Why So Many Jews Support Nazism

By Theodore & Walid Shoebat

SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS

Why is Jerusalem in the Bible called Sodom and Egypt (Revelation 11:8)? Because Israel — the Jews — have embraced homosexuality — Sodom — and infanticide — the evil of Pharaoh when he murdered God’s children. 

The Salvation of mankind was brought forward through a line of Semites. Way before Moses was even born, Noah spoke of the Tent of Shem, that is, the Temple of Shem, through which the Messiah would enter the world to save humanity. In the story of the Hebrews holy men arose to bring light to the world: prophets and sages, monastics and warriors. These prophets did not preach so that salvation could be confined to one race or one single tribe. They prophesied ultimately for the salvation of the world, so that justice would be known not only to the Hebrews, but to the Gentiles as well, to fulfill that declaration of Noah: “May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27). Japheth was the patriarch of the Europeans, the peoples to whom the Apostles would preach, and in whom would be granted the commission to oversee the Church that Christ had built, so that the sacred law of Heaven would be known to the world. These prophets of Israel strived for this cause of humanity.

There was the prophet Zechariah through whom God said: “they will look on Me whom they pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10) There was the prophet Isaiah who wrote: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given” (Isaiah 9:6). But then, as Scripture documents, there were the Jews who murdered these prophets for rebuking them, to whom Christ exclaimed: “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.” (Luke 11:47)

But if we insist on trusting the Scriptures, we must accept that such spirit of antichrist has not gone away. It still lives on through generations. Within this, there is a fanatical spirit of nationalism and tribalism. This possessed that mob who chose to free the nationalist terrorist, Barabbas, and to murder Christ. And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified. (Matthew 27:25-26) The Tent of Shem was for the whole of humanity. But, when his posterity desires to block the Tent of Shem, he turns to evil, he murders the prophets and fits that description from the inspired Isaiah:

“They hatch vipers’ eggs and weave the spider’s web;

He who eats of their eggs dies,

And from that which is crushed a viper breaks out.” (Isaiah 59:5)

The Hebrew people were made for something greater than hatching the eggs of vipers. But so many are doing exactly this, and it is something worthy of the tears and lamentations of Jeremiah.

Today, let us examine some of these eggs of vipers. But not just any egg. Let us inquire into a subject that is quite culturally taboo in the United States: the current day Jewish involvement in the modern day Darwinist, Nazi and eugenist movements.

Now, before we start mentioning Jews today who are promoting Nazi or eugenist beliefs, let us first show that this phenomena is nothing new and can be found in history, in order to prevent people from getting shocked or having a knee jerk reaction and argue that it is impossible for Jews to be Nazis.

Today many people will talk about “Muslim Nazis,” and in order to further prove this they will cite the fact that a Muslim leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Al Amin al-Husseini, collaborated with Hitler and was made an “honorary Aryan” by the Nazis as a show of appreciation for his work. Citing this would be correct, and using this historical event as a way to show how Muslims can indeed be Nazis would also not be inadequate. But, how many times have you heard any of the people who bring this up mention the fact that there were indeed Jews who, like the Grand Mufti, worked with the Nazis? How many times have you heard that there was a Jewish banker who, like the Grand Mufti, was also granted the title of “honorary Aryan”? Chances are, you never heard this before.

When Germany was under the Third Reich, there was a powerful Jewish banker named Waldemar von Oppenheim. He was never put in a camp, never put before a firing squad or in a gas chamber. He was not only left untouched, but because of his work for the financial power of Germany and his collaboration with the Nazi banker Robert Pferdmenges (who would after World War Two become a politician with the Christian Democrats) this Jewish banker was granted the title of “honorary Aryan” and was allowed to continue his prestigious banking house, Sal Oppenheim of Cologne, under the overseeing of Hitler (see Sutton, Wallstreet and the Rise of Hitler, ch. 9, p. 130).   

