The American “Right” is Largely False Opposition

elzl4xy1makgamgx.jpg(McCarthy — March 8, 1954 Edition of TIME) 
In 1954, businessman DeWest Hooker discovered
that Jewish central bankers (i.e. Bernard Baruch) funded “anti-Communism” to obscure the fact that Communism (i.e. the covid scam today) is in fact  
Jewish satanist supremacism. Illuminati bankers manipulate public 
perception using false opposition like Donald Trump or Alex Jones. 

If they get mainstream media exposure, they are certified kosher.(E.g. Alex Jones ghosted Henry Makow.) 
We live in a de facto Communist (Masonic Jewish) society.

Mr. Marks stated that a lot of Jews called McCarthy an anti-Semite but little did they know that “he is the best friend the Jews ever had.”

“We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy  back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous  anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up, he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by the investigations through his sub-committee.”


 The Communist Jews Behind Sen. Joseph McCarthy
by Michael Collins Piper 
(from his 2006 book, “The Judas Goats”)
(First posted here Nov. 24, 2010) 


What follows is the sworn statement that Hooker executed on September 30, 1954 outlining his findings about the role of the self-styled “American Jewish League Against Communism” and how it was manipulating then Sen.  Joseph R. McCarthy’s efforts to investigate Communism in high places  in the American system. The affidavit reads: 

 “I had an astounding interview for two hours some time ago with Norman  L. Marks of the American Jewish League Against Communism, Inc.  As a matter of fact, I was brought along by another party, and Mr. Marks did not know anything about me (hence he really opened up because the person who took me was “trusted” by him).  The AJLAC has offices at 220 West 42nd Street, New York City. Its  national chairman is Alfred Kohlberg. Its executive director is Rabbi  Benjamin Schultz, and its treasurer is Harry Pasternak. Listed on its  national board are the following: Bern Dibner, Lawrence Fertig,  Theodore Fine, Benjamin Gitlow, Hon. Walter R. Hart, Herman Kashins,  Eugene Lyons, Norman L. Marks, Morris Ryskind, Rabbi David S. Savitz,  Nathan D. Shapiro, George E. Sokolsky, Maurice Tishman, Rabbi Ascher  M. Yager.

[Businessman DeWest Hooker, 1918-1989 left)

I swear under oath to you that the following is as accurate as it is possible to put down from memory an hour or so later. Also, the  information can be verified by the other unnamed party. 

Mr. Marks, listed above and on the letterhead of the AJLAC as a member  of the national board, said: “Far and away the principal financial contributor to the AJLAC is Mr. Bernard Baruch.” When questioned on this point as to what percentage he would say Mr. Baruch contributed, he answered: “About 85% or 90% of the funds.”

 I said that I had thought Mr. Kohlberg was the main contributor to the  AJLAC and Mr. Marks answered: “Well, he contributes some but nothing  like what Baruch contributes.” I asked Mr. Marks why Baruch’s name did not appear on the letterhead. He stated that Baruch was very emphatic about NOT having his name appear on the letterhead, and that it was to be unknown that he contributed funds to it.

 Mr. Marks said that the organization was entirely Jewish but that a funny thing was that many of the founders of it seemed to have  “Christian” wives. He said that they used to meet every Thursday at the Ambassador Hotel for lunch and talk about the world situation.  Marks said that the organization would not accept either a “Christian in it” or a “Christian dime of support” and that no Christian money  had ever been accepted in the past–that it was completely a Jewish  organization and financed by them.

 He said there were only two purposes for its founding: That the Number  One purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and  a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support  Zionism. He said that: “for a while there, almost all the spies of the  Communists that were turned up were Jews and that they had become  concerned, and thought that something should be done to take the sting  off the Jews. They wanted to show the Christian world that ALL Jews  were not Communists.”

 When asked just how they went about this whole project, Mr. Marks  said: “It’s impossible for a Christian to get away with criticizing  the Jews. Only a Jew can do that.”

 He went on: “And so we got together a strong group of Jews that “were  known to be anti-Communists” and started our campaign of pressure from our point of view.”

 [According to Hooker’s original affidavit, Marks’ reference to those  who were said to be “anti-Communists” actually meant that the Jewish  leaders in question were, as Hooker put it, “meaning  anti-Stalinist.”–Ed.]

Marks stated: “We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous  anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in  his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up  he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by  the investigations through his sub-committee.”

