![“If You Don’t Come Up Again, Goldstein,” From Life, December 21, 1899 [921x634 - 79KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/YZrDPv.jpg){kind=link}
They have the race traitor problem too.
I think most of the high-profile 'Nazis' that never manage to accomplish anything or push our knowledge or research forward are controlled ops to try to force racial solidarity in jews, and I think this has been true for centuries now.
In another article, here and on Voat, I showed that the book 'The Klansman', supposedly written in 1905 by Thomas Dixon, was actually a controlled op, and they let it slip regarding a few passages regarding diamonds and Africans (implicitly, the Bantu). I'll copy it here if anyone cares.
The jews are naturally paranoid, and it makes selling race loyalty easier for them. Indeed, the mafias of the 1930s-onward were composed near-totally of jews at the peak of their race loyalty.
Sometime circa 2014 they also discovered their error, (in this case, trying to misattribute it to Charles Darwin, etc). A number of 'white supremacist' sites also changed their narrative at the same time, which suggests those site are controlled ops too (including one very prominent one...).
We can lean on each other to study and learn, but we need to find the courage to be our own heros. One of the most insidious jewish tricks is to convince us someone will save us, when in reality there is nobody there.
I believe almost all the white supremacist groups are controlled by the FBI, or at least informants have gotten in most of them. Them and the militias. Proud Boys was run by a Cuban latino and it later came out he was an FBI informant. Mike the Kike's group has been an ADL honeypot for years. The only group (I think) wasn't part of controlled ops was the Northwest Front and the only reason why I believe that is other white supremacist groups openly attacked it for years. The NF is also a case study as to why a one-man run organization doesn't work.
Sometime circa 2014 they also discovered their error, and tried to cover it up by befuddling the issue
Interesting, but what do you mean? That the passage being discussed (Africa's wealth being lost on the locals) is actually written by Dixon? I don't understand what "error" you're talking about, as that book was inherently "racist" and said passage wouldn't be out of context. That article goes on to claim that John Huppenthal continually misattributed the quote to Darwin. Was that the error you speak of? The the goyim found out it wasn't true? I dunno, 'cause you're saying that 'white supremacist' websites changed their tune, and I'm just trying to figure out the sheet-music here. I don't know what tune is changing in to what.
They were talking about diamonds as wealth in 1905, at a time when diamonds didn't have industrial, commercial, or commodity value.
As a matter of fact, only jews found diamonds interesting at the time, but the problem was that diamonds didn't have any value at the time. They didn't have commodity value until (((Edward Bernays'))) ~40 years later. Industrial use for diamonds followed even later, in the mid 1950s.
Again, The Clansman was written in 1905, long before diamonds had any value to anyone except jews (of which, they admit a millenia-long love affair with diamonds). That's why the passage had to be misdirected to Darwin - it confuses the whole matter.
Yeah, I know all about De Beers, Edward Bernays and how they made said industry out of nothing. So you're saying that they were already planning, at the time, to introduce diamonds in the markets as a way to fleece goyim— and that the author "oopsied" in a moment of hubristic prose? Or that said book was actually written much-later than stated, and this dating-detail was overlooked by the editor? I guess I just don't see how them lying about diamonds has to do with racial loyalty. What narrative did they change, and to what? That jews aren't entirely forthright about their motives? That the book is/was a jewish-racial-cohesion-motivator? Pardon my autism.
(post is archived)