Discussion:
Can a muslim be trusted ????
(too old to reply)
Raymond
2008-07-05 14:12:19 UTC
Permalink
The answer is NO !!!!
�Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia
�Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah,
The moon God of Arabia
�Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah
except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
�Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five
�Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
�Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca ,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
�Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to
make
friends with Christians or Jews .
�Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs
(spiritual leaders),
who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the
great Satan.
�Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat
and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
�Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since
�it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.
�Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran
does not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
�Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,'
the Christian's
God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly
father, nor is he
�ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
�Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
�Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
- - -
They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and �good Americans.
�Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe
it.
The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country
and our future.
�The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . ...
�And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?
You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America!
�Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the
� � � � � � � � Quran---not a Bible!
�Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his current office and he
refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States or put his hand over
his heart when the National Anthem is
�played!
The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Hello!
�Having a Muslim president would seem to fit the bill!
Will you trust this man with our national secrets?
Can a muslim be trusted ????

In speaking of terrorism and of America's confrontation with Iraq,
Bush typically goes out of his way to clarify that the enemies are
terrorists and outlaw regimes, not Muslims.

Terrorists, he has declared, have taken hostage what Bush has
described as a peaceful Islamic religion. "Some of America's best
friends are Muslims." The president has gone to great lengths to make
this statement very clear.

Karen Hughes, a former top adviser to Bush who still helps draft major
speeches, said that by meeting frequently with Muslim leaders,
visiting a mosque and praising Islam, the president "has gone to great
lengths to make it clear" that the war is not about religion. "It's
about oil and defending Israel in that part of the world."

"At moments of tragedy or great challenge, presidents have frequently
called on faith for comfort and strength," Hughes noted.

The president is careful to recognize, she said, that "America is a
nation of many faiths. including the Muslim faith" But she added: "We
were founded on the belief that we were given certain rights by a
creator."

L'Shalom
Shabbat Shalom -- [have a] peaceful Sabbath.
john fernbach
2008-07-05 14:20:25 UTC
Permalink
The answer is NO !!!!
Whereas we can supposedly trust Christians, Jews, rightwing atheists,
leftwing atheists, and even my brother in law, right?

LOL! "And if you believe that, I have some underwater real estate in
Florida to sell you ..."
Sam Buckland
2008-07-05 14:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by john fernbach
The answer is NO !!!!
Whereas we can supposedly trust Christians, Jews, rightwing atheists,
leftwing atheists, and even my brother in law, right?
LOL! "And if you believe that, I have some underwater real estate in
Florida to sell you ..."
Really? Underwater real estate is all the rage...

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0522/097.html
Raymond
2008-07-05 14:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
The answer is NO !!!!
�Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia
�Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah,
The moon God of Arabia
�Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah
except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
�Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five
�Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
�Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca ,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
�Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to
make
friends with Christians or Jews .
�Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs
(spiritual leaders),
who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the
great Satan.
�Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat
and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
�Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since
�it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.
�Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran
does not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
�Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,'
the Christian's
God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly
father, nor is he
�ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
�Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
�Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
- - -
They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and �good Americans.
�Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe
it.
The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country
and our future.
�The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . ...
�And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?
You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America!
�Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the
� � � � � � � � Quran---not a Bible!
�Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his current office and he
refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States or put his hand over
his heart when the National Anthem is
�played!
The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Hello!
�Having a Muslim president would seem to fit the bill!
Will you trust this man with our national secrets?
Can a muslim be trusted ????
In speaking of terrorism and of America's confrontation with Iraq,
Bush typically goes out of his way to clarify that the enemies are
terrorists and outlaw regimes, not Muslims.
Terrorists, he has declared, have taken hostage what Bush has
described as a peaceful Islamic religion. "Some of America's best
friends are Muslims." The president has gone to great lengths to make
this statement very clear.
Karen Hughes, a former top adviser to Bush who still helps draft major
speeches, said that by meeting frequently with Muslim leaders,
visiting a mosque and praising Islam, the president "has gone to great
lengths to make it clear" that the war is not about religion. "It's
about oil and defending Israel in that part of the world."
"At moments of tragedy or great challenge, presidents have frequently
called on faith for comfort and strength," Hughes noted.
The president is careful to recognize, she said, that "America is a
nation of many faiths. including the Muslim faith"  But she added: "We
were founded on the belief that we were given certain rights by a
creator."
L'Shalom
Shabbat Shalom -- [have a] peaceful Sabbath.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The question is; Can Jews be trusted? Many Americans don't think so.
Jews Are Now Jeopardized By Muslim Immigration Oy Vay, Oy Vay !

Following September 11, immigration from Muslim countries tapered off,
but, as the New York Times enthused, it has rebounded with a
vengeance: “In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal
permanent United States residents…than in any year in the previous two
decades.”

Immigration (and the war in Iraq) ought to be the most crucial
question in the 2008 election. It is the issue that will ultimately
decide whether American values and institutions endure. Unfortunately,
it’s a debate American Jews can put off no longer, although it’s too
late for their European, British, and Canadian brethren. To speak
plainly: a gathering danger threatens the Jews of America—to whom
George Washington promised peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a
synagogue congregation in Newport, Rhode Island.

Muslims also outnumber Jews in Canada.
Where will we get a good Rubin sandwich now.... A good latke -- potato
pancake.or a fine Jewish lox -- smoked salmon.

L'Shalom
f***@yahoo.com
2008-07-08 15:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Post by Raymond
The answer is NO !!!!
�Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia
�Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah,
The moon God of Arabia
�Religiously - no. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His
Allah
except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
�Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five
�Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
�Geographically - no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca ,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
�Socially - no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to
make
friends with Christians or Jews .
�Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs
(spiritual leaders),
who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the
great Satan.
�Domestically - no. . . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
and beat
and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )
�Intellectually - no. . Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since
�it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
corrupt.
�Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran
does not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
�Spiritually - no. . . Because when we declare 'one nation under God,'
the Christian's
God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly
father, nor is he
�ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
�Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
�Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
- - -
They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and �good Americans.
�Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe
it.
The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country
and our future.
�The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. . ...
�And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?
You have GOT to be kidding! Wake up America!
�Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the
� � � � � � � � Quran---not a Bible!
�Footnote: He was sworn in on the Quran for his current office and he
refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States or put his hand over
his heart when the National Anthem is
�played!
The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Hello!
�Having a Muslim president would seem to fit the bill!
Will you trust this man with our national secrets?
Can a muslim be trusted ????
In speaking of terrorism and of America's confrontation with Iraq,
Bush typically goes out of his way to clarify that the enemies are
terrorists and outlaw regimes, not Muslims.
Terrorists, he has declared, have taken hostage what Bush has
described as a peaceful Islamic religion. "Some of America's best
friends are Muslims." The president has gone to great lengths to make
this statement very clear.
Karen Hughes, a former top adviser to Bush who still helps draft major
speeches, said that by meeting frequently with Muslim leaders,
visiting a mosque and praising Islam, the president "has gone to great
lengths to make it clear" that the war is not about religion. "It's
about oil and defending Israel in that part of the world."
"At moments of tragedy or great challenge, presidents have frequently
called on faith for comfort and strength," Hughes noted.
The president is careful to recognize, she said, that "America is a
nation of many faiths. including the Muslim faith"  But she added: "We
were founded on the belief that we were given certain rights by a
creator."
L'Shalom
Shabbat Shalom -- [have a] peaceful Sabbath.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The question is; Can Jews be trusted? Many Americans don't think so.
Jews Are Now  Jeopardized By Muslim Immigration  Oy Vay, Oy Vay !
Following September 11, immigration from Muslim countries tapered off,
but, as the New York Times enthused, it has rebounded with a
vengeance: “In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal
permanent United States residents…than in any year in the previous two
decades.”
Immigration (and the war in Iraq) ought to be the most crucial
question in the 2008 election. It is the issue that will ultimately
decide whether American values and institutions endure. Unfortunately,
it’s a debate American Jews can put off no longer, although it’s too
late for their European, British, and Canadian brethren. To speak
plainly: a gathering danger threatens the Jews of America—to whom
George Washington promised peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a
synagogue congregation in Newport, Rhode Island.
Muslims also outnumber Jews in Canada.
Where will we get a good Rubin sandwich now.... A good latke -- potato
pancake.or a fine Jewish lox -- smoked salmon.
L'Shalom- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
American and Canadian Jews are going to need to find some way to make
peace with American and Canadian Muslims, it looks like.

This shouldn't be impossible, although it may be difficult.

Hey - at least y'all can eat a lot of the same foods, no?

For around 400 years or more, Muslims & Jews & Christians coexisted in
Muslim-ruled Spain, and mostly in harmony -- although with some
intervals of ugly persecution as more extremist Muslim rulers in Spain
replaced less extremist ones.

If the secular democracy that George Washington and Thos. Jefferson
established wants to survive, it's going to have to replicate some of
this multi-religious harmony.
Topaz
2008-07-05 14:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
L'Shalom
Shabbat Shalom -- [have a] peaceful Sabbath.
Spotlight on Zionist Shills: How to recognize Jewish surnames

The most powerful tool Zionists have is their relative invisibility -
they are very mixed and most appear gentile but use it to promote
Zionist interests, like islamophobia, War on Iraq/iran, diversity and
internationalism, while speaking as patriotic Americans with
American's interests at heart. It is a powerful strategy that has even
been used to trick Americans into fighting wars for Israel past and
present.

This list will help you identify potential zionist shills and make
proper judgements of their words and deeds where a bias may exist.

While this list may never be complete, it will cover most of the
Jewish names one is likely to encounter in everyday Western life.
Unlike many gentile names, there is such a thing as a 'Jewish name.'
Many Jewish persons can be recognized as being Jewish by their surname
[last name], although not always-some Jews are adopted, or their
forebears changed the family surname, or their surname simply does not
appear Jewish.
Here are the most common Jewish names likely to be encountered:

Names that sound "precious" (Gold, Silver, Diamond, Ruby (Rubenstein)
etc.)
Names ending in "-witz" (Horowitz, Rabinowitz, etc.) or "-itz"
(Kravitz, etc.)
Names ending in "-baum" (Teitelbaum, Metzenbaum, etc.)
Surnames that sound "Biblical," e.g., David, Joseph, Abram or Abraham,
Moses, Benjamin, Isaac, etc.

Some other common Jewish names:
Wolf
Myers
Mayer
Jacobs
Aaron
Hirsch
Tobias
Levy
Cohen
Kaplan
Weiss
Nathan
Leo
Levine
Simon
Levin
Samuel
Gould
Fink
Loeb
Loew
Rubin
Stern
Shapiro
Klein
Cohn
Singer
Frank
Schwartz
Kahn
Kramer

www.jewwatch.com

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
f***@yahoo.com
2008-07-08 15:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by Raymond
L'Shalom
Shabbat Shalom -- [have a] peaceful Sabbath.
Spotlight on Zionist Shills: How to recognize Jewish surnames
Topaz - There are a lot of Zionist shills for the Iraq war, and a good
fraction of them are Jewish, but you're just a racist and anti-semitic
asshole.

I got raised on the standard Zionist myths by Christian parents, and
as it happens the 2 or 3 most ardent anti-Zionists I've met were all
American Jews who once believed in the myths of Israel's founding,
then got bitterly disillusioned with them.

Noam Chomsky, former Young Zionist and ardent member of an Israeli
kibbutz when he was a teenager, is now one of the most famous anti-
Zionist writers in the US.

Amy Goodman, the granddaughter of a rabbi and the anchor of Pacific
Radio's "Democracy Now," is another prominent anti-Zionist, or at
least a pretty consistent critic of Israel's horrendous mistreatment
of the Palestinians.

Shithead fascist wannabes like you give anti-Zionism a bad name,
Topaz.

Meanwhile, of course, every ANTI-JEWISH message you post in these talk
groups is likely to bolster support for Israel (and for Bush's stupid
Iraq War) among a certain number of American Jews whose political
instincts are basically pacifist and humane, but who share a long
Jewish legacy of being [often justifiably] fearful of violent anti-
Semitism.

Any decent history of Zionism in Palestine, and of all the violence
and injustice it has generated, is going to focus on the origins of
the modern Zionist project among basically secular Jews (e.g. Theodor
Herzl) in 19th century Europe.

The violent pogroms that the Jews of the Ukraine, especially, suffered
during the 19th century persuaded a lot of secular Jews like Herzl,
who would have liked to assimilate into European society if they'd
been allowed to, that they urgently needed to establish a "Jewish
homeland" -- for protection.

American and European anti-Semites who do their best to make
assimilation and acceptance hard for Jews in our supposedly secular
democracies, therefore, are therefore going to be seen by many Jews
are confirming the necessity for the whole Zionist project, no matter
what the human costs may be.

Some of you professional anti-Semites, the "Aryan homeland types,"
also are promoting your own notion of ethnic nationalist separatism
which looks surprisingly like Zionism, and just as tragically
misguided. But that's another question.
Topaz
2008-07-08 23:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.

No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.

Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.

The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.

This is what President Nixon said:

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html

"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-09 00:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Jews say
How would YOU know, pedophile?
Topaz
2008-07-09 00:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Disney and the Jews:
Eisner and His Kind Must Stop Harming Our Children
by William L. Pierce

