Jared Taylor on the left contradicting itself regarding the Great Replacement:
Situation Room is a photograph taken by White House photographer Pete Souza in its namesake, the White House Situation Room, at 4:05 pm on May 1, 2011. The photograph shows President of the United States Barack Obama along with his national security team, receiving live updates from Operation Neptune Spear, which led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda.
Here’s a fact about the photo that hardly anyone noticed, let alone understood the significance of:
As a Catholic counter, Graziano misses almost nothing. In the famous war room photograph of White House officials watching Navy SEALs take out Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, he notes (citing Dario Fabbri’s article “The Roman Factor,” published in Limes), “nine are Catholic or received a Jesuit education.” In Obama’s second term, the second, third, fourth, and fifth positions in the line of succession were held by Catholics: Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House John Boehner, President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy, and Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition, Catholics comprised “more than one-third of the members of the government, all of the most important military positions, two-thirds of the Supreme Court and 38 percent of US governors.”
On May 1, 2011, the official photographer Pete Souza takes the snapshot symbol of the killing of bin Laden. In a room adjacent to the Situation Room, the top national security officers are apprehensive about the last minutes of the sheikh of terror’s life. Out of thirteen people identified in photo 2 – including Obama and Clinton – nine are Catholic or have received Jesuit education. These are Joe Biden, Denis McDonough, Robert Gates, Mike Mullen, Tom Donilon, William Daley, Audrey Tomason, John Brennan and James Clapper. The distance between the two historical moments appears exorbitant. In just over fifty years the percentage of Catholics out of the total population has remained almost unchanged (around 25%), but their political and cultural influence has largely gone beyond the limits of demography. To the point that Kennedy’s speech, although necessary, now sounds anachronistic. Never have so many Catholics held the highest government, military and judicial offices in the United States simultaneously.
— Dario Fabbri
Why indeed don’t Americans notice thing like this?
In the words of Georgetown University’s Jacques Berlinerblau, the Bible as a political document “is to clear and coherent political deliberation as sleet, fog, hail and flash floods are to highway safety.” “American Protestants,” agrees historian Gaetano Salvemini, “have their heart in the right place and their head nowhere: they do not even realize the importance of the fact that half of their diplomatic staff (Catholic or not) has passed through schools run by Jesuits.” As late as 1950, Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service — President Bill Clinton’s alma mater — was the only American university offering a course for diplomats.
Here’s the photo with annotations:
Here are the nine Roman Catholic and/or Jesuit trained Obama’s advisors in the photo, out of the 12 that have been identified:
1. Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States. Biden is a Roman Catholic and has received honorary degrees from two Jesuit universities, the University of Scranton (1976) and Saint Joseph’s University (1981). His son Hunter was Jesuit trained at Georgetown University, the Jesuit headquarters and power base in America located in Washington, D.C. After graduating from Georgetown with a BA, he served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and in 2008 he lobbied for five Jesuit universities, including University of Scranton, which is located in his father’s hometown. Hunter Biden is thus a clear case of a “Jesuit of the short robe”, i.e., not officially a member of the Jesuit order, but a coadjutor and totally in league with them.
2. Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor. McDonough was raised in a devout Irish Catholic family. He graduated with a BA from Saint John’s University, a Benedictine Catholic university, and with a MS from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, which was mentioned in the book review above. In a 2012 White House ceremony for Cath school leaders, he said that the influence of the Sisters of St. Joseph at St. Croix Catholic elementary and Benedictine monks of Saint John’s University enable him to “make well-rounded and just recommendations to the president”. His brother Kevin is a Catholic priest and was the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for 17 years.
3. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. Gates has a PhD from Georgetown University and also received an honorary degree from there in 2014.
4. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen is a Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools.
5. Tom Donilon, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Donilon is a Roman Catholic, attended a Catholic high school, and graduated with a BA from the Catholic University of America. His wife Cathy Russell, a longtime advisor to Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden, has a BA from Jesuit Boston College, and brother Mike Donilon, also a longtime advisor to Biden, has a BA and JD from Georgetown University.