Oppenheim was not the only Jew to be in good standing with the Nazis. Max Warburg, a German Jewish industrialist, was a director of IG Farben, the biggest corporation in Nazi Germany which produced the Zyklon B gas used to murder people in the gas chambers. According to Sutton, both Max Warburg and Adolf Hitler signed a document to appoint the Nazi banker, Hjalmar Schact, to the Reichsbank (Ibid, ch. 10, p. 147). To quote Sutton: “it is a matter of public record that the Warburgs were closely connected with I.G. Farben in Germany and the United States. In Germany Max Warburg was a director of I.G. Farben and in the United States Paul Warburg (father of James Paul Warburg)  was a director of American I.G. Farben.” (Ibid, p. 134)

There was another major Jewish banker involved with the Nazis: Heinrich Stein of Stein Bank. And if you think this is all a fringe conspiracy theory, it was confirmed by the US Congress that Stein was indeed a Nazi. On July of 1945, the Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs of the United States Senate issued detailed information on Heinrich Stein’s Nazi activities:   

Heinrich von Stein is the owner of the private banking house of J.M. Stein, Cologne, in which Kurt von Schroder, a prominent member of the Nazi Party, is a partner. That Stein, as well as his partner Schroeder, was an active Nazi is indicated by the fact that Stein was a director of Preussengrube A.G., an affiliate of Reichwerke A.G. fur Berg- und Huttenbetriebe “Herman Goring.” In 1938, Stein was also on the executive council of the board of directors of Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G., Dusseldorf, the giant steel cartel, as well as a director of numerous other companies in the industrial, utility, and banking fields. During the First World War, as evidence of his support of the German cause, he received a number of honors, included among which were the Iron Cross II and the Service Cross. He figured prominently in the Rhenish separatist movement. This movement proposed to establish a separate State which could evade Allied control and the required dismantlement of these factories concentrating on war manufactures. Stein and other leading industrialists hoped thus to acquire a free hand to do as they wanted with their plants. Stein, in furtherance of this objective, publicly addressed one of the first separatist mass meetings. When the successful accomplishment of this plan appeared hopeless the bankers and industrialists abandoned it and instead gave their support more completely to Hitler and the Nazi movement.

They then began to operate their war factories, first secretly and intensively, and later for the rearmament of Germany. Among the active participants who worked intimately with Hitler to support him in his rise to power, Baron Kurt von Schroeder, the other major partner in the Stein Bank, and Stein’s associate, representing the industrialists and their financiers; Count von Alvensloben, who represented the Junkers, and was closely tied with the heavy industrialists of the Ruhr; and Franz von Papen, standing for various militaristic groups. From 1933 on, the interest of the Rhineland industrialists and those of the Nazi regime were inextricably interwoven.” (Elimination of German resources for war, p. 873)

There was an effort to investigate the Nazi activities of the Stein bank before the end of the Second World War, in March of 1945. James Stewart Martin was chosen by the Finance Division of the Control Commission to investigate Nazi finances. He recounted about how Captain Norbert A. Bogdan, with whom he was assigned to work in the investigations, was viciously against inquiring into the Stein Bank. Martin related about how “Captain Bogdan had argued vigorously against an investigation of the Stein Bank on the grounds that it was ‘small potatoes.’” It turned out that Bogdan was vice president of the J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corporation of New York. Not too long after the investigation was impeded, two members of Bogdan’s staff requested to investigate the Stein Bank. But, as Martin recounts, “The Intelligence Division blocked that one”. (See Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, ch. 5, pp. 79—85)

In fact, on February 20th of 1933, there was a fundraising conference for the political campaign of Adolf Hitler which took place in the home of Herman Goering, and was attended by several elites, including Mr. Stein. I.G. Farben’s von Scnitzler recounted who was at the meeting:

“Kripp von Bohlen, who, in the beginning of 1933, was president of the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie Reich Association of German Industry; Dr. Albert Voegler, the leading man of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke; Von Lowenfeld; Dr. Stein, head of the Gewerkschaft Auguste-Victoria, a mine which belongs to the I.G.”

In the meeting Hitler gave a speech about the threat of Communism and the need for nationalism, declaring:

“It is not enough to say we do not want Communism in our economy. If we continue on our old political course, then we shall perish. … It is the noblest task of the leader to find ideals that are stronger than the factors that pull the people together. I recognized even while in the hospital that one had to search for new ideals conducive to reconstruction. I found them in nationalism, in the value of personality, and in the denial of reconciliation between nations.” (See Sutton, ch. 7, pp. 108-7)

Here we have a nationalist meeting about the threat of Communism, in which a political activist is promoting nationalism. Within this conference is a Jewish banker who backs the German nationalist cause. Today, we can point to situations that can parallel with this one. Today we have a network of nationalist speakers all throughout the West, and like the conference that Hitler and Stein attended, there are numerous Jews who are advancing the cause of tribalism and eugenics.