We've spoken about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment
media before, but it's a matter of such urgency that we need to talk
about it again and again. It is absolutely essential for us to
understand who controls our mass media and how they use their control
to undermine America.
Very recently a major rearrangement in the media world took place when
the Walt Disney company paid $19 billion to take control of Capital
Cities/ABC, the company that owns the ABC television network. That
makes the Disney company the biggest of the media conglomerates. And
it makes the man who controls Disney, Michael Eisner, the most
powerful media boss in the world.
What does this mean for the future of our people? Should we be
concerned that the company which brought us Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck,
and Snow White will in the future be playing a much bigger role in
forming the opinions of American television viewers and setting the
moral and cultural standards of our nation?
I'll answer that question: Yes, we certainly should be concerned,
because the Walt Disney company is not what it used to be. It has been
transformed from a wholesome producer of children's entertainment into
a malign instrument of subversion.
To understand how this happened, let's go back to the beginning. Walt
Disney was born in 1901 in a working-class, Midwestern American
family. He spent his early years on the family farm in Missouri. As a
teenager he helped support his family by delivering newspapers. He
later attributed his ability to overcome obstacles and achieve success
to the work discipline that he developed as a boy with the newspaper
route.
Although young Walt came from a typical American background, with no
advantages or privileges, he was a person of exceptional talent and
drive. He felt a strong artistic urge while he was still in grade
school, and he took a correspondence course in drawing. He continued
to develop his drawing skills in high school as a cartoonist for his
school paper. He dropped out of school at 16 and served in the First
World War. After the war, instead of finishing high school, he and
another young artist began experimenting with animated films in a tiny
studio of their own in Kansas City. Using very primitive equipment,
they made short, animated cartoons based on fairy tales. They tried to
market their films through a New York film distributor, but the New
Yorker took advantage of the struggling, young filmmakers: he stole
their work and left them destitute.
In 1922, at the ripe age of 20, Walt Disney decided to make a fresh
start in Hollywood. He sold his camera to raise enough money to make
the trip to California. There he enlisted the support of his brother
Roy as a business manager, and he persuaded his fellow artist in
Kansas City to come join him. With Walt's drive and determination,
they opened a new film studio. They invented a film character they
called Oswald the Rabbit, and a series of animated cartoons featuring
Oswald enabled the small studio to gain a foothold in the film
business.
Later, when sound films were introduced in 1927, Walt invented Mickey
Mouse. Walt himself provided Mickey's voice. Mickey Mouse was an
enormous success and helped Walt Disney Productions prosper and grow.
Over the years Walt Disney's fertile imagination gave us Donald Duck,
Goofy and Pluto, Dumbo the elephant, and a score of other animal
characters which have fascinated children all over the world for more
than 60 years. In 1937 Disney produced his great masterpiece, Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs. This beautifully animated fairy tale
appealed to adults as well as to children. Like many fairy tales its
roots lie deep in the consciousness of our people.
After Snow White came Pinnochio, Fantasia, and Bambi. Walt Disney
Productions became a major power in the American film industry. And it
was unique, in that it was the only major film producer in Hollywood
not owned or controlled by Jews. The fact that Walt Disney was not a
Jew caused problems for him, however. He was surrounded by Jews who
resented his influence on American culture. A whispering campaign was
organized against him. Stories were spread that he was a fascist. He
began having labor problems.
The real problem, of course, was that Walt Disney's vision of the
world, as reflected in the films he produced, was wholly different
from that of the Jewish film producers around him. As long as Walt was
making Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck cartoons, this problem could be
overlooked. When he began animating feature-length fairy tales like
Snow White and Cinderella, the Jews in Hollywood became increasingly
nervous. The world of Snow White was an entirely White world, a
European world. It stirred deep feelings in European Americans, and
the aim of the Jewish media bosses then as now was to make White
Americans forget their roots. They wanted to begin promoting
multiculturalism as soon as the Second World War was over, and Walt
was in their way. They couldn't push racial mixing in their films and
have someone as popular as Walt Disney refuse to go along: the
contrast would be obvious to the public. Even Disney's extremely
popular Nature films were resented by the rest of Hollywood. Films
which promoted a love for animals and the natural world were viewed
with suspicion by men whose view of life was entirely economic and
metropolitan.
These may seem like subtle differences, and in fact most people
outside of Hollywood were oblivious to the ideological and cultural
conflict between Walt Disney and the other film producers. The closest
that the conflict came to attracting public attention was during the
1940s and early 1950s, when Walt Disney's total lack of sympathy for
Communism and his refusal to let Communist propaganda be introduced
into any of his productions set him apart from the rest of Hollywood.
While Walt was alive, however, there wasn't much that Hollywood could
do about him. He was too popular with the American people.
After Walt died in 1966, however, the situation changed. His company
had depended on his genius for its prosperity, and without him it had
a difficult time keeping up with the competition. After Disney company
profits had declined for several years, Jewish corporate raiders Saul
Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs moved in for the kill. In 1984, after
Steinberg had milked the company of $32 million, Disney family
shareholders were too weak to resist a takeover by Michael Eisner, the
Jewish boss of Paramount Pictures. Eisner in turn brought in as his
second in command another Jew, Jeffrey Katzenberg. The company that
Walt Disney built-the company that gave us Snow White and Fantasia --
has been in Jewish hands ever since.
During his first day as chairman of the Disney company-his first day,
believe it or not-Eisner ordered the production of an R-rated film,
about the kinky sexual misadventures of a typically neurotic Jewish
family in the Los Angeles area. This was the first R-rated film ever
produced by the Disney company-but certainly not the last.
Actually, what Michael Eisner has done to the Disney company is far
worse than cutting the soul out of it. He has transformed it into
another instrument in the Jewish campaign to multiculturalize America.
He has made it into a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument
aimed at our children.
There are no better examples of this than a couple of recent
children's films produced by the Disney company under Eisner: The
Jungle Book and Pocahontas. Actually, in 1967, the year after Walt
Disney's death, the original Disney company made an animated film
based on Kipling's Jungle Book stories of India. It was a film in the
Disney tradition, made to entertain children and not to brainwash
them. Last year Mr. Eisner produced a new, Politically Correct version
of The Jungle Book. The new version, which uses live characters
instead of animation, promotes interracial sex. In Mr. Eisner's
version, White males are portrayed as contemptible, cowardly, inept,
and disloyal. The White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancee',
and lets herself be wooed and won by an Indian jungle boy, played by a
Chinese actor. And, of course, it bears no resemblance at all to
anything written by Rudyard Kipling. I hardly need comment on the film
Pocahontas, which has received so much publicity recently, except to
say that its message is the same as that of Eisner 's version of The
Jungle Book: namely, that racial mixing is A-OK, that there's
absolutely no reason why a White man should not marry an Indian woman
or why a White woman should not have an affair with a Chinaman.
It took Mr. Eisner ten years to drag the Disney company down to the
Pocahontas level. He is a careful man. He knows that there is a lot at
stake. He certainly doesn't want to move too fast and cause a negative
reaction from the American public. He didn't want to alert the
American public to his intentions ten years ago. So he started with
R-rated sex films and gradually moved to films which tell White
children that miscegenation is fine and noble, and that non-Whites
really have much more character than Whites. But I believe that Mr.
Eisner had this outcome clearly in his mind from the first day that he
took over the Disney company and began degrading it.
And now Mr. Eisner will have the ABC television network under his
control too. I don't expect that to change the party line at ABC very
much. ABC, like the other TV networks, has been pretty solidly Jewish
from the beginning. It was headed by Jewish media boss Leonard
Goldenson for more than 30 years. The fact that Capital Cities
Communications, whose chairman is Thomas Murphy, a Gentile, merged
with Goldenson's ABC ten years ago didn't really have much influence
on programming. Goldenson's people remained in the policy-making
positions. Eisner's buyout of ABC just consolidates things in Jewish
hands a bit. It takes Murphy out of the picture and makes it easier
for ABC to become even more Politically Correct than it was. It means
that we will be seeing programs on the ABC television network
promoting miscegenation and undermining White self-confidence a little
more frequently than before. It speeds up the schedule a bit for
introducing even more destructive propaganda than before. It means
that our children will be subjected to somewhat more intense
brainwashing than before.
The situation with the rest of the mass media of news and
entertainment isn't really different, of course. Just as Jews took
over Hollywood in the 1930s, they also took over the other media, and
today they have such an overwhelming influence that even those who are
not Jews go along with their policies in order to get along.
Often when I point out this fact of Jewish media control to persons
who are Politically Correct, they will respond by saying that it makes
no difference who controls the media. Why does it bother me that Jews
run Hollywood, they ask in a sneering, condescending tone. I know that
people who respond in this way aren't being honest. They would
certainly think it made a difference if I controlled the media, for
example. And actually I'd be concerned if any group with an agenda of
its own had control of the media. I'd be concerned if all of the media
were in the hands of Southern Baptists, for example, or radical
vegetarians.
I am especially concerned about the Jewish control of the media,
however, for two reasons. First, the people who control the media also
control the political process in America: they control, in effect, the
policies of our government and the course taken by our society. That's
because the politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans,
will not stand up to the Jews. Instead they grovel at the Jews' feet.
Every politician knows that he must be portrayed favorably by the
media if he is to be elected, and every politician knows who controls
the media.
The second reason why Jewish control of the media is such a disaster
for us is based in the unique nature of the Jews. If Baptists
controlled the media perhaps they'd persuade the government to have a
law against making love on Sunday. If radical vegetarians controlled
the media, we might have to eat soyburgers instead of hamburgers.
But we can survive those things. We might not be happy, but we could
survive: our people could survive. Neither the Baptists nor the
vegetarians would be trying to corrupt us spiritually or to destroy
our race.
But corrupt and destroy are exactly what Mr. Eisner is doing. That's
the purpose of films like The Jungle Book and Pocahontas. They are
aimed, first, at the spiritual corruption of our children and,
ultimately, at the destruction of our people.
I know that statement sounds extreme to some people who are not
familiar with the facts of Jewish media control. They think that two
recent children's films from the Walt Disney company which promote
racial mixing aren't enough evidence to condemn all of the people who
control our news and entertainment media. And I must agree. One needs
much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone
who is not afraid to look at it, for anyone who is not so determined
to be Politically Correct that he refuses to see it.
For example, consider what has happened to the popular music industry
in recent years. It's not just the "gangsta rap" that we've heard a
few Republican politicians complaining about because the media people
who've been pushing "gangsta rap" moved a little too fast and caused a
negative reaction from the American people. It's the whole trend of
popular music away from traditional White forms and toward non-White
forms. I don't have to tell you who controls the popular music
industry in America, but I will anyway. In particular, the biggest
music companies promoting Black "rap" music among White children-
companies like Time Warner and MTV-are solidly Jewish. A Jew named
Gerald Levin is to Time Warner what Michael Eisner is to Disney. And
MTV is owned by Sumner Redstone, another Jew, through his Viacom
Corporation. These three companies that I've just mentioned-Disney,
Viacom, and Time Warner-are America's three biggest producers of mass
entertainment-they're number one, number two, and number three,
respectively-and they're all controlled by Jews. Is that just a
coincidence? Think about it!
I could spend the next hour talking about the genealogy of the biggest
media bosses. What you really need to do to be convinced, however, is
to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough
facts to get you started. Just write to me.
The idea I want to leave you with today is this: In this era in which
the mass media have such a powerful influence over our people's ideas
and attitudes and values, it is essential that we take the control of
those media away from a group which is utterly alien to us. It's a
group whose primary aim is to deaden our sense of identity and kill
any sense of racial consciousness among us, so that we will not be
able to resist the poisonous doctrines which they're promoting. These
doctrines are multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism
-- and, of course, "diversity"-all of the racially destructive "isms"
of Political Correctness.
In this era when the single most important influence on the
development of a child's self-image is television entertainment, it is
essential that people like Michael Eisner and Sumner Redstone not be
the ones setting the tone for that entertainment.
We all know that America has lost its sense of purpose and is
drifting. We all know that American society is coming apart. We all
know that our traditional values, our traditional life-style, our
traditional heroes and role models have been disparaged and ridiculed
by the controlled media. We all know that the idea of White racial
guilt, the idea of deferring to minorities, the idea that we should
tolerate perversion and accept it as "normal"-all of these ideas have
been pushed by the mass media. Alienation and delinquency among our
young people are increasing. The traditional American family is in
serious decline. Racial intermarriage is on the rise. Non-White
immigrants are pouring across our borders, and no serious effort is
being made to stop them. Our political system has become hopelessly
corrupt.
The only way that we can even begin to cure this illness is to regain
complete control of our mass media. Our media must be used to give our
people a sense of identity; a sense of racial community; a sense of
kinship, of belonging; a sense of racial and national purpose. We must
take control away from the people who are using the media now to
confuse and alienate and mislead us. Only when our own people are
setting the standards for the media, only when our own people are
deciding what attitudes and values should be taught to our children,
can we become strong and healthy again-and that means breaking the
Jewish control of the media. Let me hear from you on this most
important of all the issues facing our people.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-09 02:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Eisner and His Kind Must Stop Harming Our Children
by William L. Pierce
ANOTHER dead nazi. WHEN are you going to follow their
example, you cowwardly pissant??
f***@yahoo.com
2008-07-09 20:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Topaz - You make a valid point about SOME Jews, but not about "Jews"
in general.

There are a number of Jews who are basically secular leftists -
anarchists, old-line Communists, socialists, pacificists, etc. -- who
have in fact spoken out quite a lot against people being "anti-Arab"
and "anti-Christian" and the like. It goes along with leftwing,
secular "internationalism" -- workers of the world unite, and all that
stuff.

Examples include: Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Leslie Cagan (peace
activist with United for Peace and Justice), and also some dissident
Israeli authors including Amos Oz, Amos Elon, and Zeev Sternhell - I
think I have the last name correctly.

There's also a hyper-religious, hyper-Orthodox Jewish position on
Israel that basically finds the state there to be illegitimate because
it was established by human beings, not by the Messiah coming as per
the old prophecies. I think these people are a little crazy, frankly,
but anyway you can get an example of this kind of anti-Zionist Judaism
in Chaim Potok's novel "The Chosen."

See also David Shipler, who I think is an American Jewish journalist,
in his great book "ARAB and JEW: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land."

I could go on and on, but no doubt it's useless to write this kind of
stuff to you, since you've already judged the entire Jewish people and
condemned them to some kind of horrible punishment without bothering
to have a trial.

People like you, with their perpetual malice against Jews simply for
being Jews, really have been important to the development of modern
Zionism, including the most bloody-minded and tribalistic and inhumane
forms of modern Zionism. With friends like you, the beleaguered
Palestinian people don't need enemies.

But enough. I need to get back to work. If there is any kind of just
God, which I rather doubt, I hope He or She delivers to you and your
family exactly what you deserve. Which is a bad fate to wish on
anyone.
  Jews say that being  "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies.  The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.
  The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.  
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my  policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."
http://www.ihr.org/     http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org   http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html   
Topaz
2008-07-10 20:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Topaz - You make a valid point about SOME Jews, but not about "Jews"
in general.
No , you make a valid point about some Jews, but not about Jews in
general.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
There are a number of Jews who are basically secular leftists -
anarchists, old-line Communists, socialists, pacificists, etc. -- who
have in fact spoken out quite a lot against people being "anti-Arab"
and "anti-Christian" and the like. It goes along with leftwing,
secular "internationalism" -- workers of the world unite, and all that
stuff.
Examples include: Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Leslie Cagan (peace
activist with United for Peace and Justice), and also some dissident
Israeli authors including Amos Oz, Amos Elon, and Zeev Sternhell - I
think I have the last name correctly.
There's also a hyper-religious, hyper-Orthodox Jewish position on
Israel that basically finds the state there to be illegitimate because
it was established by human beings, not by the Messiah coming as per
the old prophecies. I think these people are a little crazy, frankly,
but anyway you can get an example of this kind of anti-Zionist Judaism
in Chaim Potok's novel "The Chosen."
See also David Shipler, who I think is an American Jewish journalist,
in his great book "ARAB and JEW: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land."
I could go on and on, but no doubt it's useless to write this kind of
stuff to you, since you've already judged the entire Jewish people and
Zionism is only one facet of the Jewish problem.


The Jewish Agenda
By Phaedrus

Here's what they're up to:

The progressive elimination of all national borders world-wide.

Elimination of foreign currency exchange controls world-wide to aid
unimpeded capital flight.

The imposition of the preferred Jewish method of control - so called
'democracy' - around the world then engineering the installation of
compliant governments who are nothing more than puppets of Zionist
control.

Total control of television, radio, newspapers, periodicals, magazines
and advertising.
The promotion of inter-breeding between disparate races through
pervasive media suggestion and political dogma.

The encouragement of unsustainable levels of immigration in Europe and
the United States, whether legal or not and regardless of the worth of
the immigrants involved or their likely contribution to Western
economies.

Direct control of international finance and banking.

The formation of ever-larger eco-political blocs and free-trade
regions with uniform rules and standards that will one day all be
merged to form the One World Government, which they of course will
control.

The propagation of the mind virus that 'political correctness' is the
enlightened, modern way to go and its rejectionists as in some way
wicked and bigoted or at the very least woefully old-fashioned.

The crushing of any form of dissent against the implementation of the
New World Order.
Stricter gun control measures in the United States with the aim of
eventually disarming the people altogether.

The promotion via their media holdings of homosexuality, mixed-race
relationships and any other forms of aberrant and socially damaging
behavior.

Engendering the idea through media control that blacks are superior to
what they really are and that whites are in fact, inferior to what
they really are.

The idea that homosexuals and lesbians should be proud of what they
are and AIDS is nothing to be ashamed of any more.

The restriction of free expression on the Internet.

The propagation of the concept of 'Hate Crime' - reminiscent of George
Orwell's 'Thought Crime' in his prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen
Eighty-Four.

The encouragement of under-age sex preferably between children of
different races through their numerous teenage magazine titles (theft
of childhood and innocence).

Elimination of trade barriers and the creation of a global,
business-friendly trading environment giving rise to massive job
losses in Europe and America.

The debasement of traditional family values and the destruction of the
family unit.
To ridicule and debase Christianity and anyone who dares uphold moral
values.
To campaign for the intolerance of 'racism' and 'homophobia.'

