I am fascinated by an email exchange I had this week with a researcher and writer whose work I greatly admire, Johnny Vedmore, writing for Whitney Webb’s outlet Unlimited Hangout and for his own website. I reproduce the exchange here, since two of my essays on Taboo Truth are responses to two of Vedmore’s best essays, on the topic of Klaus Schwab.
Karl: “Dear Mr. Vedmore,
I've been interested in your essays on Klaus Schwab and the WEF since your first, "Schwab Family Values." In fact, as an author of essays myself, I wrote two essays based on yours, exploring a different and perhaps hidden aspect I felt it important to share.
I would be honored if you would review my essays and share your response with me.
Jews of the World Economic Forum (you could scroll down to the section "Klaus Schwab - Crypto Jew?")
Origins of the World Economic Forum Revisited
Sincerely,
Karl Haemers”
-Johnny: “Hi Karl,
I am very busy at the moment but I did read the Schwab section and there's plenty I could say. Your focus seems to be very much on how everything goes back to the jews. It's just going to put 99% of people off reading. I never get the mental loop people get caught up on here. If you want to show how people of Jewish descent are supposedly responsible for manipulating almost all major events then you're going to run into some massive roadblocks. For Jewish actors to gain so much influence then they'd have to have loads of collaborators who aren't Jewish. Your technique is to try and tar everyone as Jewish and that leaves loads of holes in your work. You're trying to shoehorn a simple narrative into a complex history with many varying power blocks and many differing allegiances, which are all struggling to dominate. In fact, a minority of those who created the current NWO are Jewish, but since 1967 especially, Jewish power brokers have become more and more influential. But they're still a minority community in the NWO, Jewish actors have their roles, but they are not the only ones, it's simplistic to think they are and makes the argument easy to undermine.
I couldn't do anything about the narrative surrounding the Ravensberg area and the Jewish blood libels which happened. They're well documented. Jews were banned from entering the region, that's well documented. When you say you could spend more time debunking my work, well you didn't debunk anything to begin with and you'd have a hard time because I stick to provable facts. I'm trying to understand the past, not rewrite it to suit my own personal convictions and agenda.
If you want people to see the nefarious effects of Zionism, then concentrate on Zionists and use that term, otherwise 99% of people are going to accuse you of antisemitism and with the way the public has been primed for that accusation, it'll mean that the good work you do will not be viewed, won't be shared, and will fall by the wayside.
Some of what you say is right and some of what you say is wrong. I only want to hear right. If you make assumptions with no evidence then you will undo your hard work and effort.
I don't know whether you'll be able to take in what I've said, I don't mean to insult you, but if you want my opinion then I'll give it, warts and all. What I see is someone with potential but who is obsessed about one part of a very complex dynamic. There is no one enemy from one tribe who can be defeated to win the war. This is cultural warfare, it's fought between many different cultures, Zionist Jews being one of the most active and prevalent factions within this war.
I hope you don't take this badly Karl, you seem like a determined fella, who could make a real impact with his work if you tell the whole story properly, not just the part that suits the one narrative.
God bless 🙏
Johnny”
(Read time 10:00)
Karl: “Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Yes, I acknowledge my focus (one of them) is on "The Jews" (Not All Jews!, which is the title of another of my articles). I do not say "everything goes back to the Jews", I do not work in superlatives or absolutes, only proclivities. In fact, most of my readers on The Occidental Observer and in The Barnes Review history magazine and elsewhere, including Unz Review (which is huge and growing), agree with my focus on the Jewish Issue, and even seem to demand it. I must say that much of your reply sounds cliche and stereotypical to me, and at this point also antiquated and out dated. Since 911 Jew-areness in the US has exploded, and is expanding at exponential rates today. Did you hear that this summer the University of Chicago conducted a poll in which 54% of people agreed with the statement "A group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles runs the US government"? And many of those know that means Jews. One glance at the cabinet proves it. So I expect your estimate of 99% of readers will be put off by my topics is badly overestimated--perhaps on the order of Neal Ferguson.