Joshua Seidel, a Right-wing Jew, wrote an article entitled “I’m a Jew, and I’m a Member of the Alt-right,” which was published by the eugenist organization, American Renaissance. “I don’t care if someone who wants to control European borders blames Jews for the Muslim influx” writes Seidel, referencing common jargon amongst some nationalists in Europe that Jews are behind the migrant crises. But of course, he would say this, he lives in America and not Europe, so if there ever was a violent response against Jews in Europe he would be safe. In an interview with a Jew named Al Stankard — who proudly calls himself “a racist”, Seidel said:

“If I was non-Jewish white … I might be moving off to western or eastern Washington … and working on building — okay we’re gonna get all white people here and work on actually building a white society right here and not waiting around.”

The ideology is, expectedly, based on Darwinism. Soon after Seidel made this statement, the other Jew, Stankard, proclaimed the Darwinist creed:

“For me, my central grievance is against what I term anti-racism, which I define as the sum of all institutional and cultural structures predicated on the ossified dogma that human evolution stopped when human history began.”

A Jew supporting eugenics is not really that surprising, if he believes in evolution. Nazism is not the only ideology that would lead someone to push for eugenist ideas. All it takes is for one to believe in the foundation of Nazi ideology, and that is evolutionism.

Another Jewish activist who pushes racism is Byron Roth. In a 2011 speech that he made for the National Policy Institute Conference, Roth said:

“The changing racial makeup of the US will result in a reduction in national IQ”

And of course, in all of the eugenist circles of today, you have to emphasize on the superiority of Jewish genes. As Roth said in the same conference:

“The oft-expressed explanation that the Jewish emphasis on education explains higher IQ is easily dismissed since Jewish children get high scores even before entering school. The role of “pushy Jewish mothers” can be dismissed because many studies have found that “family environmental factors have no long-term effect on the intelligence of children.” One is left with genetic explanations.” 

In 2001, the Jewish American economist, Steven Levitt, wrote a paper (co-authored by John J. Donohue) entitled, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, in which he argued that since abortion was done mainly by blacks, and since blacks have higher rates of crime, abortion was a good means by which to reduce crime. As the paper reads:

“Fertility declines for black women are three times greater than for whites (12 percent compared with 4 percent). Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions.”

In other words, since crime is higher amongst blacks, Levitt’s logic is: kill the blacks (so long they are in the womb). 

Steven Pinker, a Jewish psychologist, wrote an article entitled, Why They Kill Their Newborns, saying that it would be very difficult to make a moral argument against the act of murdering newborns — or neonaticide. “So how do you provide grounds for outlawing neonaticide?” asks the slithering Pinker. “The facts don’t make it easy.” Pinker does the typical way of sophistry, asking a deceptive question, not giving an emphatic answer as whether or not something is right or wrong, and muddying up the waters with an implicitness towards dehumanizing newborns. For example, Pinker writes:

“What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.

No, the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there’s the rub: our immature neonates don’t possess these traits any more than mice do.”

By comparing newborns to mice and by even asking the question, “What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed?”, Pinker is working to normalize the very idea of murder. When an emphatic wrong is brought into debate, that wrong is no longer simply rejected as an evil to be prevented, but as something that can be acceptable. By bringing a society’s view of an evil into question, the strategy behind this is to change the perception, to make it normal. If you say, ‘What makes homosexuality evil?’ The reality of that evil is brought into question, and room for sophism is made. The same strategy could be utilized for murder. The question is posed: ‘While murder is wrong, can it be justifiable in certain contexts?’ Murder is now given leeway, and those who are favorable to murder have wiggle room to argue for their beliefs, and one incremental step towards the fullness of their agenda is made. 

With this are we reminded of the eugenist Charles Murray and what he said in his speech for the 2013 CPAC conference: “It’s a murder—it’s a homicide—but sometimes homicide is justified.”

Here, Murray states that abortion is murder, but then he makes a sophistical shift by saying, “sometimes homicide is justified.” Murray’s colleague in his push for his Darwinistic ideology is a Jew named Richard Herrnstein, who rose to a controversial prominence when he wrote an article supporting the view that intelligence is inherited. Herrnstein wrote this article when there was already controversy on this issue of IQ coming from eugenist William Shockley. In the 1960s, the famous Silicon Valley physicist William Shockley, became quite vocal for his support for eugenists in order to better the intelligence and genetic makeup of the United States. Then, in the early 1970s, Herrnstein wrote an article supporting the position of IQ and heredity. As Charles Murray himself recounted:

“The uproar was exacerbated by William Shockley, who had won the Nobel Prize in physics for his contributions to the invention of the transistor but had turned his attention to human variation toward the end of his career. As eccentric as he was brilliant, he often recalled the eugenicists of the early decades of the century. He proposed, as a “thought exercise,” a scheme for paying people with low IQs to be sterilized. He supported (and contributed to) a sperm bank for geniuses. He seemed to relish expressing sensitive scientific findings in a way that would outrage or disturb as many people as possible. Jensen and Shockley, utterly unlike as they were in most respects, soon came to be classed together as a pair of racist intellectual cranks.

