A member of EliteFitness once put it to me like this:
"Jews have disproportionate influence."
Meaning, it's not that they control the world...it's just that they have a disproportionate level of control.
A former member of Getbig put it to me this way:
"Jews hold the cards...but they are born to lose."
I always interpreted that as: even if Jews do control 100% of property on the planet [which they don't], that if they ever try to do anything about it, Whites will put them in their place, as we outnumber them 60 to 1.
I also look at it this way:
IMO, Jews tried to take Whites out by force twice [both in WWI and in WWII].
It resulted in two world wars and a [regardless of how exaggerated it may be] Holocaust.
Jews haven't attempted anything close to that since WWII, so it's safe to say that the events that happened had a strong psychological impact on them.
It's a "Fuck around and find out" thing.
If Jews try to starve us out again like the Rothschild and other scum did to Germans in WWII, there will be another Holocaust.
It's not happening now because we're all eating. Jews are playing the long game, and using soft power. They haven't risked hard power since Hitler.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what Hitler did or didn't do. Jews would have just fabricated him in media anyway. Thats what Jews do - use their media clout to lie, basically. To get White people to hate themselves, etc.
That all being said:
From what I can tell, Jews will be successful at eliminating White people from the world population by 2150.
So, yeah...that's sad to me.
It can only happen with our consent basically. But it has been...and I don't see that changing.
Here's a perfect example of changing the narrative or, in this case, completely flipping it.
The section of a larger article below was from Jewish, but NON-Jewish-supremacist, writer Ron Unz who writes about how Jewish supremacists completely flipped the narrative on notorious pedophile rapist and murderer Leo Frank. Discussed is how
Jewish supremacists buried a trial as "important to the history of black progress in America as such landmark legal verdicts as Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board"....because the trial involved a Jewish rapist/pedophile/murderer....which proves Jewish involvement in civil rights was never about social justice but rather about instilling White guilt and warping history so non-Jews are scapegoated. Basically, a Jewish pedo/rapist/murderer rapes and kills an underage Irish girl and Jewish supremacists turn that around to be the biggest persecution of a Jew in the US history, try to frame various Black men, and start a mafia group called the ADL to defame non-Jews and censor free speech around the world for the next 100 plus years and counting.
I know you're familiar with Leo Frank, ADL, etc.... but read just how intricately they totally flipped everything around about Leo Frank, politicized and weaponized it, like another event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this section of a larger article:
"........moreover, the bulk of that long article had recounted the origins of the ADL just over a century ago. The organization had been founded to protect Leo Frank, a notorious pedophile rapist and murderer, who attempted to secure his freedom by orchestrating the lynching of a couple of completely innocent black men, and I had summarized this shocking story earlier this year:
As a further example of the widely promoted but apparently fraudulent history, the Jewish writers who have overwhelmingly dominated accounts of the Frank case have frequently claimed that it sparked the revival of the Ku Klux Klan soon afterward, with the group of citizens responsible for Frank’s 1915 lynching supposedly serving as the inspiration for William Simmons’ reestablishment of that organization a couple of years later. But there seems no evidence for this. Indeed, Simmons strongly emphasized the philo-Semitic nature of his new organization, which attracted considerable Jewish membership.
The primary factor behind the rebirth of the KKK was almost certainly the 1917 release of D.W. Griffith’s overwhelmingly popular landmark film Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Klan of the Reconstruction Era. Given that the American film industry was so overwhelmingly Jewish at the time and the film’s financial backers and leading Southern distributors came from that same background, it could be plausibly argued that the Jewish contribution to the creation of the 1920s Klan was a very crucial one, while the revenue from the film’s distribution throughout the South actually financed Samuel Goldwyn’s creation of MGM, Hollywood’s leading studio.
In their introduction, the NOI authors make the fascinating point that the larger historical meaning of the Frank case in American racial history has been entirely lost. Prior to that trial, it was unprecedented for Southern courts to allow black testimony against a white man, let alone against a wealthy man being tried on serious charges; but the horrific nature of the crime and Conley’s role as the sole witness required a break from that longstanding tradition. Thus, the authors not unreasonably argued that the Frank case may have been as important to the history of black progress in America as such landmark legal verdicts as Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board. But since almost the entire historical narrative has been produced by fervent Jewish advocates, these facts have been completely obscured and the case entirely misrepresented as an example of anti-Semitic persecution and public murder.
Let us summarize what seems to be the solidly established factual history of the Frank case, quite different than the traditional narrative. There is not the slightest evidence that Frank’s Jewish background was a factor behind his arrest and conviction, nor the death sentence he received. The case set a remarkable precedent in Southern courtroom history with the testimony of a black man playing a central role in a white man’s conviction. From the earliest stages of the murder investigation, Frank and his allies continually attempted to implicate a series of different innocent blacks by planting false evidence and using bribes to solicit perjured testimony, while the exceptionally harsh racial rhetoric that Frank and his attorneys directed towards those blacks was presumably intended to provoke their public lynching. Yet despite all these attempts by the Frank forces to play upon the notorious racial sentiments of the white Southerners of that era, the latter saw through these schemes and Frank was the one sentenced to hang for his rape and murder of that young girl.
Now suppose that all the facts of this famous case were exactly unchanged except that Frank had been a white Gentile. Surely the trial would be ranked as one of the greatest racial turning points in American history, perhaps even overshadowing Brown v. Board because of the extent of popular sentiment, and it would have been given a central place in all our modern textbooks. Meanwhile, Frank, his lawyers, and his heavy financial backers would probably be cast as among the vilest racial villains in all of American history for their repeated attempts to foment the lynching of various innocent blacks so that a wealthy white rapist and murderer could walk free. But because Frank was Jewish rather than Christian, this remarkable history has been completely inverted for over one hundred years by our Jewish-dominated media and historiography.
These are the important consequences that derive from control of the narrative and the flow of information, which allows murderers to be transmuted into martyrs and villains into heroes. The ADL was founded just over a century ago with the central goal of preventing a Jewish rapist and killer from being held legally accountable for his crimes, and over the decades, it eventually metastasized into a secret political police force not entirely dissimilar from the widely despised East German Stasi, but with its central goal seeming to be the maintenance of overwhelming Jewish control in a society that is 98% non-Jewish.
We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for an organization with such origins and such recent history to be granted enormous influence over the distribution of information across our Internet."
-------------------------
This snippet below from Chabad is just a very, very tiny part of the mafia-like playbook.
Where it says "the world to come" they're referring to after non-Jews have been exterminated. Read Christopher Jon Bjerknes book "Beware the World to Come" to break down Talmud and Kabbalah speak. There are a lot of phrases, words, and ideas that sound benign to many Jews and practically all non-Jews but have different esoteric meaning to Jewish supremacists. Even the actual meaning of "Shalom" would mean something sinister to non-Jews but peaceful to Jewish supremacists because "a world of their own" without gentiles would be peaceful(to them).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uqN8sIksj60x/What Bjerknes writes about sounds crazy but he's only relating codified Jewish beliefs and you can listen to dozens of rabbis online saying the same things. A Jewish scholar would recognize everything Bjerknes is saying. It's kind of like how Black Hebrew Israelites sound insane and racist to many but a lot of what they are saying is Jewish beliefs verbatim. There's a video of a racist Black Hebrew Israelite woman on a plane screaming about Jacob and Esau, extermination, and so on but she's coopting and repeating Jewish writings which anyone can hear actual rabbis saying online and no one is alarmed.