7. Audrey Tomason, Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council. Tomason is a Roman Catholic, at least according to Dario Fabbri.
8. John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan graduated from a Catholic high school and has a BA from Fordham University, the Jesuit university in New York City.
9. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper has a MA from St. Mary’s University, a Marianist Catholic university in Texas, and held the position of Georgetown University’s Intelligence and National Security Alliance Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Intelligence for the 2006–2007 academic year.
In addition to that, these two have clear ties to the Jesuits through their spouses:
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Her equally (in)famous husband Bill Clinton has a BS from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and he’s publicly said that Carroll Quigley, his professor there, was a great influence to him.
Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President. Blinken is the only Jewish advisor on the photo, and his wife Evan Ryan, who served as an Assistant Secretary of State and an advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, was Jesuit trained at Boston College.
The last identified advisor was Brigadier General Marshall B. Webb, Assistant Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. He’s the only one who isn’t a Roman Catholic, Jesuit trained, or tied to the Jesuits.
Obama’s own Jesuit connections
Now, most people know that Barack Obama worked extensively in community organizing. But was not so well-known, however, is that this community organizing was done when Obama was hired by a lay Catholic minister, Jerry Kellman, as lead organizer for a Chicago organization called the “Developing Communities Project”, which was funded by Chicago’s south-side Catholic churches. What is also most interesting is that “Obama’s Chicago mentor” Gregory Galluzzo was a Jesuit priest; Obama’s Chief Speechwriter, Jon Favreau, is a Jesuit-trained “ethics” professor; Obama’s Senior Military and Foreign Policy Advisor, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, was Jesuit-trained; and Obama’s Deputy Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, was Jesuit-trained. And he has chosen a Jesuit-controlled Joe Biden as his vice-president! Do you think that all of Mr. Obama’s Jesuit connections are mere coincidences? And have you wondered why the other side ran “a corpse” and a “hockey mum” against him? To ensure his victory!
— P. D. Stuart, Codeword Barbelon – Danger in the Vatican: The Sons of Loyola and Their Plans for World Domination… Book 1, p. 183
Jerry Kellman was born Jewish and became a disciple of Saul Alinsky in the early 1970s. In 1983 Kellman converted to Catholicism, and he has a Master of Divinity from Jesuit Loyola University Chicago.
The “corpse” Stuart is referring to, is of course John McCain. McCain and his wife Cindy were friends with Jesuit priest Edward Reese. Two of McCain’s sons attended Brophy College Preparatory, a Jesuit high school in Phoenix, where Reese was then the president.
And about Obama’s other Chicago mentor, Gregory Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest and head of the Gamaliel Foundation:
“Alinsky said, ‘We have to create an organization that allows people to have a voice in the political decisions that affect their lives,’” said Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest. “If Moses acted like most clergy he would have gone down to the slave camps of Egypt and opened a food pantry. If Moses would have done that we never would have heard of Moses. He understood that the problem was that they were working under oppression.”
Stanley Kurtz in the conservative National Review:
So, yes, as the New York Times claims, Obama was effectively proselytizing for the Catholic church. But this was part of a larger, far more questionable and controversial deal. Effectively it was an attempt by Galluzzo, Kellman, and Obama to commandeer local Catholic congregations from within, turning them into political shock troops in their hardball Alinskyite organizing ventures.
In my book Radical-in-Chief, I lay out Galluzzo’s Catholic strategy and show the sort of events he encouraged his new congregational recruits to participate in: trapping a U.S. senator in a ladies room, pushing for a school to be named after anti-American heroes, singling out and intimidating opponents by calling them “enemies of the community,” and besieging them at their homes. Obama worked directly with UNO of Chicago during his organizing days, and funded his Alinskyite friends to run these tactics for years thereafter from his position on the boards of several left-leaning Chicago foundations.