Then one of us, Richard Hermstein, an experimental psychologist at Harvard, strayed into forbidden territory with an article in the September 1971 Atlantic monthly. Herrnstein barely mentioned race, but he did talk about heritability of IQ. His proposition, put in the form of a syllogism, was that because IQ is substantially heritable, because economic success in life depends in part on the talents measured by IQ tests, and because social standing depends in part on economic success, it follows that social standing is bound to be based to some extent on inherited differences. By 1971, this had become a controversial thing to say. In media accounts of intelligence, the names Jensen, Shockley, and Hermstein became roughly interchangeable.”     

Shockley helped to push the idea of race, genetics and IQ, in order to justify eugenics. And then Herrnstein wrote an article — albeit diplomatically —  that supported Shockley’s position of race, genes and intelligence. In fact, Shockley used Hernstein’s work to back his own claims. For example, in one piece by Shockley, entitled, Dysgenics, Geneticity, Raceology, he makes reference to Herrnstein:  “For other answers I refer my readers to the references, particularly Jensen, Eysenck, Herrnstein, and my own writings with their reference list.”  In the references of Shockley’s piece, one can see Herrnstein’s article on IQ that was published by the Atlantic, the same very article that he wrote when Shockley was pushing his ideas and provoking controversy: Richard Herrnstein, “I.Q.,” Atlantic Monthly, September, 1971, pp. 43-64.

Shockley presented an explicit endorsement of eugenics. Hernstein presented a diplomatic eugenics that could be presented to the public in a more acceptable manner.

While Herrnstein does not explicitly promote, he certainly has no issue in referencing the pioneers of the eugenist movement, such as Charles Spearman. For example, in Herrnstein’s 1971 article on IQ, he writes: “At the very top. there may be a general intellectual power, like Spearman’s g, pervading all mental activity.” In the book that Herrnstein co-authored with Charles Murray, The Bell Curve, it also references Spearman as a “classicist” of “the professional intelligence testing community”:

“The classicist work within begun by Spearman, seeking to identify the components of intelligence much as physicists seek to identity the structure of the atom. As of the 1990s, the classicists are for practical purposes unanimous in accepting that g [general intelligence] sits at the center of the structure in a dominating position — not just as an artifact of statistical manipulation but as an expression of a core human mental ability much like the ability Spearman identified at the turn of the century.”

Herrnstein’s own insidiousness is revealed, not entirely by his own affirmation as much as by who he references. Spearman was a pioneer of the eugenist surge of the first half of the 20th century. While Hernstein will point to Spearman’s work, he will never actually describe Spearman’s own political agenda behind his intelligence tests. Spearman spoke about how he wanted to use intelligence testing as a way to control who can vote and who can have children:

“One can… conceive the establishment of a minimum index [of g] to qualify for parliamentary vote, and above all, for the right to have offspring.” (See Murdoch, IQ, ch. 3, p. 36)

Herrnstein does not directly push for eugenist policies, but he will simply support the ideological underpinnings by which eugenics’ predecessors advocated for Darwinist despotism.

Another Jew who backs Darwinist evil is the former Silicon Valley businessman, Ron Unz, who has openly promoted eugenics. For example, Ron Unz argues that the reason why China has become economically so successful is because millions of Chinese died due to poverty and genocide done by the Japanese and Communists. The title of the article is, “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China” and it argues that through “Malthusian” starvation, China became a better country. In other words, through genocide, the “unfit” die off and the ones who survive are left to pass on their superior genes. Unz does not explicitly say this, but when you start using terms such as “Social Darwinism” — which is the belief that the process of evolution will continue by killing off the “unfit” so that the “good” genes will perpetuate without taint — and “Malthusian” — which is the ideology of Thomas Malthus who believed that in order to prevent the poor from consuming resources, they need to be killed off — it is obvious that a eugenic message is being implied. He writes in his article:

“The widespread devastation produced by the Japanese invasion, World War II, and the Chinese Civil War, followed by the economic calamity of Maoism, did delay the predicted rise of China by a generation or two, but except for such unforeseen events, their analysis of Chinese potential seems remarkably prescient.”