I'm puzzled how you fail to understand the "mental loop" on the Jewish Issue (JI). After all, you and Whitney along with many others actually focus on it, without overtly saying so. If you read both of my essays I link to, you can see how many of those you mention in your Schwab essays, especially your second essay on Schwab are Jews or Jew-associated. It helps our understanding to realize that the "massive roadblocks" are imposed by Jews themselves, and efforts to circumvent, bust through and dissolve the roadblocks are valid. Most of my readers and many others demand it, and view essays such as yours as obscurantism of the JI. This is unfortunate, since you have so much good knowledge to share on the topic, which is unfortunately somewhat hidden.
Here is an example of how the Jewiish Issue is Obscured even in Alt Media.
I agree with you, the Jewish actors will have to have "loads of collaborators who aren't Jewish". And these non-Jews are focused upon with manic intensity, while avoiding almost any focus on the Jewish leaders behind and above them. A good example is Bush and Cheney as the "inside job" of 911, while ignoring Netanyahu, Barak, Chertoff, Hellerstein, Eitan, Bendor, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Feith, Perle, Silverstein... as the "Israeli Job" of 911.
I must protest sir your statement "Your technique is to try and tar everyone as Jewish and that leaves loads of holes in your work." My technique (one of them) is to identify those I study as Jewish when they are, but not everyone. I have two essays published on Bill Gates, and I do not try to identify him as Jewish. The Director of the B&M Foundation, Mark Sussman, however, is Jewish, and I say so. Hans Mhyrvold of Microsoft went on to close associations with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell (Hoch) and Leslie Wexner of the child-raping blackmail ring, and they are all Jewish. I say so. Mhyrvold is not, and so I don't. Also, loads of holes are left in all our work, out of necessity, since even a 10,000 word essay must select a focus and ignore others. No focus is ignored more than the Jewish Issue in most journalism (yours to some extent, mine and Whitney's only some of the exceptions), and so I feel I am not leaving holes, but filling them.
"You're trying to shoehorn a simple narrative into a complex history with many varying power blocks and many differing allegiances, which are all struggling to dominate." No sir, that is not what I am trying to do. Please don't project or ascribe motives to me which you cannot know without asking me. I am trying to add the Jewish aspect into the complex history, not replace it. I acknowledge that it is complex, but that most of the focus has been Away from the Jewish component, distorting the overall view. One good example is your mention of "Anglo-American Imperialism" in your second Schwab essay, when in fact 3 of the 4 main characters you examine--Schwab, Kissinger and Kahn--are Jews. Along with Anglo-American Imperialism, Judeo-Masonic Imperialism must also be part of the dialogue.
If a minority of those who created the current NWO are Jewish, Jews have always been a minority in world events--but their power has been disproportionate to their numbers. So has their wealth. Arguably the main architect of the NWO going back at least to the Congress of Vienna of 1814 is the Rothschild family. A number of other ultra-wealthy Jewish banking families such as the Warburgs, Schiffs, Mendelsohns, Selligmans, Levys, Meyers (some say there are 13 such families) are at the apex of the pyramid of power in the world imposing the NWO. It is called the Great Reset today, as you know, and 7 of the 31 members of the WEF Board of Trustees are Jews. And they are especially powerful, such as Larry Fink of Blackrock and David Rubenstein of Carlysle Group and CFR Chairman. I don't recognize this as inappropriate or "obsessed" to indicate, since it is so crucial to our understand of world events and what to do about them. Know the enemy is the first step in surviving and countering them.
"Jewish actors have their roles, but they are not the only ones, it's simplistic to think they are and makes the argument easy to undermine." As you can see now, I do not maintain Jews are the only ones, only that plenty of others focus on the other ones, while too few focus on the Jews. In fact, you and Whitney are among those who focus on Jews, though more often using euphemisms such as "Zionists" and "Israelis". May I say sir that this attempt to obscure or redirect cannot succeed, and you are or will be accused of being an "anti-semite" as much as I. Whitney certainly has, though continues to operate unobstructed--which is odd. Possibly your condemnation of "Nazis" in your Schwab essays may if not endear you then at least allay Jews from tarring you an "anti-semite", but not much and not for long. Besides, isn't your fixation on "Nazis" a kind of obsession as well?
I have found among many researchers and writers that their arguments for recognizing the Jewish role is very difficult to undermine. Perhaps you mean marginalization, which is indeed a factor, but once readers encounter the arguments--which they are finding increasingly more often--they are impossible to undermine. That is one reason I participate in presenting such arguments.