I don’t know if Kurtz just doesn’t realize it or if he knows more about the Jesuits than he lets on, but when you think about it, that actually makes perfect sense. Because the Jesuits are inherently anti-American; they came to America to infiltrate and subvert the originally white protestant nation and turn it from a free constitutional republic to a totalitarian empire. And all things considered, they have obviously succeeded in it quite well.
Galluzzo is not a “rogue Jesuit”, he’s probably just been practicing classic Jesuit casuistry, where the “end justifies the means”, as per Jesuit writers throughout history. Or if he was, why would Obama still have been their man and surrounded himself with dozens of Jesuit coadjutors during his presidency? Obviously the Jesuits liked what Galluzzo and Kellman had been doing and what kind of a politician they had created in Obama.
Jesuits and “social justice”
For the Jesuits, promoting “social justice”, like what Obama’s mentors Chicago mentors Galluzzo and Kellman have been involved with, is just a means to an end; it’s a way to weaken and demoralize the already subverted nation even further, to divide and conquer, to create order out of chaos.
Well, what has the “social justice” movement in America done anyway, other than polarized the nation, pitted women and against men, whites against blacks etc.? And disenfranchised and demoralized the strongest element and maintaining force of the nation, aka white men, traditionally especially white protestant men? Because the whole notion of social injustice implies there’s an oppressor, and in the American “social justice” narrative it’s been the white man, while women and racial minorities, especially black people, have been seen as the oppressed class.
Jesuit priest Richard McSorley (1914-2002), who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. among other things, was a prominent early social justice advocate, and he founded and headed the Georgetown University Center for Peace Studies. He was also a supporter and friend of Georgetown graduate Bill Clinton. McSorley was influenced by another Jesuit priest, John Large Jr., who also marched with King before his death in 1963. LaFarge started pushing the “anti-racist” narrative already in the 1930s, around the same time as European communists popularized the word “racism” as a tool demonize nationalism, and founded the Catholic Interracial Council of New York, which later became a part of the National Catholic Conference on Interracial Justice.
Osama bin Laden a CIA asset and already dead in 2001?
Without going deeper into the subject in this article, it should be noted that 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag, and a staged event. That is, Osama bin Laden had nothing to with it, unless he was a willing patsy. That might also have been the case, because he was allegedly a CIA asset under the name “Tim Osman”.
Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has just completed a detailed history of bin Laden’s career detailing his secret funding and logistical support to terrorist organizations beginning from his early CIA-supported roots in the 1980s as a “freedom fighter” through to the present day.
Tim Osman (Ossman) has become better known as Osama Bin Laden. “Tim Osman” was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. […] There is some evidence that Tim Osman … visited the White House. There is certainty that Tim Osman toured some U.S. military bases, even receiving special demonstrations of the latest equipment. Why hasn’t this been reported in the major media?
About bin Laden’s death from the same article:
In his book “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?“, the political analyst and philosopher Professor David Ray Griffin, former emeritus professor at California’s Claremont School of Theology, it is provoking shock waves – for it goes into far more detail about his supposed death and suggests there has been a cover-up by the West.
The book claims that Bin Laden died of kidney failure, or a linked complaint, on December 13, 2001, while living in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains close to the border with Waziristan. His burial took place within 24 hours, in line with religious rules, and in an unmarked grave, which is a Wahhabi custom.
Both Fox News and New York Times also reported bin Laden’s death back then. So did he die then or in May 2011 in Operation Neptune Fear, which the photo Situation Room is related to? Look at the evidence gathered and presented by Michael Rivero and decide for yourself. And more discussion about bin Laden and his death here.
Either way, the Jesuits were obviously controlling the narrative through their agents.
