of The National Policy Institute along with Sam Francis, told neocon publicist Jamie Kirchick that the conservative movement is overly concerned with “the mechanics, the Constitution, bromides”; and that England has fared well without a written Constitution. Kirchick predictably expressed shock at this “open disrespect for America's founding document . . . from someone to the right of Genghis Khan.” For Kirchick,
it's ironic that self-identified right-wingers would proclaim the obsolescence of the Constitution as a ‘vehicle for progress,’ since that's precisely the way many liberals see it's role in American Society.
Furthermore, many of these conservatives seem to believe that opposing classical liberal values puts you at odds with Western Civilization itself. For Tracinski, “the central theme of the Western intellectual tradition is about rising above tribalism to arrive at universal values.” At Reason, Robby Soave claims Trump and his Alt Right supporters reject “the most important legacies of the Enlightenment and Western society” and that you cannot be pro-Western if you are “desperate to undo its crowning achievements.”

I’m not sure exactly how sincere all these criticisms are. Kirchick, who rose to fame attacking Ron Paul and whose entire career is based on promoting undeclared wars and multinational peacekeeping forces, is not exactly the ideal defender of “limited government” or “constitutionalism”. . . Nevertheless, the conservative and libertarian smart set seem to believe this is an effective enough argument to repeat ad nauseum, so it’s worth seriously addressing.

1. The West is More Than the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism.

While I don’t want to digress too much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the Western tradition, it’s uncontroversial to note that Western civilization existed before Locke and Rousseau, and many great Western thinkers and artists (notably the Romantics) who came after the Enlightenment, openly rejected it.

Furthermore, its rich that ostensive conservatives would identify the Enlightenment and classical liberalism as the zenith of Western Civilization, when traditionalists have been at odds with the Enlightenment for centuries.

Russell Kirk, the author The Conservative Mind and who remains an icon among Beltway conservatives, argued that
“absolute liberty,” “absolute equality,” and similar projects, far from being natural rights, are conspicuously unnatural conditions. . . . In confounding matters of social convenience and convention with the subtle and indefinable natural order of God, the philosophers of the Enlightenment and followers of Rousseau threaten society with the dissolution of artificial institutions.

2. The Founding Fathers Were Hardly Free-Trading Egalitarians.

Tracinski cites the Alt Right’s opposition to miscegenation and free trade as proof that it is not “right” and would be offensive to the generation of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. But what did the Founders really think about race?

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the majority of states had anti-miscegenation laws; those that did not had virtually no Blacks. At some point in history, 44 of all 50 states had such laws. And these views did not change with abolition.

Abraham Lincoln stated unequivocally,
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
Even in the mid-20th century, Dwight Eisenhower emphasized that, while he supported moderate civil-rights measures, he did not want a Negro to “court my daughter.”

While the Founders debated slavery, they were universal in their belief that the races were not equal. As Jefferson put it in Notes on the State of Virginia. Whites had “superior beauty,” while Blacks had “a reason much inferior,”
as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
Most enlightenment thinkers shared this view. Like Jefferson, Montesquieu noted the Blacks were both “wanting common sense.”
It is hardly to be believed that God, who is a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul, in such a black ugly body.
David Hume, the author of A Treatise on Human Nature, observed,
I am apt to suspect the Negroes, and in general all other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was any civilized nation of any other complection than white, nor even any individual eminent in action or speculation.
As for trade, James Madison introduced the Tariff Act of 1789, which, as William Edmunds Benson noted in The Political History of the Tariff 1789-1861, included both revenue tariffs and an “enumerated list, higher specific duties,” which “would be levied for protection.” In 1791, Alexander Hamilton issued his Report on Manfactures to Congress. The first principle was:
Protecting duties—or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged.
In other words, statements like “all men are created equal” were never seen by the Founders as arguments against economic nationalism.