 Mr. Marks stated that a lot of Jews called McCarthy an anti-Semite but little did they know that “he is the best friend the Jews ever had.”

 [Hooker noted of McCarthy that “Eventually they destroyed him anyway when he started calling up Jewish Communists later on.”–Ed.]

 Marks went on to say that “other investigations might have turned up  Jews and McCarthy had been given credit for them, but that if we traced the record back, we would find that McCarthy actually did not call up a single Jew in that period when the heat was on the Jews.” He  later qualified these remarks by saying that “while McCarthy was  operating as a temporary subcommittee under the Truman administration,  he did not call up any Jews; that when he once got himself elected as  the chairman of the permanent investigating committee, in the new  administration, he then began to call witnesses “as they came.”  [That is, whether the witnesses were “Jewish or not,” according to Hooker–Ed.]



Mr, Marks continued: “But that doesn’t make much difference now because he accepted our own men to work right with him. For example,  he accepted as his top man next to him our man Roy Cohn, left, which was  arranged through another of our men, George Sokolsky.”

If memory serves me correctly, Marks stated that Julius Kahn was also  their man on the McCarthy committee, but who was now on the Senate  Foreign Relations Committee. He definitely stated that David Schine  was NOT with the AJLAC but that he was put there by “another group  which I don’t know about.”

 Mr. Marks went on to say that “not only is McCarthy under our control  but so are Jenner and Velde, who also took our men to work right with  them. Benny Mandel and Robert Morris represent us on the Jenner  Committee.” He mentioned Robert Kunzig as “their man” for Velde.  Marks also stated definitely that Professor Louis Budenzwas under  “their control” and one of “their men,” and that he was working to  take the “heat” off the Jews.

 [Budenz was a well-known “ex-communist” who became a leading figure in  the so-called anti-communist movement, key elements of which had come  under the control of the Zionist and Trotskyite elements. Hooker’s  revelations explain why–Ed.]

 (left, Florida Gov Ron De Santis at the Western Wall in Jerusalem)

He stated that [Alfred] Kohlberg, their national chairman, was the one  who “found” Budenz when he was testifying in Washington and Kohlberg  “picked him up and practically supported him for a while in order to  get him started and built up to the man he is today in the  anti-Communist movement.”

 Marks also stated that they got “their man Robert Morris” elected  recently as a judge in New York City, and that Victor Lasky was  another one of their men who did a lot of “press work” for them, and  “made speeches favoring their people, for example, Robert Morris.” He  said, “All these people agreed to take the ‘heat’ off the Jews.”

 I recall now another statement by Mr. Marks that “there is a vast pooling of information in the New York City area and throughout the  country which is connected with our organization.”

 I asked if J. B. Matthews and his files were in on “the deal” and he  said: “Yes, we have access to all of his files.”

 [J. B. Matthews was a prominent “anti-communist crusader” in the  period, but, clearly, under the control of the Zionist-Trotskyites.–Ed.] 

He said that they have at least “thirty Communists on our payroll who report information to us,” and that “we know everything that goes on  in this field.”

 Mr, Marks told all the above information as if there was nothing  “wrong” with what he was saying. He even invited me and this other unnamed fellow to go to a meeting the following Tuesday night at the  University Club, sponsored by Norman Lombard.

 When they finally found out who I was, however, I was told by Norman Lombard and Norman Marks not to come to the meeting. I sure hope that the true patriotic American nationalists will be able to straighten out a few of these “pseudo-patriots” who are trying to lead the  so-called “anti-communist” movement.

 Don’t misunderstand me: I’m just as anti-Communist as any of you, but I don’t want our country to be led head-long into traps which enable  these pseudo-patriots to “use” the fine instincts of the American  people and the anti-Communist movement for their own diabolical ends.  In other words, some of these pseudo-patriots are “anti-Communist,”  meaning “anti-Stalin communism,” but are pro- as hell another form of  Communism (American brand) leading to dictatorship by them in our own  country and the rest of the world under Bernard Baruch and the crowd  he represents.

 [The “American brand” of communism to which Hooker referred, although  he didn’t say it directly, was precisely the Trotskyite brand, then in  its evolution, that has come today to be known as “neo-conservatism.”  –Ed.] 