The promotion of "Affirmative Action" type programs that put the
interests of hopelessly incompetent blacks ahead of struggling, hard
working white people.

The stimulation of inter-tribal violence between Arabs.

The generation of inter-cultural tensions in countries that have
adopted Jew-promoted 'multiculturalism.'

The expansion of a 'Greater Israel' into what remains of Palestine.

And we allow these poisonous rodents to shape our perceptions for us??
We MUST be mad. In the future, after the forthcoming struggle is won,
no Jew must ever be allowed within a million miles of a transmitter or
a printing press - NEVER - for as long as mankind survives.

http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/2007/12/that-jewish-agenda-in-full.html
Post by f***@yahoo.com
condemned them to some kind of horrible punishment without bothering
to have a trial.
People like you, with their perpetual malice against Jews simply for
being Jews, really have been important to the development of modern
Zionism, including the most bloody-minded and tribalistic and inhumane
forms of modern Zionism. With friends like you, the beleaguered
Palestinian people don't need enemies.
February 7, 2008

Beware of Jews Bearing Gifts
By Patrick Grimm

Call me cynical and a curmudgeonly writer if you want to, but I
believe that all of us (non-Jews) must beware of Jews bearing gifts.
Every other day someone in this movement (anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish
supremacism) will smile and assure us that "Oh, not all those Jews are
bad. Look at so-and-so. He's a great Jew who agrees with us. You see,
it has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with how a
person thinks!" Or you might get a silly disclaimer like "I'm not
anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. I'm just anti-Zionist." This is the
foolish tripe and equivocation of the politically correct. As long as
Jews continue to align themselves against us as a hostile minority
that wishes to destroy our societies, I AM ANTI-SEMITIC, or better
yet, ANTI-JEWISH and I am proud of it. When Jews change their
behavior, then my attitude towards them will also change accordingly.
For you see, I only wish to live upon this planet and for my people to
live, and Jews are the main impediment to that simple wish. I won't
apologize for not trusting them and don't you dare stammer and
genuflect for "fear of the Jews" either.
Yet the Marranos or Conversos (Jews who converted to Christianity or
pretended to) and the anti-Zionist Jews (Neturei Karta International)
parade themselves before us as our friends, our compadres, our
fiercely loyal allies. Well excuse me for being just a tiny bit
suspicious. It's just that Jews don't have a great track record of
loyalty, full disclosure or honesty toward non-Jews. In fact, they
have a sordid history of the worst kinds of obfuscation,
misrepresentation, deceit, intrigue, double-dealing and dirty deeds
when it comes to their interactions with our people.
But because of our trusting natures, we are more than willing to take
Jews at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt. If they
tell us they have converted to our point of view, our religion, our
ideology, etc. we rush to embrace them, ignoring the abundance of
caveats and all the extant writings and scribblings of the past which
scream "Beware of Jews bearing gifts!" I won't toss aside the warnings
of great orators, statesmen, thinkers, theologians and artists simply
to placate the PC brigades or to avoid hurting an individual Jew's
feelings. This is not to say that there are not Jews who have
sincerely broken with the Talmudic bigotry of their upbringing. They
do exist. I only ask for a little caution and, dare I say, maybe a
spoonful of cynicism.
There are particular organizations in the Euro-American freedom
movement which have succumbed to Jewish influence. I won't name these
organizations, but what they have in common are that their attitudes
toward organized Jewry warmed considerably once Jews were permitted on
board. This is the danger of a Jewish intellectual influx and it does
not happen by coincidence. The insertion of Jewry into the
intelligentsia of any political movement always leads to subversion of
its original mission, if not to the thorough annihilation of that
mission. This is why I believe that under NO circumstances should Jews
be allowed to assume leadership positions in the anti-Jewish
supremacist cause, though perhaps their assistance could be utilized
at the lower levels of activism. Yet even this is a two-edged sword.
It could lead to intellectual dilution or aberration on the one hand,
but it could also blunt the charges of "anti-Semitism" coming from Big
Jewry's legions, though this is exceedingly doubtful.
I don't believe it is at all unreasonable to feel trepidations about
allying ourselves with members of the very Tribe who brought us
Communism, Zionism, egalitarianism, radical feminism, homosexual
liberation, the New Left, the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory,
deconstructionism, modern liberalism, neo-conservatism and the squalor
of integration, open borders and big government socialist policies in
America. If these are the gifts the Jews are bearing, then we should
definitely beware.
http://zionistwatch.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/beware-of-jews-bearing-gifts/

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Coffee in Madrid
2008-07-10 20:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Topaz - You make a valid point about SOME Jews, but not about "Jews"
in general.
No , you make a valid point about some Jews, but not about Jews in
general.
Indeed.

Some, maybe 29% are as sick as the 29% that are still McDubya fans.

The rest are GREAT and kind and all that jazz.
Topaz
2008-07-10 21:05:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:59:20 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
Post by Coffee in Madrid
Some, maybe 29% are as sick as the 29% that are still McDubya fans.
The rest are GREAT and kind and all that jazz.
By LUKE O'FARRELL
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are
two types of people in the world and people who don't. I'm among the
first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize
the Jewish problem and people who don't.
In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb
people. If you've got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a
can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you're smart. If you've
got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don't
recognize the Jewish problem, you're dumb.
I've been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to
recognize the Jewish problem. I didn't think for myself, I just
accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good
people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad.
But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.
Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an
article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British
liberal. I didn't like liberals then, so I didn't like her for that
(and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her
Jewishness wasn't something I particularly noticed. But as I read the
article I came across something that didn't strike me as very liberal:
she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this
threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman
sits on all sorts of "multi-cultural" committees and is constantly
being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and
the evils of racism. She's all in favor of mass immigration and
there's no way she's worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because
"Race is Just a Social Construct" and "We're All the Same Under the
Skin". She's a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and
healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying
Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?
Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn't apply the same rules
to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was,
in short, a hypocrite. But not just that - she was a Jewish hypocrite.
And that's a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just
thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way
about a Jew because of her Jewishness.
After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or
to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what
had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in
politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those
Jews - like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact - gave me the creeps. There
was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it
wasn't just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.
Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect
of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was "The Iron Lady".
Ronald Reagan was "Teflon Ron". Bill Clinton was "Slick Willy". But
these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least
half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind
of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of
Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed "Hannibal Lecter".
Peter Mandelson, now Britain's Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair's
suspected former lover, is "The Prince of Darkness". Michael Howard
(né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is
"Dracula".
When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What
was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why
had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way
into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of
repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens
when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic
"anti-Semitic" stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren't always
wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren't always wrong, then there's
an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are
sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.
After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive
over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and
journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very,
very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds
at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan "Greed is
Good" Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale,
Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he
was coming down with Alzheimer's, that well-known incurable brain
disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to
confound medical science and recover from it.
Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn't take the
final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until
I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I'm
not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity,
but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical
campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international
campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of
the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical,
crooked Jews around the world. They didn't like something and they
were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.
And what was it they didn't like? A movie about an event at the heart
of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ.
So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art,
literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization
and the White race who created it.
After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews
weren't just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous
too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the
survival of the White race - mass immigration, feminism,
multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights - I realized that Jews were
behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and
had been doing so for decades.
Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and
recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles
subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like "Hannibal
Lecter" and "Prince of Darkness" and "Dracula" to Jewish politicians.
Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our
blood, and it's about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-10 21:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
By LUKE O'FARRELL
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html
Ignorant, cowardly neonazi pinheads like "topaz", and
people who have non-zero IQs.
Topaz
2008-07-11 21:56:03 UTC
Permalink
No Way Out But Through the Jews
A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
by Alex Linder

Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders.
Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish
participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are
destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like
the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The
Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.
...the review
In his 1993 book The Conservative Movement, Jew Paul Gottfried
provides an excellent short history of post-WWII conservatism, and one
that provides a clear, if implicit, message for today's White
nationalist. That message is the title of this review: No way out but
through the Jews. If you plan to pursue the political goal of a
civilized White America, these Jews will be at your throat every step
of the way. So you might as well not kid yourself about that but set
your phaser on "kill" from the start.
Gottfried never comes right out and says it, but the upshot of his
history is that the right has been taken over by Jews. Centered around
the Podhoretz and Kristol families, this Jewish movement pushes an
anti-American ideology. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
advocated no entangling alliances abroad and local rule at home, the
neocons promote a plus-sized managerial state at home, and global
democratic crusades abroad. Since their infiltration in the late
sixties, early seventies, says Gottfried, these Jewish "conservatives"
have garnered the lion's share of money and media access,
marginalizing the traditional right. And although he nowhere mentions
talk radio or the Internet, Gottfried sees virtually no options at the
disposal of those who would usurp the usurpers.
Who are the neoconservatives? Essentially, they are a small group of
East Coast Jewish intellectuals of regular private morality. They are
former reds or red-diaper babies who departed from the New Left when
it started advocating odd sex and communism and other policies they
felt were potentially anti-Semitic. As they emerged from this sixties
morass, they gravitated to the right, where they found allies in the
anti-communist cause; friends with foundation money that could be used
to construct a bulwark against their crazier New Left brethren. Over
the course of the seventies, the Jewish neoconservatives took over one
foundation after another, supplanting the Christian traditionalist
bias of American conservatism with their detailed policy studies and
position papers. These bore proof of their sociological and
statistical cast of mind, different from the Kirkian
religious-literary bias of traditionalists.
By the time of Reagan, they had achieved dominance. Any conservative
hoping to make a career of it, whether in politics or writing or
commentating, had to hew to their specific vision of the America they
wished to conserve if he wished to preserve his own office, air-time
or sheet space. Any vestigial strains of racial feeling or regional
sympathy were anathema to these racist philo-Semitic anti-racists who
are unstinting in their anathematizing of anyone who diverges from
their pluralist, democratic dogmas. Any American, that is. The
dogmatic democratic pluralism disappears when it comes to Israel,
where Semitic chauvinism is, quite rightly they think, the law. What
White racialists want for America is no different from what Jewish
neoconservatives want for Israel. But they will try to shout down
anyone who makes the equation, just ask Joe Sobran. Only Jews have a
right to an ethnostate; democratic pluralism is good enough for the
rest of us. This hypocritical double-standard springs directly from
the gut Jewish feeling that an America made up of many conflicting
groups, riven by cultural standards, divided by ethnicity, history and
behavior, is the America in which the Jew is safest, and can move
about most freely. A strong, sure White nation scares the Jew. So
whether it's America or Europe, he tries to undercut it with
anthropological lies about the unreality of race, falsified histories
("diversity has always been our greatest strength") support for open
immigration, suppression of free speech and the destruction of free
association-all in the name of "civil rights." Neoconservatives are
Jews, no need to look further than that. Jews, whether left or right,
ask only one question: Is it good for the Jews? They hide behind
universalist rhetoric, but their concern is for themselves. And you
can be absolutely sure of this: Their interests are not our
interests..
David Horowitz would be a prime example of an expert deployer of a
plausible, counterfeit theory and history of America to suck in
potential White racialists and get them four-square behind a nutty,
extremist, ahistorical view of politics that can only lead America
into South Africa's pit of horrors. The triumph of individual rights
in Black lands means the triumph of the jungle. It is extremist,
rationalist and counter-historical to elevate a political process over
the character of the people. How can ignorant, 75-IQ blacks produce
civilization protecting the individual rights these neoconservatives
claim to love? Can one-man, one-vote really produce that miracle? Of
course not, and these Jews know it. And they know that the Founders
knew it. So they lie. The truth, as they know and cover up, is that
the Founders understood that only civilized, self-controlled White men
were capable of civilization, and that to expect dissolute, lazy,
TV-drenched slobs mixed with mulattoes and Negroes and Mexicans to
vote in ordered liberty was to expect the impossible. But David
Horowitz, living in Los Angeles, can look out the window and tell you
it's possible. Never underestimate the power of Jewish duplicity in
furthering Jewish self-interest. That's a second corollary to
Gottfried's study.
We asked above whether or not these neoconservative Jews were really
conservative. Perhaps that question isn't important. One point
Gottfried does develop, writing in 1993, is just how little difference
there is in today's political discourse between left and right. As I
write, George W. Bush is battling Al Gore, so the point is hardly
stale. Effectively, the left and right may differ in degree, but
everybody supports a capitalist welfare state and global democracy.
Everybody is "inclusive." Everybody bows before the great God of
Diversity. Are the Jews conservative? In the deeper sense, no. They
are still radicals, intent on spreading their lies about human
fungibility, from which they aone are exempt as the "Chosen" people.
Left or right, they are eager to destroy our White civilization to
further their group interests.
On the second most important political issue of the day-leaving the
borders open to the third world-the Jews speak with one voice: no
patrols. Note this well: Never in American history has a majority of
Whites favored colored immigration. The Jews alone favored it, for
reasons outlined above. Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of
the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You
thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong.
Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in
those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans
are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the
pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught
them to). The Jews almost to a man push open-borders immigration, and
they denounce anyone who differs as an evil racist/nativist/xenophobe.
All the Jewish lies dovetail intellectually, and all of them advance
Jewish interests. I recommend, I urge, I wish I could force everyone
who hasn't to read Kevin MacDonald's paper on the Jewish influence in
the hundred years of debate preceding the nation-killing 1965
immigration act that opened the floodgates to the third world. The
Jewish hatred of the White world is the story that doesn't make the
news, even as it remakes your neighborhood. I doubt the plush-paunched
Republicans watching TV politics as spectator sport will ever pick up
on it. You will run a long way before you meet an average American
with the slightest historical awareness-nor the interest in developing
one. But the arguments are lying there, exactly as I've presented
them, and perhaps in a crisis people will take a hard look at what
brought us to our current position. For all the disinformation out
there, it's still not too hard to detect the patterns once you have
the facts. . . .
So we've seen that Jews claiming themselves "conservatives" but not
all that different from their leftist brethren have come in and
dominated the right. Where does this leave whatever is left of the
non-Jewish right? I would break this set into two subsets: those who
are openly racist (which Gottfried avoids) and those who make veiled
or open Semitically Incorrect arguments while attempting to maintain
their "respectability." The former have no political power, while the
latter are desperate to hang on to their columns and speaking
engagements.
Although there are a handful of Jews pushing standard White-racist
arguments, and who would receive even less notice than they do get if
they weren't Jewish, these same never take into account that Jews can
never simply be another ethnic group assimilated into a purified White
America. The nature and qualities and history of their group shows
just that-they are a group. And since they are a group that recognizes
itself as a group and fights against other groups on that basis-they
must be opposed as a group. This is not so much guilt by association
as guilt by genetics and behavior and history. As a group they have
strategized to destroy the civilized White America they felt
threatened by, and anything we do to them in return is more than
deserved. Treating them as individuals, just like we are, has failed.
The correct path is to treat them as the radical alien outsiders and
eliminate their influence. We need to take their flag off the
courthouse, so to speak.
Getting back to the lesson at the top of the page, Jews have so
strategized their evolution (see Kevin MacDonald's work) as to be
considerably more intelligent than their hosts, with an average IQ of
115, a standard-deviation above the White mean. This intelligence and
their proven historical character combine to ensure Jews will always
be the yeast, the irritants, the makers-uncomfortable, the
revolutionaries. Wherever they exist in White society they will be a
force for disruption. The fact that some can exist as peaceful ethnics
among the White majority does not negate this Big Truth (for if there
can be Big Lies, there can also be Big Truths). Because
class-arguments can be abused, and because injustice will be meted out
to individual non-Whites when we rebuild civilization, the Jews
enforcing their dogma of individualism will always have points to make
that resonate with our myopic right-wing individualists. But just as
surely as these Jews averted their eyes from the general horrors
ensuing in South Africa after their racial-and-political equality
dogmas were enacted, the pro-White right must be louder than ever in
showing that their ethnic Jewish self-interest can only end in the
extinction of the White race. Really. Those are the stakes.
The media neoconservatives can't afford to admit the evidence of the
failure of their dogma in South Africa, rape and murder capital of the
world; rather they redouble their insistence on individualism to evade
the Big Truth that colored demographics and political democracy doom
White minorities everywhere. And taking a global perspective-as we are
all supposed to do, nowadays-the White race is a small minority, and
growing smaller every day. Our White kinsmen are already being
butchered in their homes and driven off their farms in South Africa
and Zimbabwe. Literally tens of millions of Whites have become victims
of violent Black assault in America since the Jew-eased passage of
"Civil Rights" legislation. The Jews well know these facts, and that
is why they avoid reporting them. They hated South Africa when it was
ruled by civilized Whites. They don't give a damn what happens to
Whites once their beloved Negroes are carrying the whip. Foolish,
foolish White man-will you not wake up while there is time?
What we are discussing is a very simple: the Jews are a class fighting
to dominate other classes, just as Benjamin Stein saw in his report on
the TV Weltanschauung, The View from Sunset Boulevard. Jew Stein, like
Jew Michael Levin (Feminism and Freedom), will never name his people
as that class, pointing to "writers and producers," "feminists," and
"neoconservatives." (It is really truly amazing the way that Jews are
able to camouflage their interests, always presenting their specific
goal as a general good, and that their terms are tacitly accepted in
their opponents' rhetoric. It's like we all are under contract to
agree that the Jews aren't a group and don't have any specific
interests and certainly don't work to advance those interests and even
if they do, they aren't in conflict with ours. But notice that on the
flip side, the opposite conditions obtain: Jews always attack their
opponents by class (right-wing Christian extremists, racist haters,
Arabs), lingering lovingly on the specific interests of their
undifferentiated opponents; always forestalling counter-arguments as
"anti-Semitism" driven by the only motive Jews ever allow their
opponents-all together now-"hate." The Jews can only get away with
this clever I-criticize-you-and-you
criticize-that-bag-of-flour-over-there setup because they exert
extraordinary control over television and newspapers. And their backup
line of defense, of course, is to denounce anyone who notices the
strategies behind their tactics as an anti-Semitic conspiracymonger.
This is a second aspect of what the 'ZOG'-minded are pointing to.
Stein is writing about the class of TV writers and producers;
Gottfried is writing about neoconservatives; Levin is writing about
feminists. All of them mean Jews, none of them can afford to say it.
When you become a Jew, it's almost as though you have to sign a sheet
saying you will either avoid mentioning negative Jewish
characteristics or-pace Marx and Freud-reinterpret specific, offensive
Jewish behaviors or patterns as generically human: i.e., repression,
or characteristic of an exploited class. (An excellent book, The
Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, covers this topic in
depth.) The one thing none of these rightist Jews wants is a civilized
White society where Jews are nonexistent. Or ghettoized. Or looked
down on socially. Or in which you are free to speak and write and talk
about Jews as specific people who act, look and think in generalizable
ways. Jews may be physically ugly duplicitous socialist troublemakers,
but they don't want you saying that. They will propagandize through
the schools and TV until you are practically unable to notice it
because the whole context in which you might make such an observation
has been destroyed. They will make hard to find the few books that
dare discuss it. (Just try finding Cuddihy's book.) History is nothing
but a propaganda tool to them. In living memory they were kept out of
the better hotels and clubs and colleges, and since treatment of the
Jews, to Jews, is the true measure of civilization, any time they were
legally or socially treated as other than the God-sent gift they
present themselves (that is, all history up until about fifty years
ago) must be falsified into Dark Ages (Jews out of power) preceding
today's Enlightened Age (Jews running the show). Let alone the
ghettoes of old Europe, these people are capable of portraying the
fifties in America as some sort of racist hellhole, saved only through
heroic Blacks led by saintly Jews in the name of civil rights or
federal tyranny, if you prefer your descriptions accurate. What is
clear to every Jew seems to be unclear to most White Americans,
especially those on the right who ought to know better:
this is a war of classes, a war for power and dominance between a
small but smart and well-positioned ethnic group and the vast majority
of civilized White people. The Jews instinctively recognize this
battle, feel it in their blood, and are fighting hard for their side.
Most on our side aren't even aware a war is going on.
Gottfried points to two symbolic episodes that show the transfer of
power from the traditional right to the neocons: 1) Rockford's firing
of John Neuhaus, and his subsequent denunciation of traditionalist
racism and anti-Semitism among the Old Right; and, 2) the neocons'
successful defeat of M.E. Bradford, a traditionalist historian, as
head of the National Endowment of Humanity. What was the traditional
right to do? Basically, it retreated, licked its wounds, and looked
about in search of allies and money and media outlets. What has
happened, and this is clearer now than when Gottfried completed the
book, is that the American political system under Clinton has gotten
so corrupt that even average people began to notice. This alone has
strengthened the traditional right's never-too-strong confidence, and
strengthened its new ally, the libertarians, too. And both sides have
benefited hugely from the Internet, which at once strengthens small
groups and somewhat threatens established media institutions. By 2000,
there were enough ganglia of pro-Whites on the Internet to get
mainstream Jewish groups scribbling "hate crimes" model statutes,
anti-gun legislation, and politically correct browser censorware at
top speed.
It might have been expected that the loss of power and funding would
have resulted in the radicalization of the traditional right, at least
to the point of open talk about taking the American right back from
the Jews. There was very little of such talk, none of it open-at least
among those with one eye on "respectability," that ever leftward
moving boundary observed by fools.
What we still see on the right in the year 2000 are leading non-Jewish
right-wing Whites couching what they know to be racial arguments in
regional or race-neutral terms. Sam Francis speaks of Middle American
Revolutionaries. He means Whites, but he's afraid to come out and say
it. Of course, he gets called racist just the same. And he got fired
from the neocon Washington Times just the same. But Jews, to him, are
just people with a different religion, and he can still find a way to
fit minorities into that Middle American revolution.
Then there are the various Southern separatist groups. All are
carefully non-racial. All get accused of being racist. All fail to
draw the correct conclusion. It is amusing in a sick and increasingly
irritating way. Is there nobody left who can think clearly and isn't
afraid to voice his conclusions publicly? No, the Southern Semitically
Correct separatists present as sorry a face as they always do. Always
trying for that elusive respectability, always failing to achieve it,
and always losing the few-and merely symbolic-battles they do engage
in. For people who brag incessantly "on" their heroic Confederate
ancestors, they show little courage and less intelligence.
I'll say it again, a little louder now, so Johnny Reb can hear me:
THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE OR
PRETEND TO BE NON-RACIST. YOU ARE THREATENED AS A GROUP, BY A GROUP,
AND YOU'D BETTER GET THOSE GROUPS STRAIGHT IN YOUR HEAD TO HAVE ANY
HOPE OF PRESERVING THE LAND AND PEOPLE YOU LOVE.
A little more on the Southern-rights groups. The left always froths
over them, as though people too scared and powerless to say what they
mean openly are going to achieve anything. This frothing is more a
measure of media boredom and the fact that the left is so dominant it
has forgotten what real opposition feels like that it goes overboard.
The left so buys its own frothing demagoguery it can't even realize
these people have ceded the essential point before they even start
arguing. Pity the poor Southern separatist. He can't even keep the
flag in the air or the Blacks from pooping on the statue of his
great-grandaddy. Even with all that Confederate heroism running in his
blood, he's still selling his problem as Northerners, not Blacks. As
though America hasn't been homogenized by TV into one big mall or
airport lobby. As though the guy in Arkansas is worried about the
White man just over the Missouri line, more than the Black next door.
How pitiful and obvious he is, our man of gray, thinking the media
will buy that he's really not racist. He can't see that it doesn't
matter in the slightest if he isn't, and if he is, he's contemptible
for not arguing openly. Ditch the gray and go for black and white,
Southern Man.
How many times does the right have to learn that the media really is
controlled by Jews, by intimidation where not by ownership; that Jews
really are leftist; and that anyone preaching anything remotely
resembling White pride gets treated like a human showing emotion in
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (that is, squawked at and pointed out
to the cops by the aliens who are taking over the planet) - so that he
might as well oppose the Jew's anti-White hatred openly. You can't win
where the other guy defines the terms, sets the labels, interprets the
law. You must oppose him openly, directly, explicitly and give him no
quarter. Why are you always on the defensive? Could it be the same
reason you always lose? Here we come to a deep-lying problem with
conservatism. First of all, nobody's ever satisfactorily defined it. A
branch of that problem is that there is no philosophical basis for
incorporating political attack. A new conservatism must be envisioned
that incorporates not merely the preservation of custom and tradition,
but one that can accommodate formless spiritual or psychic drives that
are even more important than patterned behaviors: questing,
exploration, simple competitiveness. Even blood-lust. What could be
more conservative than blood-lust? But where do you find it among the
Republicans; over at the Jew-intimidated National Review? Among the
foundation-based low-tax remonstrators?
The funny thing is that once you say, Yes, I am a racist. Just like
George Washington. And you are a White-hating Jew-the poison is drawn.
They have set the terms of this political game we all play, and only
by refusing to play do we stand a chance of winning. It is utmost
foolishness, as anybody who has published conservative articles
anywhere in the world will tell you, to try to escape the racist tag.
You can't, and in any case it ain't a meaningful word, people-it's
just a way to smear and discredit you. Fight the smearers and
discrediters directly, refuse to play on their terms. Love and
fairness no more conquer hate than they conquer bullets. Prefixing
your conservative arguments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and
expecting to achieve your political goals is like one of those African
rebel guerillas smearing himself with magical pig grease thinking it
will stop bullets.
Apart from your opinion of the Nazis, consider their tactics. Did they
win-democratically-by adopting the tactics of the respectable American
right, or did they gain converts by their physical courage and their
willingness to confront the Jew-led communists? How much worse can the
Old Right do than it is doing right now? Not much. The mainstream
right-as I write, G.W. Bush and the Republican convention are in full
swing, every other speaker addressing the hall is a colored-has
decided to ape the liberals. In the words of the song, Freedom's just
another word for nothing left to lose. Well, what on earth do the Sam
Francises and Thomas Flemings and the Pat Buchanans have left to lose?
A column in an obscure magazine? A speech to a few dozen like-mindeds?
Is it possible they will turn to effective tactics out of sheer
boredom? Sam Francis (you'll serve as representative here), how could
you possibly do worse than you are doing now by openly criticizing
Jews instead of making pusillanimous attacks on East Coast elitists
and New World Order bureaucrats? How could you possibly fare any worse
by defending the Black-and-White truths of the Founders in
black-and-white terms?
Then you've got the libertarians, trying to get government off our
backs without any recourse to racial explanations or group interests
in explaining human behavior. Trying to understand the world one
person at a time. Some of these libertarians are products of Silicon
Valley, and to the extent they philosophize, they are Randian
individualists. They believe in free trade and free movement of
peoples, and make no distinctions between them. Libertarians seem to
instinctively turn away from any historical recognition of the
circumstances under which the freedoms they demand were actually
realized. Even their few (and in many ways impressive) intellectuals
who are interested in history tend to fall in line with the
politically safe Jewish lie about the non-racial aspect of our
founding, building their future utopias in that tired old,
misunderstood, misrepresented "all men are created equal."
Politically, libertarians are laughable, beyond their useful ability
to supply policy papers. Imagine a whole bunch of computer geeks and
economics professors marching on Washington under the fear-inspiring
banner of "Me!" Now there's an Army even our heroic neo-Confederates
could take! Libertarians maybe never will realize that, again I yell,
BLOOD AND RACE ARE WHAT MOVE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOOBIES
AND BUGGER YOUR BOYFRIEND. NOT EVEN ECONOMICS. Am I really the only
idiot to notice that when Whites ruled America, White people were
free? And that when Jews and Blacks rule America, they're slaves? But
most "right-wing" libertarians would rather support a minimum wage
hike than acknowledge this simple historical fact. They are too
rationalist in temperament, too much like our liberal dictators. Too
in love with their idea of
people-as-individuals-in-the-low-tax-multicultural-utopia-of-tomorrow
to pay attention to street-level political and historical reality.
Many of us want individual liberty, but it only obtains under certain
circumstances. There sure doesn't seem to be much of it around in
these days of "civil rights" for everybody except the people who
created the idea of 'em in the first place. If there's anything that
gives the lie to what passes for "conservatism" these days, it's right
here: Genuine civil rights-association, property, speech,
self-defense-were much better protected in the days before the prating
Jews and their colored parasite minions rose to the fore. Yet
recognition of the race-based nature of practical, effective, genuine
freedom will get you kicked out of the Libertarian party faster than
you can say Don't Do Drugs!
Libertarians take one aspect of looking at the world and inflate it
into the entire cosmos. This is their built-in bias. When you combine
it with their standard right-wing fear of crossing the Semitical
Correctness line, you have a second hurdle between them and racialism.
The conservative Christians share these political flaws. Their concern
is not for the race or the group, but for the salvation of the
individual soul. Of course, since in years past the Good Book has been
used to support virtually every position under the sun including
communism, there is a bit more hope for their conversion on the racial
issue, should the powers that be change. TV Christians have proven
able adopters of the Semitically Correct line. Israel is good and
racialism is bad. That's the message they're getting from New York,
and that's the message Pat Robertson is putting out to rural North
Carolina. The libertarians have their hated parties, but these are
always anonymous "bureaucrats" or "statists," or "socialists"-never
anyone you can actually get your hands on. Same with the Christian
conservatives. They are the equivalent of the libertarians in that the
former are excellent at certain types of economic reasoning (Why We
Should Privatize Trash Collection) while the Christians retain solid
moral and character-development advice. They are both good on the
small-picture stuff. But neither group can take a realistic look at
the general; they are both concerned about saving Heaven or Liberty
one soul at a time. They both simply refuse to make necessary
generalizations. Christians, again like Libertarians, invariably throw
their opprobrium on carefully generic targets: Atheists, secular
humanists (gays are the one exception, and even here they say "Hate
the sinner, not the sin," as though that doesn't conflict with their
doctrine of free will). A Jew or a black or a Mexican is a vivid
image, immediately recognizable. The abstractions countered by the
Christians and the libertarians are creatures that nobody would
recognize on a public street. They are fighting abstactly against
abstractions, instead of coherently for something concrete.
Never do the Christians go after the Jews who are killing their
doctrines; never do they speak the name of their real enemy despite
the spittingly obscene provocations to which he has subjected them.
This is why, with tens of millions in numerical advantage, the
Christians aren't even masters of the civilization they created. In
fact, much of the leadership class of the Christians has become so
enthralled with Jewish ideas that now the church will bend any which
way the Jews require, whether it's removing the Commandments from the
classroom the way the Jew judge and Jew-created and -run ACLU tell
them to, or rewriting history to avoid the fact that Jews condemned
their own Savior to die (as in the revised [read: Semitically Correct]
Passion Plays)! They may think they are only turning the other cheek,
but self-abasing worms is what these new Christians truly are. This
used to be a religion whose adherents killed others in glorious
crusade for their Truth, and died at the stake before renouncing their
Faith. Today, the biggest name in Christendom hobnobs with nutty
Buddhists and faxes apologies to Jerusalem. For all its residual focus
on humility and self-discipline (welcome antacids to the Jewish public
school lies about self-esteem, which is really self-absorption and
self-worship; in a word, selfishness), the Christian church in America
is today furthering the racial evils that Jewish ideologues,
especially those misappropriating the name conservative, have
subjected us to. Pat Robertson has no problem with those influxing
Mexican chicken-pluckers heaping his collection plates, and has
publicly advocated miscegenation as the long-term solution to our
racial ills. If he preached miscegenation as a sin, as his hardier
forebears did, he would be burned at the stake. Pardon me, I mean, he
wouldn't be on TV. The fact that any evangelicals are on TV at all is
conditioned on their support for Israel and their multiracialism. This
is what makes their leaders despicable-not the hypocrisy and
White-trashiness the left and right would have us sneer at them for.
Recently Bush's first national campaign ad aired. It shows him at a
school surrounded by little black and brown kids, all well on their
way to becoming the computer programmers and doctors and lawyers and
Republicans of tomorrow. It seems the GOP has made up its mind which
way it's going. It's everyvato's party; down with the homies, too.
Make any show that persuades in order to capture power. The old
Clinton strategy. After all, reality is that waves of wets wash over
the border every night, and at some point they and their kids will
vote. The bulk White population is fading, and the core demographic
supporting conservative principles simply won't be there to swing a
presidential election in another ten years. Even Jew-genuflecting
National Review has noticed this Californication of America, as has
been termed in a different context. But sucking up to the powers that
be, angling for a spot, doing what he's told, is something the
middle-manager mind that makes up the Republican ranks well
understands. Ya got to roll with the punches, ya know?
White man, you have to decide. If you choose not to decide, you still
have made a choice, to make a phrase. You can pull a Christian
Scientist, and pretend that that brown spot on our national chest will
just go away if we think positive thoughts long enough, refuse to
acknowledge it. But it won't. Those coloreds swamping the border,
those grasping welfare niggers, those lying Jewish press manipulators
won't disappear of their own accord. Twenty years from now, George
Bush-Brown will be president, and all the things you fear today-
your kids blood-libeled at school; yourself discriminated against on
the job; your taxes higher than ever; your wife subject to insults,
rape or assault; your big cities gang-dominated; your small cities
dominated by nigger "music" and clothing pollution; your guns
outlawed; your political opinions criminalized; your TV louder and
more intrusive and hateful-will be worse. As Paul Gottfried shows,
but doesn't tell, the same Jews that have made the present possible
are working hard to make this future inevitable. But there is still a
window of opportunity. But only if you recognize that we-you and I
and the others reading this-are part of the White race, share
interests, and must band together. And that, politically, culturally
and socially, to achieve a civilized future, there is
NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS!