3. Classical Liberal Values Cannot Survive Diversity

Before he founded National Review, William F Buckley Jr. wrote an article extolling the virtues of libertarian individualism in the abstract, but qualified that these values would cease to exist if the Soviet Union conquered America. To Buckley, "The important issue of the day, it is time to admit it, is survival.” Thus,
we have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.
Buckley’s endorsement of the “instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy” has always outraged libertarians, but in principle, Buckley was undoubtedly correct that adherence to libertarianism was suicidal if it meant refusing to use the power of the state to protect against existential threats.

John Locke similarly believed that the state could not universally grant rights to all groups, because this would undermine freedom. Notably, he argued that England should not tolerate the Catholic Church because
all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.
Regardless of whether Locke was right about the threat of Catholics, or Buckley, about the threat of the Soviet Union, the principle applies today. What is at stake is survival, whether the threat imitates from foreign armies, immigrants, or domestic citizens.

4. The Limits of the Constitution

Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton helped draft Haiti’s Constitution of 1801. Despite such an illustrious pedigree, Haiti never sustained a republican government, or anything resembling a civilized society. There are many reasons for this, of course, but none more important than the fact that Haiti is full of Haitians. The paradox of republican and Enlightenment values is that, no matter how “universalist” that might profess to be, they are ultimately only sustained by Europeans.

Yet according to Tuttle,
it’s entirely plausible that, where conservatives have endorsed policies—high levels of immigration, for example—that have ended up undermining certain “core Western values” (the importance of the rule of law, say), it was out of a commitment to other high-minded principles also in keeping with the Western tradition.
Putting aside his unstated “high minded” Western principles, the problem with mass immigration is not that it undermines the rule of law. The problem is that when you import non-European people, they will undermine Western values, including Tuttle’s beloved classical liberalism. This will occur regardless of whether they arrive illegally or fill out all the paperwork correctly.

Moreover, any constitution is only as good as the government that enforces and interprets it, and any government is defined by the people it governs.

This reality often offends conservatives, who like to believe that laws and words don’t (or shouldn’t) change meanings, and that a United States of America could exist as a legalistic mechanism indefinitely and regardless of the racial makeup of its population.

Yet in multicultural America, non-Whites secured the election of Barack Obama . . . who appointed Sonia Sotomayor to interpret the Constitution. If we continue to import more non-Whites, there will be many more Sonia Sotomayors to define the “true” meaning of the law.

In truth, you can no more be against “constitutional conservatism” as you can oppose the Passenger Pigeon. In Joe Sobran’s words, we live in a “Post-Constitutional America,” where “the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” Most of what the government does on a daily basis is clearly not authorized by the Constitution. Thus, for conservatives, “defending the Constitution” seems to function as a proxy in an undeclared culture war.

There are some on the Alt Right who believe that The Enlightenment and American Founding were fundamentally flawed. Politically incorrect quotes from Jefferson and Locke notwithstanding, they would argue that these Enlightenment and classically liberal ideals planted universalist and egalitarian seeds that blossomed into our current multicultural mess.

There are others who believe that we can have a constitutionally limited government so long as we have an ethno-state. Many are now using the phrase “libertarianism in one country.”

We all agree that arguing about “restoring the Constitution” when America is run by a hostile elites intent on replacing the historic American nation with third worlders is—to use a clichĂ©—much like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s more important that we escape the sinking ship, a ship, we must admit, that was constructed on classically liberal values. Only after we get to safety and reaffirm our heritage and destiny can we discuss what aspects of the liberal tradition we want to salvage.