"I couldn't do anything about the narrative surrounding the Ravensberg area and the Jewish blood libels which happened."
With all respect sir, I think you could have. You could have indicated that the Jewish Ritual Murder in the region was real. Instead, my reading of your account suggested that it was another case of rabid unjust "anti-semitism" and Jews were innocent victims. I am not willing to do this, since there were real Gentile victims who died horribly in the clutches of Jews--children! Even your reference to it as "blood libel" is dismissive, because it is the term Jews use to dismiss all accusations of Jewish Ritual Murder. I must say this was one of the most passionate critiques I have of your essay, for me personally. It is unconscionable for any writer to participate in protecting Jews from an honest accusation of Jewish Ritual Murder, especially yourself who says "I'm trying to understand the past, not rewrite it to suit my own personal convictions and agenda."
If this is meant to suggest that while you are pursuing historical truth, I am pursuing an agenda (which presumably is untrue), I must protest again sir. I too am pursuing historical truth, in an area which has been the most obscured and avoided. I am willing to write "to suit my own personal convictions", since convictions are all we have to go on as history writers. Convictions means convincing, and I only write about what I am convinced is true. I may be wrong at times, as may we all, but I am not deliberately distorting or falsifyng history in pursuit of any "agenda"--except the agenda all honest writers pursue, truth leading to justice and freedom. I trust you too are pursuing truth, though subject to error, perhaps mostly the error of omission, in this case of the Jewish Issue. Yet as I've said, we all have to select and focus, leaving out other topics. I see my work as not counter to yours, but complimentary. I fill in holes you leave open, and vice versa.
So perhaps it was an exaggeration of me to say I "debunked" any of your work. "When you say you could spend more time debunking my work, well you didn't debunk anything to begin with and you'd have a hard time because I stick to provable facts."
I feel our discussion here is not a comparison of facts versus lies or distortions, but facts in one area versus facts in another. I too stick to provable facts, just different ones from yours. What I have done in my essays replying to yours is reveal the Jewish component, which you do not do. Looking at your reply here, I have some better understanding why. Are you afraid of the reaction should you identify the Jews in your essays as such? You should be. I am. But I do it anyway. But you are over the target close enough anyway to draw the flack, as is Whitney. Perhaps not as much as Dalton, MacDonald, Duke, Atzmon and many others (even Unz to some degree), but they'll get to you and Whitney soon enough. It's a matter of degree. Unless you and Whitney enjoy some degree of protection through approved collaboration. It's hard for me to say, but I do wonder how Whitney continues to operate as she exposes the Jewish Cabal involvement so well and so widely. And to a lesser extent, you as well. It will not serve for long to identify Kissinger, Kahn, and the others you mention without overtly saying they are Jews. Jews know.
"If you want people to see the nefarious effects of Zionism, then concentrate on Zionists and use that term, otherwise 99% of people are going to accuse you of antisemitism and with the way the public has been primed for that accusation, it'll mean that the good work you do will not be viewed, won't be shared, and will fall by the wayside."
I must disagree strongly here. Use of the euphemism "Zionism" is no protection. Jews have declared that criticizing Zionism, Zionists and Israel is indeed "anti-semitism", as you know if you are aware of the new definition which came from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.
The public is less primed now than you seem to imagine. The priming has worn off through over-use, and much of the public is far more open to the Jewish Issue than the peak Semitophobia before 911. (Semitophobia was among my most popular articles on The Occidental Observer)
In fact, among my outlets and readers, my work will be less viewed and shared and will fall by the wayside if I do Not address the Jewish Issue. And their numbers are growing.
E Michael Jones made the following statement this week on Tim Kelly's Our Interesting Times interview:
"It's late in the day. And we've reached the point where we cannot not talk about it anymore. Either you're talking about this (Jewish Power) or you're not in the game anymore."-E Michael Jones interview, "Requiem for a Figurehead" Starts around 43:50
I respect Jones' understanding. I agree and align with it. In summary, your response to me is something that was common and even stereotypical in the late 20th century, but is now outdated today. The Jewish Issue is foremost for many more people in the US today, and attempts to obscure it only make awareness stronger.
