Jews are over 100 times more likely to be billionaires than everyone else on earth. 11.6% of the world’s billionaires are Jewish, despite Jews accounting for 0.2% of the world’s population. They are 25% of the world’s 400 most wealthy individuals. 20% of Britain’s “Super Rich” are Jewish—and most of them are immigrants. Five of the top seven wealthiest Australians are Jewish. Jews are 25% of Canada’s billionaires (at roughly 1% of the population), 13% of Brazil’s (at 0.5% of the population), and 30% of the Ukraine’s (at roughly 1-2% of the population). Jews are roughly 17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population. 46% of Jews earn more than $100,000 a year, compared to 19% among all Americans. In 1987, Nathaniel Weyl found 23% of American billionaires were Jewish, whereas for the last decade, the number has settled in at around 35%. This makes sense, given the increasing financialization of our economy, driven in no small part by the uniquely Jewish “Greed is Good” ethos of the 1980s. Today, six of the twenty leading venture capital funds in the US belong to Jews, according to Forbes.
According to Danny Halperin, described as “Israel’s former economic attaché to Washington,” the Jews are fabulously wealthy because, unlike the Irish, for example, “who studied less and initiated less,” the Jews studied harder and “didn’t integrate into traditional banking, so they established the investment banking.” What that really means of course is that the Jews were able to re-orient the financial sector to their benefit based in no small part on the unscrupulousness of usury and compound interest (imagine Paul Joseph Watson’s shock that Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg was Jewish). What we are witnessing today is a cascade effect, the consequence of over a century of policies designed specifically to favor a select coterie of power brokers at the expense of all others. The wealth of the 2,200 billionaires in the world jumped 18% from 2017 to 2018, and together their personal wealth reached $9.1 trillion. When we talk about neo-liberalism, we must understand that it is a system predicated on exponential growth, be it population growth, consumer base, GDP, or any number of other tributaries to global capital’s ocean of resources. Further, from NLCPR, while the money supply has increased exponentially:
We have also had an exponential population growth, so while the money supply has been growing, so has the population. That tends to maintain a sense of "proportion" and why we talk of bailouts in the trillions today as if that were normal—a number unimaginable a generation ago…In the beginning of exponential growth, the numbers are small. Over your life time, your $1 could grow to $2000, and these are countable numbers. There doesn’t seem to be anything outrageous. However, when you look at people that are further up the curve, old money, families and institutions that were millionaires in the Great Depression, their wealth has skyrocketed to astronomical levels. This has resulted in a core group of tightly interconnected powerful corporations that dominate worldwide commerce, and most of them are financial corporations.
The laissez-faire economics of the 1920s were very clearly not without consequence, and the seeds of Jewish control of capital and the money supply also facilitated the purchase of media outlets and hence control of the explosion of mass media, which was able to frame the narrative of capitalism über alles as a triumph of good over evil when in reality it was a triumph of the almighty dollar over the will. This is not to say that free markets do not have their place to an extent, nor is it to diminish the horrors of communism. Simply put, communism was a means to an end regarding Jewish power, and whether it be communism or unfettered capitalism, we end up in the same place. As Joe Sobran writes:
In Germany, especially after Jewish-led Communist insurrections there and in Hungary and Romania, Hitler could argue plausibly that Soviet Communism showed what the Jews meant to do to other countries. Traditional suspicion was easily raised to a hysteria that found persecution not only permissible, but prudent. In America, Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest, warned of Jewish Bolshevism too, cataloguing the real Jewish names of the Soviet ruling circles and accusing the Soviet regime of murdering 20 million Christians (a figure that later turned out to be far too low, according to Solzhenitsyn and others). Nevertheless, Stalin enjoyed widespread support from Jews around the world, even after his bloody purge of most Jewish members of the Soviet hierarchy.
Hitler was correct in his assessment of Jewish interests to the East, but was equally correct about their interests to the West. One need look no further than the Balfour Declaration for evidence of the inextricable relationship between Jewish capital and Western foreign policy. Since at least the 19th century, as L.G. Pine wrote, “the Jews have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual.” Britain, it should be noted, initiated both World Wars and the Jews’ control over the City of London allows for the tail to continue wagging the dog. Jewish intermarriage into the native “elite” helped facilitate their control over our financial, media, academic, and other key institutions, from South Africa to Australia to Canada, and especially the United States. The inter-connectedness of global economies, information sectors, and entertainment now makes it so that Jewish influence is no longer constrained by geography and allows for them to have a far greater ability to penetrate areas with little to no Jewish presence “on the ground” at all. Any obstacles must be knocked down so that the ability of neo-liberalism’s architects may flourish regardless of the environ. As Mark Dyal writes:
Homogeneity is the key that unlocks the ontological functions of multiculturalism. While globalists, corporate spokesmen, political leaders, and academics speak in glowing terms of a relativist multicultural humanism based on political and economic freedom, they are actively engaged in a two-pronged attack on human particularity and the defense thereof. First, multiculturalism is a moral regime that links progressive liberal ideas of tolerance, ecumenicalism, and cosmopolitanism in order to aggressively condemn racism or pride in one’s particularity. This moral and epistemological element links the liberal intelligentsia with Leftist ideologues and activists, not only against the world’s various media-created racist and fascist villains, but also in the service of the liberal State and capitalism.
