Non-Art: UNESCO figurine / Antony Gormley's 'manikins'

[Helphand]

Good to see up on
http://iamthewitness.com
front page: Robert H. Williams: The Ultimate World Order As Pictured In 'The Jewish Utopia' [by Paul Higger, 1932] (1957).

Regarding the UNESCO figurine [at page -15-] fashioned of course by a Jew, two observations:-

1. it bears an uncanny likeness to the manikins/anonymised statues by Antony Gormley which are appearing like a rash over the tops of city buildings, on sea fronts, specifically in NYC (causing police alerts, peoeple fearing imminent suicides by jumping) etc etc etc.  AG's mummy looks to be Jewish judging by clear circumstantial evidence easily obtained, and naturally he got his break into art exhibitionfrom his old uni-chum who is also of that kidney.  (Just consult the usual online sources for his background). Disregarding the fact of his usefulness for pushing the subliminal race mixing message of the YouKnowWhos. (Why does the word "yahudi" always bring to mind the word the Swiftian "yahoo"?)

2. a common symbol/subliminal reinforcement image in advertising on billboards, packaging, TV, internet etc etc is the race-ambiguous female with frizzy yellow-blonde hair, tanned appearance, but-can't-tell-quite if she is white or black... the most proximate named near-fit (but not pure genotype) I can recall off the cuff being the Mancunian from the former girl band Spice Girls ("Girl Power" for useful idiots). This phenometype has now reached the dizzy heights of scripted appearances in drama on BBC TV channels 1, 3, etc. Definitely the Hidden Hand at work.

Why the bloody hell *should* everyone looks the same? (apart from the "Jews" of course who bear the "mark of Cain" for ease of identification, like the *yellow*-black warning bands of the wasp). Mind, the one agreeable item in all this is to be found in E.E. Jessel's The Unkown History of the Jews (1909) pp.184-186 where he says:

  "Some authorities contend that two races may be crossed
to produce a new sub-race which they believe to be
permanent; but we think from actual observation that it
is extremely doubtful if there exists anywhere in the world
a permanent variety of man resulting from a cross between
white and coloured people. Observers who have spent
many years in countries where there are blacks and whites,
or browns and whites, know that no mulatto race has been
produced. There are undoubtedly many individuals of
mixed race born, and we know for a fact that what appears
to be a new variety will persist for three, four, or even in
rare cases six generations; but in the end they are either
re-absorbed into one of the original races, or intermarriage
leads to sterility. How the coloured races first
differentiated is not known, though various suggestions
have been made that it is a question of climate, latitude,
soil, and even food; but when history begins the varieties
of man had existed for unknown ages, and so become
fixed. If the negro were transplanted to Europe, and
lived like a European for a thousand years, it would not
make the slightest difference to the pigment under his
skin; and, similarly, the white man transplanted to
Africa would never become a negro. With varieties of
the same race the case is different. The Moor and the
Arab, the Basuto and the Zulu, the Chinese and Japanese,
the Germans and the English, can intermarry and produce
a subvariety which retains the characteristics of both at
many. These considerations lead us to the conclusion
that the great mass of the Jews who now live in Europe
belong to a white race not intermixed with the Arabs of
Asia or Africa, and that their ancestors came originally
from the same home as the other white races of Europe.
When a Jew marries a German, a French, or English
woman, the children are absolutely indistinguishable from
the people of the country--a fact we maintain which, taken
by itself, proves that the race is at most a sub-variety of
the European, possibly even one of the parent European
races.
  This explains the object of the law made by the scribes of the
exile against intermarriage with "the people of the land"
--an expression exactly corresponding to our colloquial
word "natives." Ezra wished to secure the purity and
the superiority of the white race in Palestine, and we know
that by means of this law he accomplished it. That is
the reason for the apparently cruel order (Ezra x. 10, 11)
to separate from "the people of the land" and from
the "strange women"; in other words, marriages with
natives were disallowed. It seems clear that there
was no religious ground for this prohibition, which
is exclusively addressed to the men of Judah and
Benjamin (Ezra x. 9). The Israelites had long previously
disappeared from their country, deported by the Assyrian
conqueror (2 Kings xvii. 6, 23, 24). "The remnant"
of Israel is referred to in 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 9; but
the people over whom Josiah reigned were Judah and
Benjamin. It was the Yahuds only who were carried
away into captivity (2 Kings xxv. 21), yet when they
came out of Babylon we find Ezra calling them "the
children of Israel" (Ezra vi. 21), while all the other inhabitants
of Canaan are once more Hittites, Perizzites,
Jebusites, Ammonites, etc., as they were in the description
of the country 800 years before. The fact is, the meaning
of the term had changed. The only people recognised as
Israel were now the followers of Ezra's new religion, and
this has been the case ever since.

Robert H. Williams: The Ultimate World Order As Pictured In 'The Jewish Utopia' [by Paul Higger, 1932] (1957)
[at page -15-]

"UNESCO Brown Man", as we way call him or it, which I photographed
from page 70 of the book UNITED NATIONS: Blueprint for Peace. The author of the book
says the picture is an official UN photograph. The cutline under the picture says it "represents
all of us, everyone on earth". Obviously, this raceless, characterless "man", standing
on the world, is the UNESCO ideal toward which all of us must work, the blending of all
the races of mankind into one composite, raceless, nationless, homeless, characterless, faceless
brown slob -- utterly lost from all heritage and completely subject to the will of the
Zionist master race" -- which, while producing the propaganda to cause us to blend,
quickens the tribal pride of the Jews to keep them from blending. The statue resembles the
"art" of. and evidently was done by. the Jewish revolutionary, Bernard Rosenthal who also
did the famous or infamous trio, the Faceless Family. "Mr. and Mrs. Faceless and Little
Faceless", showing parents and a child just like the above, representing the future family!

PS: It was interesting to hear, reflecting the foregoing, another side of Andrew "What Have You" Carrington Hitchcock in his January 1, 2009 interview on TalkShoe #176347 with "Eli" where ACH talks of white women being encouraged to consort with "beasts of the field" (his words not mine). ACH & Co. are self-professed worshippers of "Jahweh" but having read books including the aforementioned Jessel and listened occasionally to the Judaistic cult masquerading as cosmic weirdness peddled by Sherry Shriner et al. I can only conceive of said "Jahweh" as a tribal race god, personified by fire, having nothing to do with the universal god of the New Testament who is no respecter of persons. As Jessel observes, how the heck can a universal god promote one race or tribe above another, whcih is all that "Jah" appears to be about?

All this simply confirms me in my view now long held that shuffling these pre-historic and historic cards leads only to pointless controversy yielding no results and the SOLUTION rests in addressing the purely temporal issue of fraudulent MONEY - see separate thread on "The SOLUTION - Follow the Money?".