(Signed) DeWest Hooker

(—Makow comment: Reading this, it’s hard to imagine that the same forces didn’t put Hitler into power. Or that The John Birch Society and some anti-NWO websites are truly independent.)

After World War Two ended, the Illuminati needed to create the bogus Cold War to justify the arms race and the national security state (just as the “war on terror” replaces the Cold War today.) The problem was that Communism could be traced back to the Illuminati Jewish bankers. Most Communist spies were Jewish and Soviet Communism was Illuminati Jewish. They used McCarthy to fuel Cold War hysteria while de-emphasizing the role Jews play as agent/dupes for the Illuminati bankers. Apparently McCarthy outlived his usefulness and they murdered him at Bethesda Naval Medical Center after disgracing him earlier.    

This article impugns Organized Jewry but most Jews are manipulated by these machinations, just like non Jews. It’s pathetic that anti-Communist/ anti-NWO forces need to be organized and subsidized by the enemy. It proves my contention that grass roots or populist resistance is negligible and nothing gets done politically unless someone pays for it. And you know who can afford that.

Thanks to Tony Blizzard for sending me this excerpt.

Related-How Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn helped the Jews hijack the anti-Communist movement
Piper Collins- The Judas Goat/The Enemy Within
The Strange Death of Michael Collins Piper
Kevin MacDonald reviews a book on McCarthy & the Jews

First Comment from Dan Butler 1955-2018:I recall that the former staff director of the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations. Mr. Norman Dodd said to John Birch Society’s Edward Griffen in 1984. [See the full transcript here. [1]
This part of Dodd’s testimony didn’t seem very important to me until reading your article today. Dodd said that none other than the chairman of the Republican National Committee and White House use accusations of anti-semitism to shut down the investigation. This ‘back room’ aspect was unreported in the press.
NORMAN DODD: The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to counsel to stop me, and finally they resorted to the White House.

ED GRIFFIN: Was their objection because of what you were doing or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the Committee?
NORMAN DODD: No, their objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called anti-semitism. That was a cooked up idea. In other words, it wasn’t true at all, but anyway, that’s the way they expressed it.
ED GRIFFIN: The charge of anti-semitism is intriguing. What was the basis of that charge? Was there a basis for it at all?
NORMAN DODD: The basis of what the Republican National Committee used was that the intelligence officer I’d taken on my staff when I oriented this investigation to the exposure and proof of a conspiracy was known to have a book, and the book was deemed to be anti-semitic. This was childish, but this was the second in command of the Republican National Committee, and he told me I’d have to dismiss this person from my staff.
ED GRIFFIN: And what was his book? Do you recall?
NORMAN DODD: The book they referred to was called Waters Flowing Eastward, which was a castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.
[1] If this is the first you’ve heard of Norman Dodd’s testimony please download and study. Crucial hidden history. Tax Exempt Foundations and Collectivist Treason INTERNET ARCHIVE video
Transcript of the video
The original 1953-54 Dodd Report: Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations
Recommended: FOUNDATIONS: Their Power and Influence. ISBN 0-925951-28-9download PDF format

Tony writes:
I was in this war before John Birch was created. When it came into being with lots of media fanfare it began gobbling up most of the small, true anti-communist, organizations. It struck me as way too dictatorial to its members. I quickly tabbed it as an enemy having three major undesirable aspects:
1. It’s members were “forever learning and never coming to the truth.” Millions of details (lots of trees) but never even mentioning true causes, the forest.
2. It was the first in my knowledge (along with major insurance corporations) to equate capitalism and free enterprise as synonyms when, in reality, they are 180 degrees opposite. Capitalism, which it praised, is simply the concentration of capital into the hands of the few (mainly for their own profit) while free enterprise is capital diversified as much as possible with local businesses taking care of local business. Under free enterprise franchises, malls, and chains, which drain local capital to national or international headquarters, hardly exist. Capital mostly stays in the local community, constantly re-circulated by local business.
3. The Birch society destroyed any local “chapter” which decided on its own to “study the Jewish question.” I saw that take place with my own eyes in So. California at least twice. A dead giveaway of the true reason for its existence.

Who kills the police?

By Abraham H. Miller

Put “race of people shooting police” into Google and you will get page after page of the opposite results: the race or ethnicity of people shot by police.

This is obviously no accident.  The media narrative is that police shoot people, mostly minorities, without justification.