Jewish First Wave Feminists

via Renegade Tribune

"Jewish woman have played a significant role in all aspects of the American feminist movement. Whether agitating for the reform of marriage and property laws, woman suffrage, birth control, improved conditions for working women, the Equal Rights Amendment, or a myriad of other causes aimed at fostering equal opportunities for women, they lent their support to and often pioneered campaigns for women’s rights.” (Joyce Antler)
Jewish women were at the forefront of women’s action, holding leading, influential positions of presidency, vice presidency, treasury and began forming and heading leading suffrage associations internationally. They became the first ‘female’ appointed judges, magistrates and female ‘immigrants’ in countries which required citizen sponsors, gaining legal residence without those sponsorships. These elite Jewish women had huge influence and wealth, and used it in the women’s action movement. Jewish women had their own Jewish branches of suffragettes (JLWS) gathering their ideals, before gaining for themselves international positions of power.
Linking feminist goals with Jewish loyalties… Indeed, the League’s strong feminist commitment became quite clear as it joined secular national and international suffrage organizations.” (Jewish Women’s Archive).
It is openly discussed that there was a massive amount of feminists who happen to be Jewish who were ‘creative’ in the second wave of feminism, almost as if they were not present in the first wave as well. The waves, as they are called, I find rather confusing as before the first wave there were preliminary efforts and actions in the 1830-80’s, cementing foundations and Women’s associations, which were more discreet. Then, Mrs. Propaganda appeared in the early 1900’s, then the swinging ‘sexties’ happened, and now we have naked models with writing on their chests, paid puppets acting for Soros, just like the suffragettes models were paid puppets acting for Bernays, back in 1920.

I want to highlight that the feminist movement has always had many Jewish leaders and discuss some of the Jewish women who brought the movement about. As they outwardly shouted for women’s rights, they also gathered together black rights, immigration rights, changes in law for marriages of women from other countries as well as ensuring Jewish settlements in the US, and advocating free love and birth control.

The first wave feminists hoped to give all western women a future of sex without love, life without children, children without a family and men without women. This is one of the reasons life is difficult for all, because solid family bases are becoming rarer, and without a good foundation a person is normally lost, as psychology would explain. I do not believe women wanted it this way, and that they all welcomed this change; this change was made for them. Like everyone else they got swept along with a world they did not create, but was created for them. Many women at the time of these drastic changes worried that families would be torn apart.

Anti- suffragettes were also headed by Jewish women, who would infiltrate suffragette meetings and lecture about these concerns. I feel , like many others do, that the elite Jewish powers like to control every part of an action. Whilst showing their opposition to the suffragette movement, Jewish neighborhoods were still showing percentages of pro-suffrage at 76- 93%. I personally believe, psychologically, when we hear others discuss the problems we feel we are facing, we feel relieved that something is being done on our behalf and are then personally less vocal. We feel vindicated when we hear another voice our concerns. In other words it prevents the action of some of us, as we feel action is already occurring. This is why many people become confused in the well of politics, because there is an illusion of division. People tend to blame one act, and how it affected one sex or group, but we need to remember that the reason the Jewish elite are controlling us is because they are holistically heinous. They are everywhere. The saying “hitting two birds with one stone” is nothing, as they are hitting millions with thousands of accurately aimed stones. The Jewish elite create movements and infiltrate the existing ones, engineering outcomes to suit their agenda, and they do this consistently in every arena.

I would like to point out that the suffragettes would recognize each other through jewelry of three different gems: peridot, amethyst and pearls. This was no ordinary woman, fighting for a vote, or to work in a desired field, or to go where she pleased, this women had money and a lot of it. Ordinary women would be glad to go home, have a home, or not have to work alongside their undernourished, worn-out children. The average working class woman had a voice alongside her man, was valued by her family, and she did not need to beg for their attention or minuscule change. I would not like to romance this hard living woman, but I shall not render her to be forgotten alongside rich elites and greedy Jews, as they alter her history and make it theirs. I have heard many personal tales from friends and family of strong family leaders from that time, who all other family members respected and feared to go against, and the notion that all women were without power is untrue – they were the ‘head of the house’ in poorer families, and mom was literally ‘the word’.