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index5.htm

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-11 22:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
No Way Out But Through the Jews
Pity all you ignorant lying pinheads are too cowardly
to TRY it. The Jews would kick your worthless ass
in a hot, New York second.
Topaz
2008-07-12 00:29:06 UTC
Permalink
At one time or other the Jews have been expelled from every nation in
Europe. When the Jews first began to immigrate to America the early
colonialists in New York, Charleston and Savannah tried to ban their
entry. Benjamin Franklin pleaded with the members of the Continental
Congress to enter a specific ban against Jewish immigration into the
U. S. Constitution to bar them for all time to come.
The Jews claim that they are "only" a religion. The truth is that the
Jews are a RACE. Less than 30% are members of any Synagogue. Whether
they are Orthodox religious, atheists, capitalists or communists -
they still claim to be Jews - members of the Jewish race! Every race
has inherited traits. In the case of the Jews they include trading,
money-changing, usury, and a loathing for "productive labor" which is
scorned as beneath the dignity of the Jews in their "bible" called
"THE TALMUD."
The Jews have not changed since the days when Jesus Christ took up a
whip and drove "the money changers out of the Temple." Jews have
always united to form monopolies. Today they control all the
department store chains and specialty shops along with the lucrative
jewelry and animal fur trade. Jews dominate the fields of all precious
metals such as gold, silver, platinum, tin, lead, etc. They will
always ban together to drive Gentile competitors out of business.
Today America is being flooded with Jewish immigrants from Russia and
even 20,000 per year leave Israel for the U. S. - all with dollar
signs in their eyes. Jews have used their vaunted money-power to seize
control of the Democratic Party and constitute over 50% of all its
financial contributions. Today they are buying up more and more major
U.S. companies. While only 3% of the population, the Jews control over
25% of the nation's wealth and this percentage rises every year. They
are the only racial group totally organized to work for political
domination over America.
Opposition to the Jews did not begin in Germany but dates back before
the birth of Christ over 2,000 years ago! Study the statements made by
"The world's greatest men." They reveal why the "wandering Jews" have
made enemies out of every host country that ever accepted them.
CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman statesman,
writer.
"Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have
already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman.
I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration
in Defense of Flaccus)

Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman
official who interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their
international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself
certainly was not a nobody, and for one of this stature to have to
"speak softly" shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously
powerful sphere of influence. and on another occasion Cicero wrote:
"The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous
this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise
through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."
SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher.
"The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength
that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have
given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione)

DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage
Jewish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as
the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form:
"The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh
of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and
daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in
Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot
in Cyprus today." (Roman History)

DIODORUS SICULUS. First century Greek historian. Observed that Jews
treated other people as enemies and inferiors.
"Usury" is the practice of lending money at excessive interest rates.
This has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles.
It has brought strong condemnation of the Jews!

BERNARDINO OF FELTRO. 15th century Italian priest. A mild man who
extolled patience and charity in normal circumstances, he described
himself as a "barking dog" when dealing with Jews:
"Jewish usurers bleed the poor to death and grow fat on their
substance, and I who live on alms, who feed on the bread of the poor,
shall I then be mute before outraged charity? Dogs bark to protect
those who feed them, and I, who am feed by the poor, shall I see them
robbed of what belongs to them and keep silent?" (E. Flornoy, Le
Bienbeureux Bernardin the Feltre)

AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his
"On the Governance of the Jews," he wrote:
"The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from
others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so
that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but
becoming avaricious."

HILAIARE BELLOC, in the book THE JEWS, page 9
"There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance.
There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and
in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel,
quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to
monopoly is spreading like a disease."

H. BEAMISH, in New York Speech, October 30, 1937
"The Boer War occurred 37 years ago. Boer means farmer. Many
criticized a great power like Britain for trying to wipe out the
Boers. Upon making inquiry, I found all the gold and diamond mines of
South Africa were owned by Jews; that Rothschild controlled gold;
Samuels controlled silver, Baum controlled other mining, and Moses
controlled base metals. Anything these people touch they inevitably
pollute."

W HUGHES, Premier of Australia, Saturday Evening Post, June 19, 1919
"The Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not
a gold field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does
not pay them a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the
antipodean continent. What is the good of our being a wealthy nation,
if the wealth is all in the hands of German Jews?"

POPE CLEMENT VIII
"All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies
and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of
poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very
poor.
Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they
were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the
Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as
well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in
whatever country they happen to live."

NESTA WEBSTER, In World Revolution, The Plot against Civilization,
page
163
"Since the earliest times it is as the exploiter that the Jew has been
known amongst his fellow men of all races and creeds. Moreover, he has
persistently shown himself ungrateful... The Jews have always formed a
rebellious element in every state."

FRANZ LISZT, famed composer quoted in Col. E. N. Sanctuary's Are These
Things So?, page 278
"The day will come when all nations amidst which the Jews are dwelling
will have to raise the question of their wholesale expulsion, a
question which will be one of life or death, good health or chronic
disease, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever."

JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, VIII:44
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. - then
answered the Jews - "
(which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.)
MARTIN LUTHER, Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated by William
Hazlet, page 43
"But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though
overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious
race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine. If they give a
prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they extort twenty thousand
from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against
them."

REV. GORDON WINROD, in his book The Keys to Christian Understanding,
pages 114 - 115
"Judaism does not know Jesus Christ. Judaism hates Jesus Christ. When
St. Paul was in Judaism, before he was converted to Christianity, he
hated Jesus Christ and persecuted Christians and Christianity."
Paul said: "You have heard of my earlier career in Judaism - how
furiously I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it; and
how in devotion to Judaism I out-stripped many men of may own age
among my people, being far more zealous than they for the tradition of
my forefathers." (Gal. 1:13, 14, Weymouth Translation)
While in Judaism, Paul persecuted Christians because of his intense
hatred for Christians and because of his conformity to the tradition
of the fathers. This shows that the tradition of teachings of Judaism
are filled with hate for Christians.
Few people know of this because they do not carefully read their
Scriptures and because of the great pains which Jews have take to
deceive the Christians. Care has been exerted by the Jews to hide
their ECONOMIC-POLITICAL conspiracy for complete world domination
UNDER high sounding words that have a "RELIGIOUS" ring in the ears of
Christians. The Jews use such "religious" sounding words as "the
Jewish faith," "the Jewish religion," "Jewish spiritual values,"
"Jewish religious doctrines," and like phrases which deceive and lead
the unlearned into total equanimity.
Behind this mask of religiosity stands a complete plan for world
government, world power, world conquest, a Jewish kingdom of this
world, and the destruction of Christianity.
REV. WILLIAM S. MITCHELL of Philadelphia, quoted in Count
Cherep-Spiridovich's book The Secret World Government, page 194
"If there is an ingrate in history, it is the Jew. In this land which
befriended him he as conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted and
corrupted and (hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of other
folks), dares to contrive and scheme the death of every Christian
principle which has protected him."

ST. JUSTIN, martyr stated in 116 A. D.
"The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They
wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the
Christian faith."

ST. JOHN, Gospel of St. John VII:1
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in
Jewry because the Jews sought to kill him."

M. DE HEEKELINGEN, in Israel: Son Passe, Son Avenir
"The former Rabbi Drach, converted to Catholicism, says that the
Talmud contains "a large number of musing, utterly ridiculous
extravagancies, most revolting indecencies, and, above all, the most
horrible blasphemies against everything which the Christian religion
holds most sacred and most dear."
"In the matter of the translation of the Talmud by non-Jews, we
have always preferred that of Luzsensky, whose accuracy has been
established by the Courts. In 1923, the Public Prosecutor of Hungary
caused his Hungarian Talmud to be seized on account of "attack on
public morals" and "pornography." In delivering its verdict, the Court
declared 'INTER ALIA:'
"The horrors contained in the translation of Alfred Luzsensky are to
be found, without exception, in the Talmud. His translation is
correct, in that it renders these passages, which are actually to be
found in the original text of the Talmud, after their true meaning."
QUINTAS SPETIMUS FLORENS TERTULLIAN (160 - 230 A. D.) Latin Church
Father "The Jews formed the breeding ground of all anti-Christian
actions."

REV. MARTIN LUTHER, sermon at Eisleben, a few days before his death,
February, 1546

"Besides, you also have many Jews living in the country, who do much
harm... You should know the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our
Savior day for day... for that reason you, Milords and men of
authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public
enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our
Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they
give the epithet of changelings and abortions.
Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly
blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our
health, our honor and belongings."

MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 - 1789)
"Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to
remain here without my written permission. I know of no other
troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished
the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all
deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be
removed and excluded from here as much as possible."


(The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that "The Talmud is the real
"bible" of the Jews and that it supersedes the Old Testament. This
volume has been condemned down through the ages for preaching hatred
for Christ and all Christians. Read "THE TALMUD UNMASKED" for the full
shocking details.)
DIDEROT, DENIS. 18th century French scholar. His famous ENCYCLOPEDIE,
the bible of the pre-revolutionary French "enlightenment," has often
been complained of by Jewish writers as 'anti-Semitic.' Some of
Diderot's other writings are likewise unfriendly:
"And you, angry and brutish people, vile and vulgar men, slaves worthy
of the yoke [Talmudism] which you bear ... Go, take back your books
and remove yourselves from me. (LA MOISADE)
[The Talmud] taught the Jews to steal the goods of Christians, to
regard them as savage beasts, to push them over the precipice ... to
kill them with impunity and to utter every morning the most horrible
imprecations against them. (JUIFS)

NASTA WEBSTER, in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, page 370
"The Jewish conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must
eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical
Judaism... The Jewish religion now takes its stand on the Talmud
rather than on the Bible."

F TROCASE, in Jewish Austria
"No obstacle discourages them; they persevere throughout the world,
throughout the centuries, the unity of their race. The Talmud has
given them a powerful organization which modern progress has been
unable to change. Deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not
Jewish stimulates them in war which they wage against Christian
Society, which is too divided to be able to fight with the necessary
energy."

COUNT HELMUTH VON MOLTKE, Prussian general
"The Jews form a state, and, obeying their own laws, they evade those
of their host country.
The Jews always consider an oath regarding a Christian not binding.
During the Campaign of 1812 the Jews were spies, they were paid by
both sides, they betrayed both sides."

MOHAMMED, in the Koran
"Whoever is a friend of a Jew, belong to them, becomes one of them,
God cannot tolerate this mean people. The Jews have wandered from
divine religion. You must not relent in your work which must show up
Jewish deceit."

BACON, FRANCIS. 16th century British writer, politician. In his The
New
Atlantis, he remarked that Jews
"hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancor against
the people among whom they live."
He also disapproved of non-Jewish usurers as "Judaizers" who would
wear "tawny bonnets" like Jews.
LUTHER, MARTIN. 16th century German religious reformer.
"They are the real liars and bloodhounds, who have not only perverted
and falsified the entire Scriptures from beginning to end and without
ceasing with their interpretations. And all of the anxious sighing,
longing and hoping of their hearts is directed to the time when some
day they would like to deal with us heathen as they dealt with the
heathen in Persia at the time of Esther... On how they love the book
of Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful
and murderous desire and hope. (1)
The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people
as they, who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and
think they must murder and crush the heathen. And the foremost
undertaking which they expect of their Messiah is that he should slay
and murder the whole world with the sword. As they at first
demonstrated against us Christians and would like to do now, if they
only could; have also tried it often and have been repeatedly struck
on their snouts...
Their breath stinks for the gold and silver of the heathen; since no
people under the sun always have been, still are, and always will
remain more avaricious than they, as can be noticed in their cursed
usury. They also find comfort with this: "When the Messiah comes, He
shall take all the gold and silver in the world and distribute it
among the Jews. (2) Thus, wherever they can direct Scripture to their
insatiable avarice, they wickedly do so.
Therefore know, my dear Christians, that next to the Devil, you have
no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement and enemy than a real
Jew who earnestly desires to be a Jew. There may be some among them
who believe what the cow or the goose believes. But all of them are
surrounded with their blood and circumcision. In history, therefore,
they are often accused of poisoning wells, stealing children and
mutilating them; as in Trent, Weszensee and the like. Of course they
deny this. Be it so or not, however, I know full well that the ready
will is not lacking with them if they could only transform it into
deeds, in secret or openly. (3)
A person who does not know the Devil, might wonder why they are so at
enmity with the Christians above all others; for which they have no
reason, since we only do good to them.
They live among us in our homes, under our protection, use land and
highways, market and streets. Princes and government sit by, snore and
have their maws open, let the Jews take from their purse and chest,
steal and rob whatever they will. That is, they permit themselves and
their subjects to be abused and sucked dry and reduced to beggars with
their own money, through the usury of the Jews. For the Jews, as
foreigners, certainly should have nothing from us; and what they have
certainly must be ours. They do not work, do not earn anything from
us, neither do we donate or give it to them. Yet they have our money
and goods and are lords in our land where they are supposed to be in
exile!
If a thief steals ten gulden he must hang; if he robs people on the
highway, his head is gone. But a Jew, when he steals ten tons of gold
through his usury is dearer than God himself!
Do not their TALMUD and rabbis write that it is no sin to kill if a
Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel?
It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to
steal and rob (as they do with their money lending) from a heathen, is
a divine service... And they are the masters of the world and we are
their servants - yea, their cattle!
I maintain that in three fables of Aesop there is more wisdom to be
found than in all the books of the Talmudists and rabbis and more than
ever could come into the hearts of the Jews...
Should someone think I am saying too much - I am saying much too
little! For I see in [their] writings how they curse us Goyim and wish
as all evil in their schools and prayers. They rob us of our money
through usury, and wherever they are able, they play us all manner of
mean tricks... No heathen has done such things and none would to so
except the Devil himself and those whom he possesses - as he possesses
the Jews.
Burgensis, who was a very learned rabbi among them and by the grace of
God became a Christian (which seldom occurs), is much moved that in
their schools they so horribly curse us Christians (as Lyra also
writes) and from that draws the conclusion that they must not be the
people of God.
Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about
being captives among us! Jerusalem was destroyed more than 1,400 years
ago during that time we Christians have been tortured and persecuted
by the Jews in all the world. On top of that, we do not know to this
day what Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them
from Jerusalem!... Yes, we have and hold them captive, as I would like
to keep my rheumatism, and all other diseases and misfortunes, who
must wait as a poor servant, with money and property and everything I
have! I wish they were in Jerusalem with the other Jews and whomsoever
they would like to have with them.
Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned Jewish
people?... Let us apply the ordinary wisdom of other nations like
France, Spain, Bohemia, et al., who made them give an account of what
they had stolen through usury, and divided it evenly; but expelled
them from their country;. For as heard before, God's wrath is so great
over them that through soft mercy they only become more wicked,
through hard treatment, however, only a little better. Therefore, away
with them!
How much more unbearable it is that we should permit the entire
Christendom and all of us to be bought with our own money, be
slandered and cursed by the Jews, who on top of all that be made rich
and our lords, who laugh us to scorn and are tickled by their
audacity!
What a joyful affair that would be for the Devil and his angels, and
cause them to laugh through their snouts like a sow grinning at her
little pigs, but deserving real wrath before God. (From THE JEWS AND
THEIR LIES)
Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe that I am too
rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that
I ridicule them and treat them with much sarcasm. By my word, I am far
too weak to be able to ridicule such a satanic brood. I would fain to
do so, but they are far greater adepts at mockery than I and possess a
god who is master in this art. It is the Evil One himself.
Even with no further evidence than the Old Testament, I would
maintain, and no person on earth could alter my opinion, that the Jews
as they are today are veritably a mixture of all the depraved and
malevolent knaves of the whole world over, who have then been
dispersed in all countries, similarly to the Tartars, Gypsies and such
folk."