The Nazis believed that man could evolve into a superman (the ubermensch or “overman” of Nietzsche). If you think that today this chimera is just some old idea that is only believed by some fringe, think again. There is a very large movement of people who believe that man is evolving to surpass his biology by merging with machine to become supermen. The central figure of this movement, known as transhumanism, is Ray Kurzweil, an American Jew. Like the Nazis of old, Kurzweil believes in human beings evolving in a darwinian process towards being above their natural state: “We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology … That is what it means to be human—to extend who we are.”

Another main voice of the transhumanist movement is the Israeli sodomite writer, Yuval Noah Harari. Harari believes that through genetic engineering humans will evolve in “a radical revolution” that will change both our bodies and minds:

“for the first time in history, humanity itself will undergo a radical revolution. Not only our tools and politics, but our bodies and minds will be transformed by genetic engineering, nanotechnology and brain-computer interfaces. Bodies and minds will be the main products of the 21st century economy. … Given the breathtaking pace of developments in biotechnology and artificial intelligence, I would be extremely surprised if in 200 years, earth will still be populated by humans like you and me. We are probably one of the last generations of Homo Sapiens. We will still have grandchildren, but I am not so sure that our grandchildren will have grandchildren. At least not human ones. They will be more different from us than we are different from Neanderthals or chimpanzees.”

To these transhumanists, the most important aim of man is to evolve. In their idea, this evolution will be done through human engineering, the merging of man and machine, or what they call “the singularity.” Adolf Hitler also held that the most pertinent objective was to evolve. As Hitler once said:

“No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation, to wit: to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler evolution.” (See Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic)

As Hitler held the elevation of race as a way to an evolution towards the ubermensch, so does Kurzweil and his ilk hold the elevation of technology and artificial intelligence as a way to evolve towards the state of superman, or to quote the Fuhrer, “to create the possibility of a nobler evolution.” Kurzweil says that if machines were to become ‘conscience,’ then they will become equal in dignity to human beings. In discussing this, Kurzweil brings up the abortion controversy, and argues that while a human embryo does not have value, we can reasonably conclude that machines will one day be of equal value to humans. In a certain part of one of his works, Kurzweil writes:

“It is difficult to maintain that a few-days-old embryo is conscious unless one takes a panprotopsychist position, but even in these terms it would rank below the simplest animal in terms of consciousness. Similarly, we have very different reactions to the maltreatment of great apes versus, say, insects.”

So here, he places more value on a great ape than a human embryo which he compares to insects. After demonstrating his anti-human worldview, Kurzweil then goes on to describe his fantasy of the creation of emotional robot beings that will be superior in value to human embryos:

“No one worries too much today about causing pain and suffering to our computer software (although we do comment extensively on the ability of software to cause us suffering), but when future software has the intellectual, emotional, and moral intelligence of biological humans, this will become a genuine concern. Thus my position is that I will accept nonbiological entities that are fully convincing in their emotional reactions to be conscious persons, and my prediction is that the consensus in society will accept them as well.”

He first speaks of the inferiority of the human embryo, but then goes on to speak of a race of robots that will have emotions and consciousness. Kurzweil is speaking of the chimerical and fantastical envisioning of a world of cyborgs or robots merged with human biology. Now, why does he first belittle the human embryo, but elevate a race of robot superhumans? It is because Kurzweil, with his Darwinist mentality, does not have a principle based on the sacred dignity of human life, but based one based on evolutionism, survival of the fittest or might makes right.

What is he speaking of when he brings to the mind looking for fantasy the idea of a cyborg, or a human merged with machine? He is speaking of creating an overman, just as the Nazis envisaged a utopian dream of the ubermensch or overman. Kurzweil, in his diabolical machinations, writes “We Are Becoming Cyborgs” and then speaks about an evolved person which he calls  “human body version 2.0” of which he says: “By the 2030s we will become more nonbiological than biological… by the 2040s nonbiological intelligence will be billions of times more capable than our biological intelligence.” Kurzweil then speaks of “human 3.0” and writes:

“I envision human body 3.0—in the 2030s and 2040s—as a more fundamental redesign. Rather than reformulating each subsystem, we (both the biological and nonbiological portions of our thinking, working together) will have the opportunity to revamp our bodies based on our experience with version 2.0. As with the transition from 1.0 to 2.0, the transition to 3.0 will be gradual and will involve many competing ideas. One attribute I envision for version 3.0 is the ability to change our bodies. We’ll be able to do that very easily in virtual-reality environments (see the next section), but we will also acquire the means to do this in real reality. We will incorporate MNT-based fabrication into ourselves, so we’ll be able to rapidly alter our physical manifestation at will.”