Many people admire the feminist first wave movement for giving women the vote, ensuring better working conditions for women and highlighting the working conditions involved in child labour. Although it appears women got the vote in 1918, it only applied to women over 30 with adequate property rights, or if their husband held those property rights. In other words the wealthy got in there first, voting for the changes they personally wanted. All women got to vote properly without distinctions ten years later. Critics, however, have demonized them for destroying families and have claimed they were racial eugenicists because of birth control. The materials I have read, though, suggest most feminists have fought for gender and black rights together, creating the ‘liberal’ thoughts of ‘inequality’ that we face today. Attacking feminism for bringing about clinics that are aborting black babies is, in my opinion, ignoring the larger situation – that many, many white babies throughout Europe and America are aborted daily alongside black infants. The centers would not be so vast if they were only for 13% of the female American population.

Although the second wave ensured the legality of abortion, the first wave, led by Jewish women, literally cemented the centers in which Planned Parenthood (once called the American Birth Control League), now stands. The Jewish first wave founded and ran the birth control centers that cause such controversy even today. Of course I am pro-life myself; I am a National Socialist who believes that we should grow our nations and nurture our families, not end them, and even if I wasn’t, I could not turn a blind eye to the barbaric way in which abortion is carried out. Do I hate women who have had abortions? I feel many women are led into a path of destruction from many angles; those I have known who have aborted children have often never had more because of guilt to the one they did not have, others have found it a haunting part of themselves they cannot forgive. I still, however, could never make this decision and struggle to grasp that others do, but understand the world we live in is engineered to bring about atrocities.

The American Birth Control League,founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921, later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The slogan "every child a wanted child" has not changed much in nearly a century.


The picture to the right claims every baby is loved and wanted. This is the truth because if they are not, planned parenthood can find ‘solutions’. The sign also claims that Planned Parenthood is the future of America. Planned Parenthood is a very prominent part of ‘family planning’, which is given funding from the Gates foundation constantly; if you check his donations page, they receive money regularly and ongoing.

Why is it important to look at this now? Because Lefty Lefties wouldn’t be where they are today, without these movements of the past. We need to understand why a woman’s role of being a mother became antonymous with slavery and bondage, that going against nature was natural, that more pride was to be found in serving others before their own, and that women could not have both careers and children, but should prioritize only one. If we read prominent feminist works it becomes clear that motherhood is deemed as an unnecessary chore, as is birth itself. I am not against a woman attaining whatever career she chooses, if she so desires, but to say holding a baby frustrates us from our real self is ridiculous. Our real self learns patience, beauty, grace and honor whilst nursing a child; these qualities form a fantastic worker in whichever field she chooses, once a child has helped her learn who she is. There is plenty of opportunity to work before and after having children, and sometimes alongside having children, if the family has the available support.
British suffragettes were supported financially and publicly by Israel Zangwill, who was said to have given an unlimited cash flow for the cause. He famously advocated for his own homeland, however the author of  ‘the melting pot’  advocated racial mixing throughout america and his theatre production claimed America to be the land in which all races would fuse to make a new man. Edward Bernays, nephew of
FreudFraud, also contributed large sums, allowing his wife Doris to use their funds for feminist actions whenever she chose. The suffragettes had a huge income:
In 1908, Labour Party subscriptions and donations were around £10,000, while by 1909 the WSPU ( The Women’s Social and Political Union) had an annual income of £21,213 and growing” (History Extra).
This sum is equivalent to about 2.8 million American dollars today.

First Wave Influential Jewish Feminists

Jewish women emerged as national leaders of the suffragette movement Maud Nathan and Martha Klatschken, for two, were especially well known for their oratorical abilities and organizational know-how. Their imaginative protest tactics, such as delivering a nonstop twenty-four-hour-long streetcorner lecture,or giving what is called a silent speech, whilst standing before a vacant store, helped draw attention to the cause. Rather than organize a distinctly Jewish branch of the suffragette movement, however Nathan and her collegues believed it would be more effective to mobilize Jewish women to join the ranks of the women’s rights movement as a whole”( Jewish Americans and Political Participation, Medoff, 2002)

This list of Jewish elite women who were pioneers in the feminist/ suffragette movement is in no particular order.