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton &
Co.
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's
armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and
the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that
each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and
the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."


This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND
THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional
Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.
"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this
young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The
menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.
In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have
lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have
segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at
and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation
is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state
within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country
to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in
that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call
Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple,
they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because
they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot
live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other
people not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their
Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in
such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and
change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our
blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants
will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they
will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you,
gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will
curse you in your graves.
Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor
how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be
otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not
even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change
its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if
permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional
Convention.

STYVESANT, PETER. 17th century Dutch governor in America.
"The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but
learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading
with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates,
as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry
also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a
charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak
newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to
require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously
in this connection, for ourselves also for the general community of
your worships, that the deceitful race - such hateful enemies and
blasphemers of the name of Christ - not be allowed further to infect
and trouble this new colony. (Letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the
Dutch West India Company, from New Amsterdam, September 22, 1654.)
The Jews whom he attempted to oust merely applied to their fellow Jews
in Holland, and the order came back from the Company countermanding
the expulsion. (For a similar situation during the Civil War, see
ULYSSES GRANT). Among the reasons given by "their worships" for
over-ruling their governor, one stands out rather glaringly, in view
of the usual Jewish contention that their people were 'poor and
persecuted:' "and also because of the large amount of capital which
they have invested in shares of this Company." (Harry Golden and
Martin Rywell, THE JEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY)
THE GEORGIA COLONY IN AMERICA. On January 5, 1734, the trustees
ordered that three Jews who had been sending coreligionists into the
colony without authorization "use their endeavors that the said Jews
may be removed from the Colony of Georgia, as the best and only
satisfaction that they can give to the Trustees for such an indignity
offered to Gentlemen acting under His Majesty's Charter." (C. Jones,
HISTORY OF SAVANNAH)
JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman.
"Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the
land they live in. " (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)
"Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he
had a chosen people. " (NOTES ON VIRGINIA)

BEAMISH, HENRY H. 20th century British publisher.
"There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must
face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was
here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open and you were
then free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat - that is their
reward. " (New York speech, October 30, 1937)

HARRINGTON, LORD. 19th century British statesman. Opposed admission of
Jewish immigrants to England because:
"They are the great moneylenders and loan contractors of the world...
The consequence is that the nations of the world are groaning under
heavy systems of taxation and national debt. They have ever been the
greatest enemies of freedom. (Speech in the House of Lords, July 12,
1858)

WALTER CRICK, British Manufacturer, in the NORTHAMPTON DAILY ECHO,
March 19. 1925)
"Jews can destroy by means of finance. Jews are International.
Control of credits in this country is not in the hands of the English,
but of Jews. It has become the biggest danger the British Empire ever
had to face."

WORLD FAMOUS MEN of the past accused the Jews of founding Communism.
This charge is well founded. The Communist philosophy was drawn up by
Karl Marx who descended from a long line of Rabbis. His ideology of
anti-Christian thought is outlined in the Jewish "TALMUD" which is the
"bible" of the Jews. Of the four political groups which overthrew the
Christian Czar of Russia two were 100% Jewish. They were the
Mensheviks and The Jewish Bund. The other two were the Socialist
Revolutionary Party and the Bolsheviks. Both were headed by Jews but
had some Gentile members. Today we now know that Lenin was part Jewish
and all of the leaders of his first government were Jews. They were
Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlow. The wealthiest Jewish banker
in the world at that time, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb investment bank
of New York City, gave Trotsky and Lenin $20 million to overthrow the
Czar and establish the Soviet tyranny (according to the "NEW YORK
JOURNAL-AMERICAN" of February 3, 1949.)
CHURCHILL, WINSTON. 20th century British politician. In 1920, he wrote
a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia.
After praising what he called the "national Jews" of Russia, he said:
"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the
schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister
confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of
countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if
not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and
divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This
movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of
Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky
(Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma
Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for
the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on
the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and
impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern
writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in
the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of
the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people
by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed
masters of the enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of
Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution
by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is
certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With
the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures
are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes
from the Jewish leaders... In the Soviet institutions the predominance
of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the
principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary
Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews,
and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was
obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun
ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany
(especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey
upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all
these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst
of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in
proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
("Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish
People." ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)

BAKUNYIN, MIKHYL. 19th century Russian revolutionary.
"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less
intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are
everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians,
correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary
brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank
and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon
the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you
can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.
Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a
people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive
inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem
strange. What could there be in common between communism and high
finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state
centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a
state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish
nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always
find the means for its existence...
In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under
which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected
with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political
differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the
disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the
Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand,
women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work
and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in
the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for
profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be
attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations
of the national banks... (Pollmique contras les Jiffs)
This startling piece of prediction is particularly impressive to those
who have observed the Soviet scene and notice its strange relationship
with capitalist financiers - overwhelmingly Jewish - since the
revolution. The line runs from Olof Aschberg, self-described
"Bolshevik banker" who ferried to Trotsky the huge sums raised for the
revolution by financiers in Europe and America, to Armand Hammer in
the 1970s, who has specialized in multimillion-dollar trade
concessions with the now supposedly 'anti-Semitic' commissars.
WILHELM II. German Kaiser.
"A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad
insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief
- even by pogroms, if necessary.
The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I
was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret
the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers." (CHICAGO TRIBUNE,
July 2, 1922)

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, of Hungary quoted in B'nai B'rith Messenger,
January 28, 1949

"The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews... they demoralize our
country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is
torturing Hungary."

ADRIEN ARCAND, New York speech, October 30, 1937
"When it came to Mexico, the promoters of Communism were the Jews
Calles, Hubermann and Aaron Saenz; in Spain we saw Aza1a and
Rosenberg; in Hungary we saw Bela Kun, Szamuelly, Agoston and dozen
other Jews; in Bavaria, we saw Kurt Eisner and a host of other Jews;
in Belgium Marxian Socialism brought to power Vadervelde alias
Epstein, and Paul Hymans, two Jews; in France, Marxian Socialism
brought forth the Jews Leon Blum (who showed so well his Jewish
instincts in his filthy book Du Mariarge), Mandel, Zyromsky, Danain
and a whole tribe of them; in Italy we had seen the Jews Nathan and
Claudio Treves. Everywhere, Marxism brings Jews on the top - And this
is no hazard."

HILAIRE BELLOC, renown historian in G. K.'s WEEKLY, February 4, 1937
"The propaganda of Communism throughout the world, in organization and
direction is in the hands of Jewish agents. As for anyone who does not
know that the Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say
that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppression of our
deplorable press."

A HOMER, writes in Judaism and Bolshevism, page 7
"History shows that the Jew has always been, by nature, a
revolutionary and that, since the dispersion of his race in the second
century, he has either initiated or assisted revolutionary movements
in religion, politics and finance, which weakened the power of the
States wherein he dwelt. On the other hand, a few far-seeing members
of that race have always been at hand to reap financial and political
advantage coincident with such upheavals."

CAPTAIN MONTGOMERY SCHYLER, American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia, in
a military intelligence report dated March 1, 1919, to Lt. Col.
Barrows
in Vladivostok
"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the
Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and
controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the
United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our
civilization without having the least understanding of what we really
mean by liberty."

MRS. CLARE SHERIDAN, Traveler, Lecturer in NEW YORK WORLD, December
15,
1923
"The Communists are Jews, and Russia is being entirely administered by
them. They are in every government office, bureau and newspaper. They
are driving out the Russians and are responsible for the anti-Semitic
feeling which is increasing."

MAJOR ROBERT H. WILLIAMS, in Fecp and the Minority Machine, page 10
"B'nai B'rith, the secret Jewish fraternity, was organized in 1843,
awakening world Jewish aspirations, or Zionism, and its name, meaning
"Sons of the Covenant," suggests that the 12 men who organized the
fraternity aimed at bringing about the fulfillment of "the Covenant,"
or the supposed Messianic promise of rulership over all peoples. To
rule all peoples, it is first necessary to bring them together in a
world federation or world government - which is the avowed aim of both
Communists and Zionists."

VLADIMIR, LENIN, Founder of Bolshevik Communist (From an article in
Northern Pravda, October-December 1913, quoted in Lenin on the Jewish
Question, page 10)
"There the great universally progressive features of Jewish culture
have made themselves clearly felt: its internationalism, its
responsiveness of the advanced movements of our times (the percentage
of Jews in democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher
than the percentage of Jews in the general population.)
...Those Jewish Marxists who join up in the international Marxist
organizations with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other
workers, adding their might (both in Russian and in Jewish) to the
creation of an international culture of the working class movement,
are continuing the best traditions of Jewry."

JOSEPH STALIN in a reply given on January 12, 1931 to an enquiry made
by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America (Stars and Sand, page 316)
"Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track
which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the
jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but
be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the
U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile
to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active
anti-Semites are punished with death."

HENRY FORD in (The Dearborn Independent, 12-19 February 1921
"Jews have always controlled the business... The motion picture
influence of the United States and Canada... is exclusively under the
control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public
mind."

M OUDENDYK, the Netherlands' Minister to Petrograd on September 6,
1918, to the British Government, published in the unexpurgated edition
of A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, April, 1919
"...I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the
greatest issue before the World, not even excluding the war which is
till raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the
bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over
Europe and the whole World, as it is organized and worked by Jews who
have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own
ends the existing order of things."

A N. FIELD, in Today's Greatest Problem
"Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise
puzzling features become understandable. Hatred of Christianity, for
instance, is not a Russian characteristic; it is a Jewish one."

FATHER DENIS FAHEY; in his book The Rulers of Russia, page 25
"The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces, and
Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the
establishment of their future Messianic kingdom."

A N. FIELD, The Truth About the Slump, page 208
"The World today, however provides a spectacle of a great
concentration of Jewish power. In New York there is a concentration of
Jewish financial power dominating the entire world in its material
affairs, and side by side with it is the greatest physical
concentration of the Jews ever recorded. On the other side of the
globe, there has taken place in Russia the greatest concentration of
the Jewish revolutionary activity in all history...
The enormously significant thing in the world today is that both this
power of the purse (Theodor Herzl's "terrible (Jewish) power of the
purse") and revolutionary activity are working in the direction of
destroying the entire existing order of things, and not only are they
working in a common direction, but there is a mass of evidence that
they are working in unison."

H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937
"Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."

HILARY COTTER, author of Cardinal Minszenty, The Truth About His Real
"Crime," page 6
"Communism and Judaism are one and the same."

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader in New York Speech, October
30, 1937
"There is nothing else in Communism - a Jewish conspiracy to grab the
whole world in their clutches; and no intelligent man in the world can
find anything else, except the Jews, who rightly call it for
themselves a "paradise on earth."
Jews are eager to bring Communism, because they know what it is and
what it means.
It is because Communism has not been fought for what it really is - a
Jewish scheme invented by Jews - that it has progressed against all
opposition to it. We have fought the smoke-screen presented by Jewish
dialecticians and publicists, refusing to fight the inventor,
profiteer and string-puller. Because Christians and Gentiles have come
to fear the Jews, fear the truth, and they are paralyzed by the
paradoxical slogans shouted by the Jews."
REV. KENNETH GOFF, in STILL 'TIS OUR ANCIENT FOE, page 99 "The
Frankenstein of Communism is the product of the Jewish mind, and was
turned loose upon the world by the son of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, in the
hopes of destroying Christian civilization - as well as others. The
testimony given before the Senate of the United States which is take
from the many pages of the Overman Report, reveals beyond a shadow of
a doubt that Jewish bankers financed the Russian Revolution."

POPES, ROMAN CATHOLIC.
SYLVESTER I. Condemned Jewish anti-Christian activity.
GREGORY I ('The Great'). Protested wholesale circumcision of Christian
slaves by Jewish traders, who monopolized the slave trade in Europe
and the Middle East and were widely suspected of supplying white girls
to Oriental and African buyers.
GREGORY VIII. Forbade Jews to have power over Christians, in a letter
to Alfonso VI of Castile.
GREGORY IX. Condemned the TALMUD as containing "every kind of vileness
and blasphemy against Christian doctrine."
BENEDICT XIII. His Bull on the Jewish issue (1450) declared:
"The heresies, vanities and errors of the TALMUD prevent their knowing
the truth."
JULIUS III. Contra Hebreos retinentes libros (1554) ordered the TALMUD
burned "everywhere" and established a strict censorship over Jewish
genocidal writings - an order that has never been rescinded and which
presumably is still binding upon Catholics.
PAUL IV. Cum nimis absurdim (1555) promulgated immediately after his
coronation, was a powerful condemnation of Jewish usury. It embodies a
model legal code to curb Jewish power that was recommended to all
communities.
PIUS IV. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.
PIUS V. Hebraeorum gens (1569) expelled all Jews from the Papal
States.
GREGORY XIII. Declared that Jews
"continue to plot horrible crimes" against Christians "with daily
increasing audacity."
CLEMENT VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.
ALEXANDER VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.
BENEDICT XIV. Quo Primum 1751) denounced Jewish control of commerce
and "systematical despoliation" of the Christian through usury.
PIUS VII. Known generally as an 'anti-Semite' by Jewish writers.
BENEDICT XV. Warned, in 1920, against
"the advent of a Universal Republic which is longed for by all the
worst elements of disorder."
This is resented by some Jews because of their active sponsorship and
direction of such projects as the League of Nations and United
Nations.
· And in effect, all Popes who have issued editions of the Index
Expurgatorius, in which Jewish genocidal and anti-Christian writings
are condemned, according to the instructions of the Council of Trent.