"Some of what you say is right and some of what you say is wrong. I only want to hear right. If you make assumptions with no evidence then you will undo your hard work and effort."
We are all partly right and partly wrong, and especially if we can be wrong through omission. It would be most helpful if you could be specific where I am right and wrong, as I have tried to be with you, but I suppose I've already demanded too much of your valuable time. I do find this correspondence valuable though. Like you, I try not to make any assumptions, especially without evidence, and am sure to lavishly footnote to provide sources. Interestingly, main stream journalists make assumptions with no evidence all the time, but their work and effort is rewarded. I aspire to a higher standard but lower compensation. As do you I imagine. May I say again sir, any efforts to protect what income you derive from your journalism by omitting discussion of the Jewish Issue must fail, because Jews will notice at some point if you become too popular, since you do indeed bring in Jews in your essays. Whitney does it much moreso, and has a huge reach, who has also complained about censorship and deplatforming nevertheless. I make no assertions without extensive evidence behind them.
I do take in what you say and give it an honest consideration. I hope you can do the same with me. In fact I've been considering what you've said for years now, since so much of it I have heard many times before. It's become trite to me. And I think it's partly wrong, for reasons I've stated (though not entirely wrong to be fair). I do think it is past time to test it. I have even been called "obsessed", which seems hypocritical, in this case coming from you who seems "obsessed" with finding "Nazis" and "Anglo-American Imperialists", when so many of those you identify are Jews. But in the realm of research and writing, obsession can be a benefit, since it makes us more thorough. Agreed, it is a "complex dynamic", and I sometimes focus on only one aspect of the dynamic, as you do another. This is valid and necessary. It seems especially so, since as you acknowledge "Zionist Jews being one of the most active and prevalent factions within this war." Certainly the mainstream avoids this like the 3rd rail, which is one reason I "obsess" on it. Filling holes.
I take your response very well and am grateful you chose to reply. I value your work greatly and honor your advice and opinions. I see you are a Nationalist such as I, and so we have a common cause and a common enemy. If I focus on the Jewish enemy and you the "Nazi" and Anglo-American Imperialist, then together we are more fully identifying the enemy. I would consider Anglo-American Imperialists basically as agents and collaborators with the Jewish Power Elite, and essentially race traitors. But yes, they have their own role in the NWO. "Nazis", absolutely not. That is a whole other story which I have researched and written about in depth, using credible source evidence. Here is a sample, my first essay at The Barnes Review: (It's the cover story)
You close: "...tell the whole story properly, not just the part that suits the one narrative."
None of us can tell the whole story. You don't when you omit the Jewish Issue, and I don't when I omit the "Nazi" and Anglo-American Imperialist Issue. We can't. By necessity we must focus in order to present anything, but collectively our diverse work can fuse together to give a fuller picture.
I am pleased to see you are a Nationalist like myself. We do indeed have a common enemy, which makes us allies. I am honored to participate with you in the good fight to expose and denounce the NWO criminals. Basically, I see many of them as Jews and am willing to say so, while you identify plenty of them as Jews and some as Gentiles, while focusing on their other affiliations. Fair enough. Together we approach the truth.
Sincerely,
Pagan Nationalist Karl Haemers
p.s. - I would like to post this exchange, focusing on my reply here, on my Substack page. I have well under 100 subscribers thus far, and only growing slowly. This is something they will be interested in reading, since I posted my two essays expanding on your two essays about Schwab on my Substack page as well. It is called Taboo Truth. “
Superb rebuttal to Vedmore's hackneyed response! Purposely omitting The Jews (regardless of euphemisms) from all revelations and disclosures is a blatant form of cognitive dissonance at best, or outright pandering at worst!
This cowardice stems from (at least a major part) the aggressive Holohoax victimization indoctrination taught in all schools (public, private and parochial) and the 'chosen ones' biblical claptrap that infests christ-insane doctrine.
In addition, it's just so cool and self satisfying to bleat "natzee natzee" to all the other sheep that imagine themselves to be the real 'based' progressives. Have you seen what this Vedmore guy looks like or listened to his 'music'?
It's all about numbers and creds not about a well-rounded truth. They do expose a lot more than the corporate media whores so it's not a case of the blind leading the blind. More like the myopic leading the myopic.