Ernestine Rose (1810-1892),  pioneer of the suffragette movement, who is viewed as the first American feminist. She helped the passing of the women’s property law, as well as advocatedf or Jewish settlers without sponsors in Prussia. As she came to Berlin she was without a sponsor and just happened to chat with the king, and he changed the official position for her and others. Considering everywhere she went she faced anti-Semitism and women hatred, she managed pretty well.

Henrietta (Netta) Franklin (1866-1964), from the rich Jewish banking Montagu family. “In 1885 Netta married Ernest Louis Franklin, a member of one of Anglo-Jewry’s most prominent religiously and politically liberal families, and soon became active in the family’s concerns.” (Jewish Archives), abolishing white people, I assume?

Lilian Helen Montagu (1873-1963), Netta Franklin’s sister, was a social worker and a magistrate, who helped form Jewish girl clubs. Lily Montagu was the ‘driving force’ for the Jewish liberal movement in England. She apparently wrote her published stories to put her own mental anguishes into some spiritual sense.

Maud Nathan (1862-1946) was married to her Cousin Frederick Nathan and was a suffragette activist who’s fame was international. “She believed that Jewish women had a special civil responsibility that could best be demonstrated through social reform and political participation”  (Jewish Book Council, 2013).

Martha Klatschken (born, 1878) was head of East Orange county chapter, New Jersey, a socialist who would lecture for up to 24 hours at a time, and walk from store to store promoting votes for women.

Rose Heiman Halpern (1881-1976), aided Margaret Sanger to open the first birth control clinic. Halpern promoted Birth Control use for decades.

Fanny Fligelman Brin (1884 -1961), “National Council of Jewish Women’s prominence in the women’s peace movement” (Klapper, 2013). Brin helped form the World Affairs Council and delegated for America in United Nations conferences.

Hannah Mayer Stone (1893-1941) was a paediatrician who worked in birth control, which are slightly contradictory professions considering most ‘birth control’ clinics became abortion centres. Stone was also a pioneer in Marital Counsel. Stone was the medical director of Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.

Rebecca Hourwich Reyher (1897-1987) was a journalist who empowered women and demanded women’s working rights. She focused on writings of the African women’s plight, whilst being a part of the National Women’s Party.

Gertrude Weil (1879-1971) “found the Goldsboro Equal Suffrage Association in 1914 and served as its first president” (Jewish Women’s Archive), supported Planned Parenthood throughout her life. Weil was the President of North Carolina Equal Suffrage League, and she later became the president of the ‘North Carolina League of Woman Voters’, which educated women on how to use their new found voting rights.

Mary Belle Grossman (1879-1977) was a political activist and later Judge. Grossman was one of the two first women admitted to the membership of the ‘American Bar Association’, she was considered one of Cleveland’s most successful activists and a treasurer of the woman’s suffrage party of greater Cleveland. Grossman was the first municipal Judge and an African American advocate.

Rosika Schwimmer (1877-1948) was a leader of American, pacifist, feminist and suffragette movements. Schwimmer was one of the first ‘World Federalists’ who founded the ‘Hungarian Feminist Association’. In the ‘Hungarian National Council of Women’ she was appointed a governing body on the board of children’s welfare. The secretary of the ‘International Women Suffrage Alliance’ and vice president of ‘Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’, whose headquarters are in Geneva. Schwimmer attempted the creation of a world government.

Belle Winestine (1891-1985) headed the Wisconsin and later Montana suffragettes. Winestine was the main aid of Jeanette Rankin, as she lobbied for her, carried out her publicity and was her legislative assistant. Winestine was of the Jewish “Fligelman” family, and also lead the campaign to give women the right to attend Jury service.

Frieda Fligelman (1890-1978) was a feminist who sought reform and wrote on ‘the richness of African Negro languages’, and the sister of Belle above.