GRANT, USYSSES S. 19th century American general, politician. While in
command of the 13th Army Corps, headquartered at Oxford, Mississippi,
he became so infuriated at Jewish camp-followers attempting to
penetrate the conquered territory that he finally attempted to expel
the Jews:
"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that
can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the
Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and
other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that
I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits
to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from
the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of
all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged
class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any wood yard on the
river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy
cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will
be at military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay
for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate,
paying gold. (Letters to C. P. Wolcott, assistant secretary of war,
Washington, December 17, 1862)
1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade
established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders,
are hereby expelled from the Department.
2. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order by
Post
Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are
furnished with passes and required to leave, and anyone returning
after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement
until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless
furnished with permits from these headquarters.
3. No permits will be given these people to visit headquarters
for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major Gen. Grant Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant
General (General Order Number 11, December 17, 1862)

The expulsion order was immediately countermanded by the
general-in-chief, H. W. Halleck, in Washington. Apparently the
expelled Jews had immediately contacted their kinsmen there and had
pressure brought to bear.
SHERMAN, WILLIAM T. 19th century American soldier. In a letter from
Union-occupied Memphis, July 30, 1862, he wrote:
"I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and
secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I
have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use - the
purchase of arms and ammunition... Of course, I have respected all
permits by yourself or the Secretary of the Treasury, but in these new
cases (swarms of Jews), I have stopped it." (The Sherman Letters)

ROSS, L. F. 19th century American military man. As did Generals
ULYSSES S GRANT and WILLIAM T. SHERMAN, Ross confronted Jewish 'carpet
bagging' cotton traders preying upon captured Confederate areas during
the Civil War. In a letter to General John A. McClernand, he wrote:
"The cotton speculators are quite clamorous for aid in the getting
their cotton away from Middleburg, Hickory Valley, etc., and offer to
pay liberally for the service. I think I can bring it away with
safety, and make it pay to the Government. As some of the Jew owners
have as good as stolen the cotton from the planters, I have no
conscientious scruples in making them pay liberally to take it away."

OLMSTED, GREDERICK LAW. 19th century American architect, historian.
"A swarm of Jews has, within the last ten years, settled in every
Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap
clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of
the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple
Negroes, which is found very profitable. (The Cotton Kingdom. For
other views on Jewish involvement in exploiting the South, see ULYSSES
S. GRANT and MARK TWAIN.)

TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens). 19th century American writer.
"In the U.S. cotton states, after the war... the Jew came down in
force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes' wants
on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the
Negro's share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before
long, the whites detested the Jew. (1)
The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not
concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant
stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always
ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop;
the next year he owned the farm - like Joseph. (2)
In the England of John's time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He
gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of
Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons,
Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of
centuries later.
In all ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his
activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire
from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he
exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else.
The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poor-house.
Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even
to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical commercial
look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, but not for
the other nine.
Protestants have persecuted Catholics - but they did not take their
livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants -
but they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I
feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the
world's attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much
older than that event ...
I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large
degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He
made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been
at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy.
You will say that the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. When I
read in the Cyclopedia Britannica that the Jewish population in the
United States was 250,000 I wrote the editor and explained to him that
I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that, and that his
figures were without doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. People told me
that they had reasons to suspect that for business reasons, many Jews
did not report themselves as Jews. It looks plausible. I am strongly
of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America. I
am assured by men competent to speak that the Jews are exceedingly
active in politics. ("Concerning the Jews," Harper's Monthly Magazine,
September 1899)

Twain's opinion on the Jews is probably the best-kept secret in
American literary history. Immediately after his death, his eccentric
daughter Clara married - or was married by - the Jewish piano player,
Ossip Galbrilowitsch. Twain's publishers were given speedy
instructions to delete "Concerning the Jews" from the collected works,
where it had appeared in the book The Man that Corrupted Hadleybury &
Other Stories.
(1) Since Jews provided most of the agitators and orators who
pushed forward the Abolition campaign that culminated in the Civil War
(which Jewish bankers largely financed, on both sides), it seems a
legitimate question whether there was any preplanning for the
wholesale - and retail - economic looting done by mainly Jewish
carpetbaggers after the war. (2) We have cited a host of other writers
on the terrible economic depredation that Jewry visited on the people
of Tsarist Russia.

ERNEST RENAN, French historian
"The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but - and
this is the most important factor - ethnically an altogether different
race. The European felt instinctively that the Jew is a stranger, who
immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is natural sentiment.
Civilization will overcome antipathy against the Israelite who merely
professes another religion, but never against the racially different
Jew...
In Eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh
of other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim.
Selfishness and a lack of personal courage are his chief
characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign
to him."

GOLDWIN SMITH, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, wrote in
Nineteenth Century, October 1881
"The Jew alone regard his race as superior to humanity, and looks
forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph
over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a
tribal Messiah."

MENCKEN, H. L. 20th century American writer.
"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race
ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities
that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease,
confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without
taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is
wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of
display." (Treatise on the Gods)
The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really
privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent
bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places
of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment
any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place
diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still
nicht gewuenscht ... ("not wanted.")
"I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the TALMUD.
I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble
work, worthy of hard study by all other GOYIM. Unhappily, my report
must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few
bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish..."
"The Jewish theory that the GOYIM envy the superior ability of the
Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most GOYIM, in fact, deny that the
Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the
first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish
composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no
Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world, and no
Jewish scientist has equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the
latter bracket such apparent exception as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein
are only apparent. Ehrlich, in fact, contributed less to biochemical
fact than to biochemical theory, and most of his theory was dubious.
Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing
that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space
may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But
whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it
must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The GOY does not, in
fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he
will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success.
But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior ability."
(Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks)

SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. 20th century British dramatist.
"This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the
ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew. (London Morning
Post, December 3, 1925)
This craving for bouquets by Jews is a symptom of racial degeneration.
The Jews are worse than my own people. Those Jews who still want to be
the chosen race (chosen by the late Lord Balfour) can go to Palestine
and stew in their own juice. The rest had better stop being Jews and
start being human beings. (Literary Digest, October 12, 1932)

WAGNER, RICHARD. 19th century German composer.
"The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a live of
art-enabling import... "So long as the separate art of music had a
real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and
Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was
utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living
organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only
when a body's inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the
power of judgment in it - yet merely to destroy it.
On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have
gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and
falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall
of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the
destructive alien element, I an unable to decide, since that would
require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. (Judaism in
Music)

SOMBART, WERNER. 20th century German economist.
"Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the
root idea of capitalism. Turn to the pages of the TALMUD and you will
find that the Jews made an art of lending money. They were taught
early to look for their chief happiness in the possession of money.
They fathomed all the secrets that lay hid in money. They became Lords
of Money and Lords of the World...

FITZGERALD, F. SCOTT. 20th century American novelist.
"Down a tall busy street he read a dozen Jewish names on a line of
stores; in the door of each stood a dark little man watching the
passers from intent eyes - eyes gleaming with suspicion, with pride,
with clarity, with cupidity, with comprehension. New York - he could
not dissociate it from the slow, upward creep of this people - the
little stores, growing, expanding, consolidating, moving, watched over
with hawks' eyes and a bee's attention to detail - they [were Jews.]

EMERSON, RALPH WALDO. 19th century American philosopher, poet.
"The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew has made him, in these
days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth. (Fate an essay)

BURTON, SIR RICHARD FRANCIS. 19th century British diplomat, writer.
After a sting as consul at Damascus, Syria, where some years before, a
Catholic priest was allegedly murdered in a blood ritual by Jews,
Burton took an interest in the matter. His investigations satisfied
him that such killings actually were performed by certain sects of
Jews.
"The Jew's hand was ever, like Ishmael's, against every man but those
belonging to the Synagogue. His fierce passions and fiendish cunning,
combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and
with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and
whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and
subjection, combined to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind,
whilst his unsocial and iniquitous Oral Law contributed to inflame his
wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and
superstition."

DREISER, THEODORE. 20th century American writer.
"New York to me is a scream - a Kyke's dream of a ghetto. The Lost
Tribe has taken the island. (Letter to H. L. Mencken, November 5,
1922)"

"Liberalism, in the case of the Jew, means internationalism. If you
listen to Jews discuss Jews, you will find they are money-minded, very
sharp in practice. The Jews lack the fine integrity which at last is
endorsed, and to a certain degree followed, by lawyers of other
nationalities. The Jew has been in Germany for a thousand years, and
he is still a Jew. He has been in America for all of 200 years, and he
has not faded into a pure American by any means - and he will not.
(Letter to Hutchins Hapgood, The Nation magazine, April 17, 1935)"

WELLS, H. G. 20th century British writer.
"The Jews looked for a special savior, a messiah, who was to redeem
mankind by the agreeable process of restoring the fabulous glories of
David and Solomon, and bringing the whole world at last under the firm
but benevolent Jewish heel." (The Outline of History)
"Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate. If the Jews
have suffered, it is because they have regarded themselves as a chosen
people." (The Anatomy of Frustration)
"A careful study of anti-Semitism prejudice and accusations might be
of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the
irritations they inflict." (Letter of November 11, 1933)
Wells was in the habit of referring to KARL MARX as "a shallow
third-rate Jew," and "a lousy Jew" in private correspondence. (Norman
MacKenzie, H. G. Wells)

LINDBERGH, CHARLES. 20th century American aviator, writer.
Wednesday, August 23, 1939

"We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence in our
press, radio and motion pictures. It may become very serious. [Fulton]
Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms
threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual system if a
certain feature were permitted to go on the air. The threat was
powerful enough to have the feature removed."
Thursday, May 1, 1941

"The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and is
hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are the 'intellectuals'
and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are allowed free
rein, the international financial interests, and many others." (The
Wartime Journals)

GENERAL GEORGE VAN HORN MOSELY, in the New York Tribune, March 29,
1939
"The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish
influence throughout the world."

HERDER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED. 18th century German philosopher.
"The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to
our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a
distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do
away with...
How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the
true citizen?
A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has
the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a
department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business,
are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained. (Bekehrung der Juden)
For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history,
the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race
of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have cause great evil to
many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic
development of their indigenous population. ("Hebraer," in Ideen)

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON. French statesman, general.
"The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to
reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but
selling old clothes..."
"Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general
well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference
on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces
of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are
the carrion birds of humanity... "They must be treated with political
justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens."
"The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed
the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers,
falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from
commerce because they abuse it... The evils of the Jews do not stem
from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people."
(From Napoleon's Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of
State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)
"Nothing more contemptible could be done than the reception of the
Jews by you. I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of
them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the
most vile nation in the world." (Letter to his brother Jerome, King of
Westphalia, March 6, 1808)
(1) Every big and small Jew in the peddling trade must renew his
license every year.
(2) Checks and other obligations are only redeemable if the Jew
can prove that he has obtained the money without cheating. (Ordinance
of March 17, 1808. Napoleonic Code.)


DE GAULLE, CHARLES. 20th century French politician. Addressing the
Zionist imbroglio in the Mideast in a news conference of November 27,
1967, he observed:
"The Jews remain what they have been at all times: an elite people,
self-confident and domineering."

SAND, GEORGE (Amantine Dupin Dudevant). 19th century French novelist.
"I saw in 'the wandering Jew' the personification of the Jewish
people, exiled in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, they are once again
extremely rich, owing to their unfailing rude greediness and their
indefatigable activity. With their hard-heartedness that they extend
toward people of other faiths and races they are at the point of
making themselves kings of the world. This people can thank its
obstinacy that France will be Judized within fifty years. Already some
wise Jews prophesy this frankly." (Letter to Victor Lorie, 1857)

COMMUNITY OF STRASBOURG, FRANCE. In an address to the ASSEMBLEE in
1790, the city's revolutionary leaders opposed citizenship for Jews,
because:
"Everyone knew the inherent bad character of the Jews and no one
doubted they were foreigners... Let the 'enlighteners' stop defaming
the Gentiles by blaming them for what is wrong with the Jews. Their
conduct is their own fault. Perhaps the Jews might eventually give up
every aspect of their separation and all the characteristics of their
nature. Let us sit and wait until that happens; we might them judge
them to be worthy of equality. (Tres Humble Adresse qui Presente la
Commune de la Ville Strasbourg)

ROBERTS, STEPHEN H. 20th century Australian historian. Though hostile
on almost every point to National Socialism, his The House that Hitler
Built does admit that Jews were a menace in Germany:
"It is useless to deny that grave Jewish problems existed in Germany.
The nation was in the unfortunate geographical position of being the
first stage in the perennial push westward of the Polish Jews. Unless
forced on, they tended to stop in Berlin and Hamburg, where they
obtained an unduly share of good professional positions. In Berlin,
for example, when the Nazi came to power, 50.2 percent of the lawyers
were Jews. In medicine, 48 per cent of the doctors were Jews, and it
was said that they systematically seized the principal hospital posts.
The Jews owned the largest and most important Berlin newspapers, and
they had made great inroads on the educational system."

FRANCO, FRANCISCO. 20th century Spanish statesman. In his victory
speech in Madrid, on May 19, 1939, he declared:
"Let us be under no illusion. The Jewish spirit, which was responsible
for the alliance of large-scale capital with Marxism and was the
driving force behind so many anti-Spanish revolutionary agreements,
will not be got rid of in a day."

PRIMO DE RIVERA, JOSE. 20th century Spanish political reformer
(assassinated by the Communists). He stressed that the instruments of
Jewish domination in the modern world are money and the press, and
that communism is an instrument of international Jewish capitalism
used to smash and afterwards rule the nations. (El Estado Nacional)
H. BEAMISH, in a New York address, October 30 - November 1, 1937
"In 1848 the word "anti-Semitic" was invented by the Jews to prevent
the use of the word "Jew." The right word for them is "Jew" ...
"I implore all of you to be accurate - call them Jews. There is no
need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in
this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven
years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free.
No he has got you absolutely by the throat - that is your reward."

CHRISTEA, PATRIARCH. 20th century Romanian prelate.
"The Jews have caused an epidemic of corruption and social unrest.
They monopolize the press, which, with foreign help, flays all the
spiritual treasures of the Romanians. To defend ourselves is a
national and patriotic duty - not anti-Semitism. Lack of measures to
get rid of the plague would indicate that we are lazy cowards who let
ourselves be carried alive to our graves. Why should we not get rid of
these parasites who suck Romanian and Christian blood? It is logical
and holy to react against them." (New York Herald Tribune, August 17,
1937)

HOUSTON STEWART CHAMBERLAIN, world famed author of Foundations of the
Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, page 337
"The revelation of Christ has no significance for the Jew! ... I have
searched through a whole library of Jewish books in the expectation of
finding - naturally not belief in the Divinity of Christ, nor the idea
of redemption, but the purely human feeling for the greatness of
suffering Savior - but in vain. A Jew who feels that, is, in fact, no
longer a Jew, but a denier of Judaism. And while we find, even in
Mohammed's Koran, at least a vague conception of the importance of
Christ and profound reverence for His personality, a cultured leading
Jew of the nineteenth century (Graetz) calls Christ "the new birth
with the death mask," which inflicted new and painful wounds upon the
Jewish people; he cannot see anything else in Him. In view of the
Cross he assures us that "the Jews do not require this convulsive
emotion for their spiritual improvement," and adds, "particularly not
among the middle classes of inhabitants of the cities." His
comprehension goes further. In a book, republished in 1880, by a
Spanish Jew (Mose de Leon) Jesus Christ is called a "dead dog" that
lies "buried in a dunghill." Besides, the Jews have taken care to
issue in the latter part of the nineteens century several editions
(naturally in Hebrew) of the so-called "censured passages" from the
Talmud, those passages usually omitted in which Christ is exposed to
our scorn and hatred as a "fool," "sorcerer," "profane person,"
"idolater," "dog," "bastard," "child of lust," etc.: so, too, His
sublime Mother."