Kurzweil is speaking of the creation of a super race of humans through scientific ‘innovation.’ But who will become a part of this race of human and machine? The poor would not be able to afford the technology, and it appears that this cult of technology will be one for the elites. What then would become of those who would not conform to this machine religion? Well, since we are dealing with the work of a Darwinist whose principles are not based on the sacredness of humanity, the whole of his utopian vision would consist of ‘survival of the fittest,’ with ‘the fittest’ being the superior class ruling and enslaving those deemed as inferior. The people will be oppressed, every one by another and every one by his neighbor (Isaiah 3:5). The prophet warns of a coming great oppression, and this will of course consist of the oppression of nation against nation, tribe against tribe. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. (Matthew 24:7)

The Nazis, who were fanatic Darwinists, oppressed the people they invaded, such as what they did in Poland, and conducted the most horrid experiments on them. Will such type of experiments be done by the successors of Kurzweil, with the sinister and abysmal hopes of creating a super race? Will people be worked to death in slave labor camps for the advancement of tech corporations and overlords? With the mentalities of such scoundrels, possessed by the spirits of the lowest depths of the underworld, such an evil contriving would be of no surprise to anyone studying this issue.

In the world of eugenics there is the obsession with creating the ideal human. There is in fact a place that one can go to make a designer baby, and to choose what kind of hair it would have, the gender, the color of the eyes and so on. You can design how your child will look like as though it were a dish at a “make it yourself” restaurant. This place is called “the Fertility Institutes”. Its founder and leader is a Jewish doctor named Jeffrey Steinberg.

This has nothing to do with bettering the health of babies, but about fulfilling a fantasy of godhood in which one can create the person that one wants; it is about a Darwinian ideal of power and domination, destroying and enslaving those we deem inferior, and elevating a certain tribe or appearance as ‘preferable.’ In this sinister practice, a number of embryos are placed in a lab and the one with ‘the best’ traits is accepted and the rest are trashed. There is a video recording from Steinberg’s lab in which two employees talk about choosing “the two best males”. Steinberg, in this same video, talks about how people want children with certain eye colors (just like the Nazis wanted certain people with certain eye colors):

During the Planned Parenthood controversy of using the tissue and organs of murdered unborn babies, Steinberg backed this action as necessary to medical research (just like the Nazis murdered people in experiments for the cause of medicine). In an interview with Newsmax, two Jewish doctors, Steinberg and Arthur Caplan, both supported experimentation of murdered babies, with Caplan even saying that the research “hinges on the availability of abortion,” — meaning that their ‘research’ depends on the legality of butchering babies in the womb:

Steinberg also advances the diabolical and sinister ways of Sodom and provides “surrogacy” for sodomites:

So, Steinberg is running a eugenist operation where “the best” babies are born, and at the same time he is providing an avenue for sodomites to partake in this evil. Here we have, eugenics and homosexuality, Sodom and Egypt (Revelation 11:8). Why do we say Sodom and Egypt? In the first, there is the diabolical ways of the Sodomites; in the second, a Darwinian principle which can only ultimately lead to enslavement, as the pagan Pharaoh exulted in the enslavement of the Hebrews and murdered their children: “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river” (Exodus 1:22) The praise of homosexuality is a return to Sodom; the praise of infanticide, a return to Egypt. But here, the situation has reversed: Jerusalem, by embracing homosexuality and infanticide, has become Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)

But these Jews who push these evils are doing as their ancestors did and in the words of St. Stephen: “in their hearts they turned back to Egypt” (Acts 7:39), bowing down and submitting to that Golden Calf of despotism.

You may ask, why would Jews support such eugenist and Darwinist ideas? You could have asked the same question if you were in the wilderness with Moses witnessing the Hebrews worshipping the Golden Calf. These people had just been liberated from their children being massacred and from slavery in Egypt, and now their hearts were returning to Egypt by worshipping an idol that was not only part of the Egyptian religion, but that represented the Pharaoh, the very tyrant who made their lives bitter with hard bondage (Exodus 1:14).

The merging of Sodom and the eugenist machinations of pagandom is seen in the Jewish British provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, who for years has received the sycophantic adulation of the mobs struck by the spell of tribalist intoxication. This acolyte of Sodom lobbied for the normalization of pedophilia, saying that “some of the most important enriching, and incredibly life-affirming, important, shaping relationships are between younger boys and older men.” This is also the same sodomite who said that sodomites “test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts.” He also has affirmed a “correlation between homosexuality and high IQ” and that the intelligence of sodomites “allows us to ‘transcend’ our evolutionary programming”. 