Anita Pollitzer (1894-1975) was a rebellious feminist activist from Charlestown. She held positions of leadership in the National Women’s Party, as the chairman from 1945-1949. Apparently she ‘charmed’ Harry Burn, who had the deciding vote on the 19th amendment, the woman’s vote.

Rosa Mannus (1881-1943) was “active in the Dutch branch of the International Women’s Suffrage Alliance (IWSA)” (Jewish Women’s Archive). Mannus set up the International Women’s Conference against war, and was the vice president on the ‘International Alliance of Women’, previously the ‘International Women’s Suffrage Alliance’.

Rosalie Loew Whitney (1873- 1939) of the Brooklyn’s Women Suffragette Party was “New York congressional chair in the Woman’s Federal Equality Association and a speaker for the National American Woman Suffrage Association at the House of Representatives suffrage amendment hearing in 1918” (Jewish Women’s Archive). Chief of the New York legal aid society and New Yorks congressional chair in the ‘Women’s Federal Equality Association’, and speaker for the ‘National Suffrage Association’. Whitney founded and was officer and attorney of the ‘New York Women’s National Republican Club’.

Emma Goldman (1869-1940) was a part of the birth control agenda, who wrote books and lectured on the freedom of sexuality and the importance of birth control. Funnily enough she edited the magazine called ‘Mother Earth’ which championed ‘free love’. Goldmans writings were popular in Europe and America.

Rose Pastor Stokes (1879-1933), a part of the birth control agenda. She married extremely wealthy James Graham Stokes, they gave a lot of attention to forming ‘settlements’ in New York. Born to an Orthodox Jewish family ‘Wieslander’. Stokes was a founding member of the ‘Communist Party of America’.

Bessie Moses (1893-1965) was an obstetrician and gynecologvist who owned a birth control clinic called the ‘Baltimore Birth Control Clinic’, later a part of Planned Parenthood. Moses was the  Director of the Baltimore Bureau for Contraceptive Advice and was the Medical Director until her retirement.

Add caption
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) was founder of the ‘Margaret Sanger Bureau’, formerly named ‘Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau’, and also of Planned Parenthood. This much talked about lady is thought not to be Jewish herself, but was married to Jewish man William Sanger, so I have included her as her husband and close colleagues were Jewish. I believe her influence upon the liberal social and sexual revolution had a Marxist ideology and she believed that human lives were individually not of value. Sanger openly wrote of her race perfection, that weeding out those inferior was justified, and apparently she was anti-abortion until “Hitler changed her mind, and his views for eugenics had rubbed off on her”. *rolls eyes*

Lena Levine (1903-1965) of Planned Parenthood worked under Margerat Sanger. Lena was a Psychotherapist and gynecologist. Levine wrote pioneering works of birth control and sexual enjoyment and was a sex education advocate.

Hannah Greenebaum Solomon  (1858-1942) formed the first ‘National Council of Jewish Women’. She attended the International Council of Women in Berlin in 1904, which afterwards decided to branch an International Women Suffrage alliance. The ICW worked in The League of Nations formed after World War One.

Bertha Solomon (1892-1969), whose family founded the Zionist movement in South Africa, was a voice for feminism. Solomon was a practicing advocate of the supreme court and a member of the Parliament of South Africa. Her daughter married Michael Comey, who was Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 1960-1967. Bertha spent a lot her time in Israel.

Doris Freischman Bernays (1891-1980) was part of Bernays publishing. ‘Propaganda’ was the Bernay’s way, which says it all. She aided her husbands theoretical work, as he bragged how easily he manipulated the suffragettes to aid his advertisement campaigns. She was also the first women to be given a passport in her maiden name.

Hertha ‘Marks’ Ayrton, born Phoebe Sarah Marks (1854- 1923), was a student of Edith’s father, William Ayrton. Hertha was a British scientist and a suffragette. Her work was the first to be awarded medals of honor to a woman, and she opened the doors for other women in her field to become vocal within physical sciences institutes.

