web analytics

If The World Is Spinning Out of Control, Why Not Name the Jews and the Jesuits?

stock here, story sent in by a reader AKA ACD

Blackwashing the Demonrats can be fun!  And, no doubt, profitable for some….

See this paper by Miles Mathis who lays out his concept of “blackwashing” once again in a more personal way.

Standard Blackwash
by Miles Mathis
First published March 1, 2022


I first encountered the concept of “blackwashing” in earlier papers by MM that touched on Ezra Pound and his acolyte, Eustace Mullins.  You may get the flavor of “blackwashing” from Wikipedia’s entry for Mullins.

Eustace Clarence Mullins Jr. (March 9, 1923 – February 2, 2010)[1] was an American white supremacist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, propagandist,[2] Holocaust denier, and writer. A disciple of the poet Ezra Pound,[3] his best-known work is The Secrets of The Federal Reserve, in which he alleged that several high-profile bankers had conspired to write the Federal Reserve Act for their own nefarious purposes, and then induced Congress to enact it into law. The Southern Poverty Law Center described him as “a one-man organization of hate”.[4]Then we find this, among other suggestive exhibits.

Jewish Leaders Fear An End to Antisemitism Could Lead To A Loss Of Jewish Identity

[Note: we [The Truthseeker] are republishing this 2019 CFT article in response to Jewish groups recently claiming that “antisemitism” has allegedly hit at “an all-time high” — and how that impression actually serves the interests of the elite cabal that leads world Jewry.]

Some may recall the interview of former Israeli cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni, winner of the Israel prize (2000), by Amy Goodman on Democracy NOW!


The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan remembered!


The ‘trick’ of ‘anti-Semitic labeling’ confirmed

During an August 14, 2002 interviewon her show Democracy Now! (democracynow.org), host and executive producer Amy Goodman interviewed former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni.  Pay attention to Miss Goodman’s words introducing her guest:  “Yours is a voice of criticism we don’t often hear in the United States. Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called ‘anti-Semitic.’ What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?”  And Minister Shulamit Aloni answered:  Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK.  They are talented people, and they have power and money, and the media and other things; and their attitude is ‘Israel my country, right or wrong,’ identification—and they are not ready to hear criticism. And it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic,’ and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is [to] justify everything we do to the Palestinians.”

This “anti-Semitic labeling” is a trick that they use!  But look at how many people have been destroyed on account of such a trick!  More recently, editor Kevin MacDonald’s account of his paper first published, then retracted by the Israel-based journal Philosophia [ACD:  philo sophia?] raised to my mind a related question:  Why SOME “anti-Semitic” publications or authors and not others?  This quest-I-on may well prove a fruitful avenue of inquiry.


On January 1 of this year my paper “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence” was published in the peer-reviewed Israel-based academic journal Philosophia. As I noted at the time:

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone. I have updated quite a bit of the material, particularly the scholarly writing on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy—Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. I have always felt that Chapter 7 was the most important chapter in the book. …

Besides updating some critical aspects of The Culture of Critique, the paper emphasizes the point that the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. As I note in the article, the rise of this new elite “implies that vital issues of public policy, including immigration, the civil rights of African-Americans, women’s rights, religion in the public square (Hollinger’s “secularization of American society”), the legitimacy of white racial identity and interests, cosmopolitanism [identifying a “citizen of the world”], foreign policy in the Middle East, and many others will be affected by the attitudes and interests of this new elite.” The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America.

Publication resulted almost immediately in hostile comments from Jewish academic activists, calls for retraction, and condemnation of the journal’s editor for allowing such horrifying breach of academic sensibilities to happen. On January 4th, the publisher, Springer Nature, posted the following statement with the article.

04 January 2022 Editor’s Note: The Editor-in-Chief and publisher are aware of concerns raised with the content of this article and are investigating. Editorial action will be taken as appropriate once investigation of the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

The editor or whoever was in charge then sent the paper out for three more reviews. The reviews arrived toward the end of February and I sent in my reply in early March. My reply ran to around 9000 words and responded to each of the issues raised (one of the reviewers was simply blowing off steam, so there really wasn’t anything to respond to). I prefaced my reply with the following summary statement:

General Comments

Far too often the reviewers fail to make an argument or specific criticisms of my work but seem to think that simply providing an invidious summary of my views is sufficient to rebut them. Most surprising to me is that none of the reviewers mention even one objection to the long section on immigration—by far the most critical and longest section in the article (amounting to 13 pages and 6500 words); nor is there any discussion of the rise of the intimately related topic of the rise of a new, substantially Jewish elite in the post-World War II era in the U.S., particularly since the 1960s. This is important because my paper addresses the three “core issues” raised by Cofnas, but the Jewish role in immigration policy is, as I note, “The only claim that, if true, would seriously endanger an important aspect of what Cofnas labels ‘the anti-Jewish narrative.’” The other issues discussed are interesting and important in a general discussion of Jewish issues, but they pale in comparison to the material on immigration policy. And, as noted in the paper, some of the most discussed issues, such as intermarriage and the issue of Jewish hypocrisy—two of Cofnas’s three core issues (not to mention Karl Marx’s Jewish identity), are completely irrelevant to central work Cofnas describes as being part of “the anti-Jewish narrative,” most notably The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC), which is what Cofnas is supposedly criticizing. Moreover, none of the reviews critique my analysis for why higher average Jewish IQ by itself fails to explain Jewish influence (i.e., Cofnas’s “default hypothesis”).

But all was for naught. I was informed in mid-May that the paper would be retracted and (amazingly) asking me if I agreed with this decision but notifying me that any objection that I had to the retraction would not be included along with the retraction statement. I of course objected and wrote yet another reply, this time to their retraction statement.MORE AT LINK:  https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/07/08/retraction-of-my-article-on-jewish-influence/

These posts — mere straws that broke the camel’s back — encouraged me to undertake a writing project, the working title A Peculiarly Jewish Dialectic.

Leave a Reply

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