The movement for gene editing which can be called, to use the words of Wesley J. Smith, eugenic engineering, does not stop with just catering to individuals, but is pushing itself into government policy. One of the biggest promoters of eugenic engineering is the Australian Jewish Yale professor Peter Singer. This member of that brood of vipers wrote an article lobbying for a healthcare plan that would cover gene manipulation in order to increase the intelligence of society. It is the eugenist religion that preaches this idea of bettering the genetic makeup of society (the very word eugenics means “of good stock”), and so this Singer is merely advancing that same ideology that would murder his own people in the reign of terror of the Third Reich (Singer comes from a family of Austrian Jews). As this wicked sophister writes:

“Further into the future, gene editing could be used for enhancement of the genetic contribution to general intelligence. China is currently funding research that is trying to unravel the genetics of high intelligence. Perhaps the best we can hope for is harm reduction and a regulated market to make important enhancements, such as resistance to disease or the enhancement of intelligence (should it ever be possible), part of a basic healthcare plan so that the benefits of gene editing are distributed equally.”

In this social contract of Singer and his ilk, humans would be engineered to be ‘smarter’; but what would happen with those not deemed intelligent enough? What of those who would not hold the genetics of intelligence? Well, looking at Singer’s ideology it is quite conspicuous as to what he would do with those deemed inferior or not in conformity with the eugenist sharia government. At the foundation of Singer’s worldview is evolutionism. So, in a ‘survival of the fittest’ despotism, such people would be swiftly eliminated. This is really indicated in Singer’s explicit support for the murder of babies if they have disabilities:

Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. … Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment.  That will often ensure that the baby dies.  My view is different from this, but only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”

If you assume that the only people talking about “White power” are Whites, you’d be wrong. There is in fact an American Jewish philosopher named Michael Levin who has put forth an entire argument as to why the White race is superior. He lists a set of criteria for what superiority is, and concludes: “Whites really are, in this sense, the superior race.” What is this, but the riling up of tribalist and egoist beliefs, the pride of the populist mob, and the sense of empowerment of those who want to shed blood in the name of tribe and nation?

Pointing to immigration as a way of stoking nationalist pride is a common strategy. One can see this with the organization, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the president of which is an American Jew named Dan Stein. Dan Stein, the executive director of FAIR, hates Mexicans and held contempt for their Catholic faith. He once said:  “Certainly we would encourage people in other countries to have small families. Otherwise they’ll all be coming here, because there’s no room at the Vatican.” To Stein, getting rid of the immigration of non—Northern Europeans was about an ideology of Anglo-Saxon supremacy. He described the Immigration Act of 1965 as “a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris.”

On the board of directors for FAIR is Sarah G. Epstein (another Jew), who is a major figure within the eugenist and infanticidal organization, Planned Parenthood. On the official website for FAIR it lists one Sarah G. Epstein as one of its Board of Directors and describes her resume as:

“Ms. Epstein is an art lecturer and volunteer. She serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Pathfinder International, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, Center for Development and Population Activities and The Population Institute.”

FAIR, one of the biggest immigration focused organizations in the United States, is connected with Planned Parenthood through Sarah Epstein and its founder John Tanton. According to one report, Tanton “organized the Planned Parenthood chapter in Petoskey, Michigan.” Tanton’s organization, NumbersUSA, is funded by Peter Thiel, the German Silicon Valley billionaire who backed Trump and who is a huge eugenist and is revered by big American Right-wing media outlets from PJ Media to Frontpage Magazine to Breitbart. Within the Trump administration there is this spirit of vicious nationalism. One can see this in Stephan Miller, Trump’s biggest White House advisor, and an American Jew. Miller’s wantonness when it comes to immigration is so severe that even one White House adviser said that he enjoys looking at the pictures of children being separated from their families at the border, and likened Miller to the Nazi SS:

“Stephen actually enjoys seeing those pictures at the border … He’s a twisted guy, the way he was raised and picked on. There’s always been a way he’s gone about this. He’s Waffen-SS.”

Miller’s history of backing nationalism goes back to the early 2000s when he collaborated with the known American Identitarian, Richard Spencer, to organize a debate on immigration which included the racist writer, Peter Brimelow, as Mother Jones reported:

“Spencer and Miller first came to know each other in the late 2000s as students at Duke University, where they both belonged to the Duke Conservative Union. Miller earned notice for standing up for white lacrosse players falsely accused in 2006 of gang raping a black woman. Spencer also defended the Duke lacrosse players, writing about the case for Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative, which later hired him as an editor.