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader of the 1930s
"Through their (Jew's) international news agencies, they mold your
minds and have you see the world not as it is, but as they want you to
see it. Through their cinema, they are the educators of our youth -
and with just one film in two hours, can wipe out of a child's brain
what he has learned in six months in the home, the church or the
school."

NESTA WEBSTER, in her book Germany and England
"England is no longer controlled by Britons. We are under the
invisible Jewish dictatorship - a dictatorship that can be felt in
every sphere of life."

HENRY WALLACE, Secretary of Commerce, under President Harry Truman,
wrote in his dairy that in 1946
"Truman was "exasperated" over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist
rule over Palestine. Wallace added "Pres. Truman expressed himself as
being very much 'put out' with the Jews. He said that 'Jesus Christ
couldn't please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone
expect that I would have any luck?' Pres. Truman said he had no use
for them and didn't care what happened to them."

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYANT, three times the Democratic Party candidate
for President said:
"New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible
Power represented by the allied forces of finance and industry. This
Invisible Government is reactionary, sinister, unscrupulous,
mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of
conscience... This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed."

HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John
Hay, October 1895
"The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems."

SPRING-RICE, SIR CECIL. 20th century British politician.
"One by one, the Jews are capturing the principal newspapers of
America. (Letter of November 1914, to Sir Edward Grey, foreign
secretary. Letters and Friendships)

CAPOTE, TRUMAN. 20th century American writer. In an interview, he
assailed "the Zionist mafia" monopolizing publishing today, and
protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish
approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968)
VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher,
writer.
"Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws;
they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human
race..."
"The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward
all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious,
always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous -
cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity." (Essai sur le
Moeurs)
"You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the
Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and
more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed
all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You
deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny." (From a letter to a
Jew who had written to him, complaining of his 'anti-Semitism.' Examen
des Quelques Objections... dans L'Essai sur le Moeurs.)
"You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who
for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most
detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all
peoples which tolerate and enrich them." ("Juif," Dictionnaire
Philosophique)
"I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These
marranos go wherever there is money to be made... But whether these
circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of
Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are,
simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the
earth." (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December
15, 1773. Correspondence. 86:166)
"They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts,
just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would
not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day
become deadly to the human race." (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)
NH


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-12 00:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
At one time or other the Jews have been expelled from every nation in
Europe.
Could be worse. You cowardly nazis keep killing yourself.
Topaz
2008-07-12 10:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:

We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.

Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.

The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.

Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.

No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.

It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.

We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.

Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force.
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.

If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"

That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.

As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.

At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.

Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.

The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.

Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.

In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."

Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"

Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platform I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where
there were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised
by what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-12 10:44:00 UTC
Permalink
He was that lying coward who killed his family then
committed suicide, wasn't he?

WHEN are you going to follow his example??
Topaz
2008-07-13 11:16:06 UTC
Permalink
German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the
allies were subhuman monsters:


The Diaries of Charles A. Lindbergh, p.986

"That young girl riding on her bicycle - she must know that on the
day the Russians come she will probably be raped by a dozen soldiers.
When do they come? In days? In weeks? That, we have not told the
Germans. She has a good face - nicely dressed in old but clean and
brightly colored garments - like the daughter of a middle class
American family. I realize that we Americans are holding her at
Dessau. She cannot flee to safety.
We will not let her pass our sentries on the roads. We are turning her
and thousands of
others like her over to the Soviet soldiers for their sport. I feel
ashamed."

p.961
"German children look in through the window. We have more food than
we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to
look at them. I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and
watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are
hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look
on - well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while
hungry children look on."

Berlin Correspondent, The Times, September 10th, 1945

"...Another small boy turned out of Danzig had a scrawled postcard
attached to him stating that his soldier father was long since missing
and that his mother and two sisters had died of hunger."

At this time, Denmark, formerly occupied by the Germans as a means
of denying the allies a North Sea bridgehead was bursting at the seams
with surplus food and was pleading with the allies to put it to good
use. It was refused.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-13 12:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
Still lying, eh, pinhead? Those cowardly bastards (like
you) had no honor to lose.
Topaz
2008-07-13 16:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:

We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.

Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.

The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.

Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.

No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.

It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.

We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.

Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force.
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.

If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"

That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.

As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.

At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.

Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.

The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.

Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.

In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."

Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"

Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platform I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where
there were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised
by what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-13 16:52:19 UTC
Permalink
You KNOW that lying, cowardly pinhead is dead, don't you?

When are you going to follow his example??
Topaz
2008-07-15 23:07:07 UTC
Permalink
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels

It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.

The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.

Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.

So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.

England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.

Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.

Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.

The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.

English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.

A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.

English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.

We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.

The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.

It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-16 00:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels
Right... the lying "propaganda minister" that killed his
family and then himself.

WHEN are you going to follow his example??
Topaz
2008-07-16 09:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Here are parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Triumph of
the Will.

"It is difficult to define the concept of propaganda thoroughly and
precisely. This is especially true since in past decades it was
subject to unfavorable definitions, particularly as the enemy defined
it with regards to us Germans. First, then, we must defend it. Those
abroad sometimes claim that in the past we Germans were particularly
good in this area, but that unfortunately is not consistent with the
facts. We learned this all too clearly during the World War. While the
enemy states produced unprecedented atrocity propaganda aimed at
Germany throughout the whole world, we did nothing and were completely
defenseless against it. Only when enemy foreign propaganda had nearly
won over the greater part of the neutral states did the German
government begin to sense the enormous power of propaganda. It was too
late. Just as we were militarily and economically unprepared for the
war, so too with propaganda. We lost the war in this area more than in
any other.

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war
was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even
today large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical
characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing
the facts and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that
were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about
German soldiers chopping off children's hands and crucifying women to
realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of
calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense.

The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation,
particularly as the result of political practice in Germany.
Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern
state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the
subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not
only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand
that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes
everything that helps the people to realize this.

Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is
aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people
because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the
highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts
in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its
foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand,
rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a
question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach,
evidence and language.

Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to
an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without
internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a
superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it
wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the
appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such
is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals
it seeks."

"Each propaganda had a direction. The quality of this direction
determines whether propaganda has a positive or negative effect. Good
propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no
reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people
cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the
truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A
propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be
successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along
that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good
cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is
good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. But a good idea
is itself the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without
being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works
without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it
is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will
lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other
side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are for example
convinced that we fought the war for a good cause, but that was not
enough. The world should also have known that our cause was good.
However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that
clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals.
Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich and the army
because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda.

National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the
correct practical conclusions from that knowledge. The ideal of a
socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but
became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million
Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for
that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of
remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda,
it became hard, steely everyday reality."

"Marxism could not be eliminated by a government decision. Its
elimination was the end result of a process that began in the people.
But that was only possible because our propaganda had shown people
that Marxism was a danger to both the state and society. The positive
national discipline of the German press would never have been possible
without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish
press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our
propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich
is no accident, rather depended on psychological foundations that were
established by our propaganda.

Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of
class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not
rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings
resulted in a new socialist structure of labor? Today employers and
workers stand together in the Labor Front. The Law on National Labor
is the foundation of our economic thinking, realizing itself more and
more. Are not these social achievements the result of the long and
tireless labor of thousands of speakers?"

"We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the
people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda. Major
cultural achievements such as the unique "Kraft durch Freude" are
possible only with the powerful support of the people. The
prerequisite was and is propaganda, which here too creates and
maintains the connection to the people.

The Winter Relief last year raised about 350 million Marks. This was
not the result of taxation, rather many gifts of every amount.
Everyone gave freely and gladly, many of whom in the past had done
nothing in the face of similar need. Why? Because a broad propaganda
using every modern means presented the whole nation with the need of
this program of social assistance.

45 million Reich Marks of goods and services were provided. 85 million
Reich Marks worth of fuel were distributed. 130 million Reich Marks
worth of food were given out. Ten million Reich Marks worth of meals
were provided, and 70 million Reich Marks worth of clothing.

Some of these achievements were the result of donations in kind,
others the result of cash donations. Street collections, donations of
a part of paychecks, contributions from companies, and gifts
subtracted from bank accounts resulted in cash totaling 184 million
Reich Marks. 24 million marks alone were the result of "One Dish
Sundays." The Reich itself added 15 million marks to the
contributions of the people. The railway system provided reduced or
free shipping with a value of 14 million Marks.

Of our population of 65,595,000, 16,511,00 were assisted by the Winter
Relief. There were 150,000 volunteers. There were only 4,474 paid
workers, of whom 4,144 were in the 34 Gaue and 330 in the Reich
headquarters.

Propaganda and education prepared the way for the largest social
assistance program in history. They were the foundation. Their success
was that, over a long winter, no one in Germany went hungry or was
cold.

Over 40 million people approved of the Fuehrer's decision to leave the
League of Nations on 12 November 1933. That gave him the ability to
speak to the world in the name of the nation, defending honor, peace
and equality as the national ideals of the German people. The issues
of disarmament were put on firm and clear foundations. Once again,
propaganda was the foundation for the nation's unity on 12 November,
and therefore of the freedom of action that the Fuehrer had.

Each situation brings new challenges. And each task requires the
support of the people, which can only be gained by untiring propaganda
that brings the broad masses knowledge and clarity. No area of public
life can do without it. It is the never resting force behind public
opinion. It must maintain an unbroken relationship between leadership
and people. Every means of technology must be put in its service; the
goal is to form the mass will and to give it meaning, purpose and
goals that will enable us to learn from past failures and mistakes and
ensure that the lead National Socialist strength has given us over
other nations will never again be lost.

May the bright flame of our enthusiasm never fade. It alone gives
light and warmth to the creative art of modern political propaganda.
Its roots are in the people. The movement gives it direction and
drive. The state can only provide it with the new, wide-ranging
technical means. Only a living relationship between people, movement
and state can guarantee that the creative art of propaganda, which we
have made ourselves the world's master, will never sink into
bureaucracy and official narrow-mindedness.

Creative people made it and put it in the service of our movement. We
must have creative people who can use the means of the state in its
service.

It is also a function of the modern state. Its reach is the firm
ground on which it must stand. It rises from the depths of the people,
and must always return to the people to find its roots and strength.
It may be good to have power based on weapons. It is better and longer
lasting, however, to win and hold the heart of a nation."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Topaz
2008-07-15 23:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from the book "Kampfzeit", (period of
struggle), by Hans Hinkel:

"Faster than lightening a lie about us spread throughout the country,
spread in every attic room where poor people lived by newspapers owned
or obedient to the opponent. It took a week of work by us National
Socialists to deal with a three-line lie in an opposing newspaper. As
soon as one lie was dealt with, a hundred more sprang up. Like a
hydra, the opponent's horror stories about National Socialism and its
supporters spread. There was not a speech by the Führer or his
associates that was not immediately twisted and tastefully served up
to the gullible Michael at breakfast or dinner. Adolf Hitler had "spat
out the communion wafer." Hermann Göring was smuggling opium or
morphine. Robert Ley has "lost a 'v'" in his name Pastor Münchmeyer
was guilty of "moral crimes" in Borkum. We often would have laughed
had we not hourly learned the amazing gullibility of millions of
German citizens who were trapped in the enemy's web of lies. The only
answer was for everyone to set to work with the people, going
everywhere to fight, speak and educate. Sooner or later the opponent
would have to face us and be revealed as a liar to the public."
"The city was like an upset anthill on that cold winter night. Roland
Freisler ran out from the chattering council meeting and went with us
to the nearby Friedrich Square where we spoke with the starving
masses. We forgot the middle class niceties! We had to stop Moscow
from winning over these citizens driven crazy by hunger, making them
wiling subjects of the insane ideas of Bolshevism"
"Only a few weeks later, I needed an escort to leave or return to my
apartment. Several loyal S.A. men had to be with me all the time,
since Communist unemployed men, unscrupulously incited against us
National Socialists, wanted to attack me now that they knew who I was.
Every day I joined the unemployed who demonstrated in the large
courtyard of the labor office on Giesberg Street. More than once I had
to be met by party members at the Kassel train station to protect me
from lurking Communist terror troops. It was the same or worse for all
of our prominent Kassel party members and S.A. men, just as for the
storm troops of our movement who risked their lives every day and
every hour in every city and every village of Germany. The enemy
naturally was particularly after us speakers. According to the law, we
had to be unarmed. We would have been in deep trouble if a body search
had found a weapon! A nail file was thought to be a weapon. Later even
a party badge, since it had a long needle!"
"The attempts of our party comrades to hold a National Socialist
meeting failed a half dozen times or more. Most meetings were made
impossible by the thousand-fold numerical superiority of the opponent,
or else broken up before they could finish. Our protective service
-every party member in each local group belongs - is still too weak in
most areas to stand up against the red avalanche, driven more and more
by the Communists. One National Socialist against five hundred or even
a thousand citizens, that is how it always is there!"
"After I had spoken about twenty minutes, a worker jumped up on a
table and called upon the "comrades" to leave the meeting of the
"Fascist band." Several dozen start singing the "Internationale" and
we have no choice but to overpower the growling of the comrades with
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles." Another several hundred leave
the hall. The singing quieted down and peace was slowly restored. I
spoke to several hundred people at the end, all that were left of the
more than a thousand who were there to start."
"For years now we speakers have been traveling through every Gau in
Germany. I speak primarily in Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen-Nassau and
in the West. We see that even red Saxony is streaming more and more to
National Socialism. The meetings are difficult, but always
successful."
"For how long? When would this hard battle end? When would more
Germans wake up? When would hundreds of thousands finally be ready to
march into battle behind the banner of National Socialism?! - None of
us thinks about the "when." Forward! - Only forward! Each heart won
over is a victory! The day will come...!"






http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-16 00:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Here are some quotes from the book "Kampfzeit", (period of
Did THAT lying pinhead kill himself too??

WHEN are you going to follow his example??
Topaz
2008-07-16 09:54:42 UTC
Permalink
German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the
allies were subhuman monsters:


The Diaries of Charles A. Lindbergh, p.986

"That young girl riding on her bicycle - she must know that on the
day the Russians come she will probably be raped by a dozen soldiers.
When do they come? In days? In weeks? That, we have not told the
Germans. She has a good face - nicely dressed in old but clean and
brightly colored garments - like the daughter of a middle class
American family. I realize that we Americans are holding her at
Dessau. She cannot flee to safety.
We will not let her pass our sentries on the roads. We are turning her
and thousands of
others like her over to the Soviet soldiers for their sport. I feel
ashamed."

p.961
"German children look in through the window. We have more food than
we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to
look at them. I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and
watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are
hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look
on - well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while
hungry children look on."

Berlin Correspondent, The Times, September 10th, 1945

"...Another small boy turned out of Danzig had a scrawled postcard
attached to him stating that his soldier father was long since missing
and that his mother and two sisters had died of hunger."

At this time, Denmark, formerly occupied by the Germans as a means
of denying the allies a North Sea bridgehead was bursting at the seams
with surplus food and was pleading with the allies to put it to good
use. It was refused.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Sam Buckland
2008-07-10 21:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Topaz - You make a valid point about SOME Jews, but not about "Jews"
in general.
No , you make a valid point about some Jews, but not about Jews in
general.
The only point is the one atop your ignorant head.
Topaz
2008-07-11 21:56:48 UTC
Permalink
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html

Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique

Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck

In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.

The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.

The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.

Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.

Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."

While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."

The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.

Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)

Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.

The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."

But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."

For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."

Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:

"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."

Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.

Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."

Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.

Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."

Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."

Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.

Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:

"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.

Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.

Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?

Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.

Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.

Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.

But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."

This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.

Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."

In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."

Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.

Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."

Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Sam Buckland
2008-07-11 22:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html
Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique
Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
Isn't it cure that "Stanley" publishes under a fake name??

ANOTHER cowardly fuck.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...