The mantra coined by the late great Bob Whitaker:
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Or, if not created, the word “racism” was at least popularized by communists in the 1930s. Russian Jewish communist leader Leon Trotsky used it in his treatise on national socialism:
In order to raise it above history, the nation is given the support of the race. History is viewed as the emanation of the race. The qualities of the race are construed without relation to changing social conditions. Rejecting “economic thought” as base, National Socialism descends a stage lower: from economic materialism it appeals to zoologic materialism.
The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. In order to create the religion of pure German blood, Hitler was obliged to borrow at second hand the ideas of racism from a Frenchman, Count Gobineau , a diplomat and a literary dilettante. Hitler found the political methodology ready-made in Italy, where Mussolini had borrowed largely from the Marxist theory of the class struggle. Marxism itself is the fruit of union among German philosophy, French history, and British economics. To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.
The immense poverty of National Socialist philosophy did not, of course, hinder the academic sciences from entering Hitler’s wake with all sails unfurled, once his victory was sufficiently plain. For the majority of the professorial rabble, the years of the Weimar regime were periods of riot and alarm. Historians, economists, jurists, and philosophers were lost in guesswork as to which of the contending criteria of truth was right that is, which of the camps would turn out in the end the master of the situation. The fascist dictatorship eliminates the doubts of the Fausts and the vacillations of the Hamlets of the university rostrums. Coming out of the twilight of parliamentary relativity, knowledge once again enters into the kingdom of absolutes. Einstein has been obliged to pitch his tent outside the boundaries of Germany.
On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race. Worthy of attention is the fact that the leaders of National Socialism are not native Germans but interlopers from Austria, like Hitler himself, from the former Baltic provinces of the Czar’s empire, like Rosenberg; and from colonial countries, like Hess, who is Hitler’s present alternate for the party leadership.  A barbarous din of nationalisms on the frontiers of civilization was required in order to instill into its “leaders” those ideas which later found response in the hearts of the most barbarous classes in Germany.
Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.
- Leon Trotsky, 1933
Clearly, the proletarian internationalist Trotsky was trying to demonize all nationalism, especially in Europe, by equating it to German national socialism (and fascism). That’s what the label “racist” is for, has always been, and always will. To corroborate this I quote Samuel Francis, who reviews the book titled “Racism” by another communist from the 1930s, German Jewish Magnus Hirschfeld:
As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld’s book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word “racism” and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.
Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”
In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of “Pan-Humanism:” “The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship–that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].”
“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.
But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.
- Samuel Francis, 1999
What is labeled as “racism” is in reality, in most cases and for all intents and purposes, in-group favoritism, which is completely natural for all races. It’s a survival strategy based on biology:
In a meta-analysis and review of the effect of oxytocin on social behavior done by Carsten De Dreu, the research reviewed shows that oxytocin enables the development of trust, specifically towards individuals with similar characteristics – categorised as ‘in-group’ members – promoting cooperation with and favoritism towards such individuals. This bias of oxytocin-induced goodwill towards those with features and characteristics perceived to be similar may have evolved as a biological basis for sustaining in-group cooperation and protection, fitting with the Darwinian insight that acts of self-sacrifice and cooperation contribute to the functioning of the group and hence improve the odd of survival for members of said group.
Race can be used as an example of in-group and out-group tendencies because society often categorizes individuals into groups based on race (Caucasian, African American, Latino, etc.). One study that examined race and empathy found that participants receiving nasally administered oxytocin had stronger reactions to pictures of in-group members making pained faces than to pictures of out-group members with the same expression. This shows that oxytocin may be implicated in our ability to empathize with individuals of different races, with individuals of one race potentially biased towards helping individuals of the same race than individuals of another race when they are experiencing pain.
Oxytocin has also been implicated in lying when lying would prove beneficial to other in-group members. In a study where such a relationship was examined, it was found that when individuals were administered oxytocin, rates of dishonesty in the participants’ responses increased for their in-group members when a beneficial outcome for their group was expected. Both of these examples show the tendency to act in ways that benefit people with which one feels is part of their social group, or in-group.