Edith Ayrton (1875-1945) was wife of Israel Zangwill. She helped form the Jewish League for Woman Suffrage. She was an author and political activist for the women’s cause. She was step-daughter of Hertha (above).

Matilda Ayrton (1846-1883) was a suffragette. She was Edith’s (mentioned above) biological mother, and  one of the first female physicians in Britain and an active suffragette who died whilst Edith was very young.

Emmeline Pankhurst (1958-1928) is perhaps one of Britain’s most notorious suffragettes. It seems that her father was of Jewish origin. Her father was a ‘Goulden’, who is suggested to be a part of the larger Goulden Jewish family in Manchester

I am positive I have missed at least half of the Jewish women involved. As this article was growing fast, I curbed it here.

Suffragettes and feminist activists I have read about and could not confirm as Jewish, for example Jeanette Rankin, the ‘Astor’s’ and others (who I have not added to the list) were from rich banking, Quaker and/or farming families. All of the first influential wave were elite and held positions within the feminist movement that gave them power. I would hate to say all feminists were in this movement to purposely make progress for the Jewish elite’s agenda of destruction, as many would have been compassionate individuals who wanted to make a better world for others to live in.

The reason I have pointed out some of the many leading Jewish elite women in the women’s feminist action is because I believe the efforts of feminism from the first wave (and beyond) have not, in my opinion, made women ‘equal’ (as this is impossible) or their lives more abundant, but less so. We no longer give birth at home within our communities as we once did, since feminist action paid for by Jewish purses took birth to the hospitals and removed our female bonds, and taught us mothering is a burden, not a beauty.

We no longer find men who talk for us. I am not being so rash as to say remove our vote, not at all, but what I am saying is the effect that this has had on families is that people no longer need to adjoin together in thought, they do not need to be morally and intellectually in harmony, as they did before. I believe it would have crossed our mind before marriage, does this man have my values? This is something I feel we have lost, and it effects our ability to parent well together. Partners that believes in real, important issues together are a force to be reckoned with, while partners bickering and distracted by the many available distractions are not.

I understand this work I have compiled could be immediately criticised for including Margaret Sanger ,who is not proven to be Jewish herself, but I felt she was an important person to discuss, as her literary work really does belittle motherhood, and she appeared to be the leading voice for many of her Jewish colleagues, and she used her husbands Jewish finances to promote both of their beliefs. Because I have shown that there were pro-suffragettes and anti-suffragettes, it could be assumed that they were not all working towards one goal, and that perhaps Jewish women in general are more politically active because they are perhaps in most cases more vocal in comparison to other religions or groups. Of course there is always the argument that Jewish people always rise to the top because they are ‘extraordinarily intelligent’ and naturally lead, but I personally believe this is not the case. Back in the days when I was unaware, I still felt it odd that Jewish people were the only ethnic minority who had an abundance of fortune, as this goes against what sociology theory tells us about minorities in comparison to majorities – that minorities have nothing, not that they have everything – and Jewish people are very much an exception to this rule.

The first wave feminist hype would like us to remember that it was all about the vote and how well they did in securing a future of equality for women. Equality is another leftist illusion, which says we are all the same; this is a derogatory view to mankind, which leaves every nationality and gender unappreciated for what they hold different. Lefty, Lefty isn’t for love, as everything in their design is back to front. Nature is not equal, men and women compliment each other as being inequal to one another and join together and become a whole, as nature would intend. Women are mothers, our bodies are created to bring forth babies, babies that are our nation’s future. Ultimately I believe feminism, controlled by elite Jewish powers, has removed one simple beautiful truth, and therefore separated the woman from herself. They have told us to mother is unnecessary and an option which we can take or leavebut I believe, a woman does not make a child, a child makes a woman and a woman makes a family, this family makes a community, and this community makes a nation.