Spencer told me that at Duke, Miller helped him with fundraising and promotion for an on-campus debate on immigration policy that Spencer organized in 2007, featuring influential white nationalist Peter Brimelow.”

The acceleration of nationalism was greatly precipitated by the Euro-obsessed Counter-Jihad network, which was solidified as an international movement in 2007 through the Counterjihad Summit in the EU Parliament in Brussels. While the conference was organized by the Flemish neo-Nazi politician Filip DeWinter, there was the Jewish American activist Christine Brim, who was the spokesperson for a shell group, the Center for Vigilant Freedom, which financed the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels.

Within this nationalist circle is an idol of the Counterjihad, the eugenist Dutch politician Geert Wilders who supports “gay rights, the legality of euthanasia, embryo selection and abortion,” and whose Freedom Party in 2017 won a substantial amount of seats in the Dutch parliament. But, Geert’s campaign was not mainly funded by Dutch people, but by a Jewish American industrialist named Bob Shillman through a Jewish American nationalist organization, the Horowitz Freedom Center.

Its not just in Western Europe where these political elements will push nationalism, but in the East as well. For example, there was “Team B,” a group of think tankers who would produce propaganda to justify US foreign policy, and which was created under the Ford administration and approved by the then director of the CIA, George HW Bush. Team B’s creation was partially thanks to a 1974 publication by Albert Wohlstetter, an American Jew who believed that tougher policies needed to be done against the Soviet Union. Such policies would include arming the Islamic Mujahideen, such as in Afghanistan.

Team B was chaired by Richard Pipes, an American Jewish think tanker and the father of known ‘counter-jihadist’, Daniel Pipes. Its no wonder that Daniel Pipes backed the arming of the Afghan Mujahideen, stating, “I think it was the right thing to do … If anything, the radical Islamists were seen as more vehemently anti-Soviet.” (See Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, p. 288) In the early 2000s Richard Pipes pushed for Chechen nationalism against the Russians. For example, in 2004 Richard Pipes wrote an article entitled, Give The Chechens A Land Of Their Own, in which he lobbied for the creation of a Muslim Chechen state. In the article he stated that:

“Unfortunately, Russia’s leaders, and to some extent the populace, are loath to grant them independence – in part because of a patrimonial mentality that inhibits them from surrendering any territory that was ever part of the Russian homeland, and in part because they fear that granting the Chechens sovereignty would lead to a greater unraveling of their federation.” 

There are other examples of American Jews backing tribalism and nationalism, such as Pemela Geller who collaborates with a Danish Nazi named Anders Gravers Peterson under the guise of ‘fighting Islam.’

These nefarious and insidious agents of chaos are like those who the prophet warned about when he lamented on the wickedness of the Jews:

“Their works are works of iniquity,

And the act of violence is in their hands.

Their feet run to evil,

And they make haste to shed innocent blood” (Isaiah 59:7)

These agents of Belial who have rejected the God of Israel, who have exited with contempt the Tent of Shem, they call for revolution, for revolt, a revolt against order and justice, a revolt of the mob — with thoughts of race and egoism — that leads to bloodshed, reminding us of the sacred warning of the prophet:

“And as for our iniquities, we know them:

In transgressing and lying against the Lord,

And departing from our God,

Speaking oppression and revolt,

Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.”

Notice these words: oppression and revolt. We see this in the agents of chaos above, who push for oppression — the oppressive system of Darwinism — and revolt, or the nationalist revolution that has been taking place in Europe. Look to the words of the prophet:

“truth is fallen in the street,

And equity cannot enter.” (Isaiah 59:14)

When is it clearer that the truth has fallen to the street, than when mobs flood the streets, with acrimonious rage, violence and bloodshed? In such a state equity cannot enter, for justice is scourged and crucified. But these groups of revolt and oppression, who push for egoism and tribalism, they have rejected their Messiah Who, in the words of the same prophet will bring forth justice to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1). And those who follow such persons of the abyss, such sons of Belial, they too will be swept in the torrent of the sinister. As Isaiah declared:

“They hatch vipers’ eggs and weave the spider’s web;

He who eats of their eggs dies,

And from that which is crushed a viper breaks out.” (Isaiah 59:5)

And surely are the words of Christ fitting for these advancers of antichrist: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7)