Second, the State, having finally shed the pretense of existing as the will of a people, uses this moral regime at the bidding of the capitalist oligarchs…to spread a monolithic culture of liberal politics, feminism, anti-racism, and identity-based hyper-consumption. It calls for “one world, one race,”—the flip side of multiculturalism—and actively undermines any attempts to preserve the standards, values, and traditions of local peoples, wherever they exist. Just as the State uses the World Trade Organization and World Monetary Fund to control the underdevelopment of the Third World, it uses global capitalism as a talisman to unlock any societies, peoples, States, or regions that remain overly local, xenophobic, or archaic, essentially capturing space for the purpose of its homogeneic valuation. But when the talisman does not properly entice, war is an ever-present possibility.
Strong and particularist national governments are major obstacles to the neo-liberal project. Atomized post-industrial countries produce great consumers and fractured, warring micro-states pose no threat to counter-balance globalism, they produce refugees who can be used to continue to flood the West, and the military-industrial complex makes a killing—literally and figuratively. If the wars don’t go the way they want, the globalist power brokers can always engineer fake humanitarian crises such as those at what used to be a border in the south of the United States, Incorporated. The looming war in Venezuela is estimated to produce eight million refugees—real ones—who will of course need a soft landing spot right here in the country that started the whole thing, along with Israeli and Brazilian support. So whether real or ersatz, the flow of migrants/refugees must continue into the West unabated. These aliens, with lower impulse control and high time preference, make for great consumers, and are usually much more violent than native whites, serving the dual purpose of buoying the consumer economy and terrorizing whites into anarcho-tyrannical compliance as tax cattle and consumers in their own right; with no ties to their nation, community, or even neighbors, many whites retreat inward and look to consumer goods and passive entertainment to fill the void. Others imbibe the propaganda/exhortations to hedonistic and/or nihilistic excess but with a similar shot in the arm to the consumer economy. These are not people purchasing property, growing a nest-egg, and otherwise investing in the future.
Whether First or Third World, neo-liberal rapaciousness knows no bounds, and the ideological constructs which reinforce White Guilt allow for blame to remain centered on whites for historical and contemporary ills both real, yet exaggerated, and imagined, while Jews continue to practice their ruthless exploitation of the Global South. You know how whites are blamed for raping Africa for its people and natural resources? Well, contemporaneously that would be the Chinese, though that doesn’t fit the narrative, and historically the Jews have had a pretty heavy hand in it, from the slave trade to the diamond trade. Jews, by the way, are 26.4% of South Africa’s wealthiest individuals whilst representing an absurdly small .014% of the population. It should be noted here that the virulently anti-white Economic Freedom Fighters Party, helmed by Julius Malema, derives its funding from Jewish-Swazi billionaire Nathan Kirsh. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler has made a fortune from the country’s natural resources through his political connections and the exploitation of offshore tax havens:
Gertler has stakes in companies that control 9.6 percent of world cobalt production, based on U.S. Geological Survey data and company figures.That’s just the beginning of Gertler’s influence in Congo, the largest country of sub-Saharan Africa, with the world’s richest deposits of cobalt and major reserves of copper, diamonds, gold, tin and coltan, an ore containing the metal tantalum, which is used in consumer electronics. His Gibraltar- registered Fleurette Properties Ltd. owns stakes in various Congolese mines through at least 60 holding companies in offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands. Gertler, whose grandfather co-founded Israel’s diamond exchange in 1947, arrived in Congo in 1997 seeking rough diamonds. The 23-year-old trader struck a deep friendship with Joseph Kabila, who then headed the Congolese army and today is the nation’s president. Since those early days, Gertler has invested in iron ore, gold, cobalt and copper as well as agriculture, oil and banking. In the process, he’s built up a net worth of at least $2.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He’s also acquired a roster of critics. Many of the government’s deals with Gertler deprive Congo’s 68 million people of badly needed funds, according to the London-based anticorruption group Global Witness and lawmakers from Congo and the U.K., the country’s second-biggest aid donor after the U.S. “Dan Gertler is essentially looting Congo at the expense of its people,” says Jean Pierre Muteba, the head of a group of nongovernmental organizations that monitor the mining sector in Katanga province, where most of Congo’s copper is located.
For men like Kirsh, Gertler, and George Soros, anti-white rhetoric and liberal platitudes help run cover for their deeply unethical profit-motive-above-all, their exploitation of native peoples, their market manipulation and financial speculation, and their efforts to undermine of individual nations’ sovereignty. There is nothing humanitarian about someone like Soros’s funding of “humanitarian aid” non-governmental organizations and charities. There is a reason Brexit has been stymied against the will of the people and Donald Trump’s pro-nationalist MAGA has quickly turned into MIGA. Global capital, driven chiefly by Jewish financiers and their extreme in-group preferences, must break the backs of individual nation-states and keep the developing world fractured in order to keep us subservient to their globalist agenda. The financial windfalls have been incredible, and from the Congo to the North Sea, the unfettered movement of people and goods remains central to the neo-liberal project. Everywhere must be made exactly the same, a global strip mall of atomized automatons. The ultimate erasure of all unique peoples is the end-game in order to create the perfectly dumb, de-racinated consumer. More on this next time.
 From a New York Times feature published last year by Michael Steinberger:
“In the 1990s, [Soros] was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe…Soros donated more than $500,000 to a group called Best for Britain, led by Malloch-Brown, that plans to push for a second referendum to undo Brexit.”