The question of who shoots the police is one that the larger society is generally afraid to ask.  To ask that question might shed a different light on whom the police shoot because it would put the question into a larger context about criminality.

For the “defund the police” crowd and the progressive minions of distributive and restorative justice, it would undermine an empowering narrative that has enabled them to shackle the police while letting criminals run free without bail and being rewarded with pleas to lower offenses.null

For as long as the police and the “system” can be viewed as victimizing minorities, these minorities can be viewed as victims and not criminals.

The data on who kills police are tracked by the FBI in its Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted program (LEOK).  Year-to-year aggregations appear difficult to obtain, and the data I found are from 1980 to 2013, as compiled from LEOK by the Washington Post.

During this period, there were 2,269 officers killed in what is described as felonious incidents, which are deaths in the line of duty occurring from criminal acts.  There were 2,896 offenders.  Of the people who killed police, 52% were white, and 41% were black.null

The Post article concluded from this that whites were more likely to kill police than are blacks.  This observation, regrettably, shows either a commitment to a phony narrative or why journalist students have a difficult time getting through a basic course in statistics.

Consider that whites were approximately 70% of the population during this period, while blacks were approximately 12%.  White people were 18% less likely to kill a police officer than their distribution in the population, while black people were 29% more likely to kill a police officer than their distribution in the population.  Put another way, black people were almost 2.5 times more likely to kill a police officer than would be expected from their distribution in the population.

Police officers are not ignorant of who kills them.  Police funerals are attended by officers from departments across state lines, and police are well acquainted with officers being memorialized.null


recommended byKETOA Teaspoon On An Empty Stomach Burns 12 Lbs Of Fat A Week Safely!LEARN MORE

Moreover, it is not white supremacists calling for killing cops.  “Off the pigs” goes back to the Black Panther days of the 1960s.  In 2015, protesters in St. Paul, Minnesota were holding a Black Lives Matter banner and chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”  You did not need a degree in criminal justice to understand what they meant, albeit the obvious meaning was subsequently denied by BLM spokespersons and major media outlets.

In the wake of Minneapolis police officer Kim Porter shooting Daunte Wright, one protester carried a pig’s head on a spike.  None of his fellow protesters found this obscene. 

If that message wasn’t clear, the firebombing of a police union hall in Portland and the rioters in Washington, D.C. chanting “burn the precinct to the ground” should have clarified it.null

We are taught not to think in terms of collective guilt when it comes to identity groups, but when it comes to the police, the tragic behavior of some police is interpreted as representing all police.

Like lynchings in the Jim Crow South, if one police officer is at fault, then all are not only equally culpable but also legitimate targets of revenge.  How else does one explain the assassinations of police sitting in patrol cars hundreds of miles from the scene of any protest?

So if you’re a cop and you encounter a black person, your radar is going to start buzzing in a way that it won’t if you encounter a white person.

According to Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJDP for 2019) statistics for all ages, blacks are responsible for 37% of all violent crimes, 60% of all murders, 53% of all burglaries, and 42% of all illegal weapons possessions, even though they are about 12% of the population.null

Contrast that with Asians, who are six percent of the population and 1.6 percent of the crime rate.  Moreover, Asians have a 5% higher poverty rate than blacks.

Obviously, the causes of criminal behavior are complex, controversial, and highly dependent on environmental and opportunistic factors.  In addition, criminal justice statistics are based on arrests, and arrests can be subject to discretion and reflection of police bias.

But cops on the street are not there to deal with root causes.  Their perceptions of any situation are based not only on individual experience but also on the shared experiences of other officers.  Consequently, cops, like the rest of us, make judgments honed from experience and perceptions of how society works.

To expect anything else is to expect police not to be human beings.  Bromides about professionalism and training pale in comparison to gut instincts about survival.

If you stop someone whose demographic characteristics suggest a disproportionate involvement in criminal activities and illegal weapons possession, as well as a likelihood of killing you, your mindset is going to be influenced by that perception.null

In a world where we have been made increasingly sensitive to identity and identity issues, how could it be otherwise?  After all, in university sensitivity sessions, if we see each other for our common humanity instead of our racial differences, we are racists by absurd definition.

The conflict between minority communities and the police is untenable and unacceptable.  Police need to be made aware of policing bias, and minority communities need to be made aware that vilifying the police, resisting arrest, and killing officers will enhance the likelihood of tragedies on both sides.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Solomon Center.