Bikini vs. Burka
neptune3
The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
September 18, 2002
http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html
On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing
nothing but a bikini.
One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally
exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of
so-called "civilizations."
The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing
Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping
Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a
bikini.
I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love
feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am
defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and
family. Only they see her.
It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic
sphere.
The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children
are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that
sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her
children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically
naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself.
In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no
one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is
auctioning herself all of the time.
In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal.
(As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with
appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act
approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be
loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than
to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of
males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which
is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable
to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship
between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.
Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and
prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in
"oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The
result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her
shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO:
undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and
personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world,"
women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the
race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge
in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.
At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian
women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied
that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise
"see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for
sexuality in America?
Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when
we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates:
creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us
to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for
marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and
self-obsessed.
We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain
lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity,
in a state of perpetual courtship.
This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a
function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex
appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent,"
she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making
marriage and family her first priority.
Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched
American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined
millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it
represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband
and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies
somewhere in the middle.
Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the
author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in
English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your
feedback and ideas at he...@savethemales.ca.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
David Sherok
It's good to see the that some people in the World (even if they are
Muslims) realise that creatures like Rockbitch
(http://www.rockbitch.co.uk) must be resisted and their viewpoints on
female sexuality supressed.
David Sherock.
A Chrstian Man of Worthwhile Values.
XXX
> neptune3 wrote:
> > In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
> >
> > The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka
> > By Henry Makow Ph.D.
> > September 18, 2002
> > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html
> > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
> >
> > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing
> > nothing but a bikini.
>
Nice! :-)
> > One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally
> > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of
> > so-called "civilizations."
> >
> > The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing
> > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping
> > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a
> > bikini.
Only for the hotties.
> > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love
> > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here.
Fuckin-A!
> > But I am
> > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
> >
> > For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and
> > family. Only they see her.
What about in three-ways? She wouldn't still where that rag, would she???
> > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic
> > sphere.
> >
> > The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children
> > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that
> > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her
> > children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
But how is she suppossed to get a job to support her husband, in the US, if
she is wearing that rag and can't get a driver's lisense??? I say "Bitch!
take off that rag, put on a bikini and get your ass a job!". How else is
she going to put the beer and poptarts on the table???
> > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically
> > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself.
> > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no
> > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is
> > auctioning herself all of the time.
Hey, for those of us with a big bank account, we are FINE with that. Don't
go knocking "the system", just because YOU can't afford some hot, young
pussy!
> > In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal.
> > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with
> > appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
> >
> > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act
> > approximates a strip tease.
Yeah, she is HOT, isn't she!
> > From Britney, she learns that she will be
> > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than
> > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of
> > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which
> > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable
> > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
Hey, if she wants my seed....
> > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship
> > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.
> > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and
> > prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
> >
> > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in
> > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The
> > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her
> > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
But the younger ones are fit for MY bed!
> > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO:
Is that the same as NOW???
> > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and
> > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world,"
> > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the
> > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge
> > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.
God, you are getting me HOT!
> > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian
> > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied
> > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise
> > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for
> > sexuality in America?
Oh, God! I LOVE those pants!!!
> > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when
> > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates:
> > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us
> > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for
> > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and
> > self-obsessed.
Hey, don't bring me down, I am thinking of Brittany in those low-rise
pants!
> > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain
> > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity,
> > in a state of perpetual courtship.
> >
> > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a
> > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex
> > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent,"
> > she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
Of course, in Muslinm countries, when she looses her fertility you can
assure her that she will not be lonely, because you will have acid thrown
on her or have her beheaded.
> > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making
> > marriage and family her first priority.
> >
> > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched
> > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined
> > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
> >
> > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it
> > represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband
> > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
> >
> > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies
> > somewhere in the middle.
> >
> >
> > Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the
> > author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in
> > English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your
> > feedback and ideas at he...@savethemales.ca.
> >
> >
> > www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
> > http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
> >
>
> It's good to see the that some people in the World (even if they are
> Muslims) realise that creatures like Rockbitch
> (http://www.rockbitch.co.uk) must be resisted and their viewpoints on
> female sexuality supressed.
>
> David Sherock.
> A Chrstian Man of Worthwhile Values.
Mr. XXX
A Realistic Man With a Perpetual Boner
neptune3
>
>Nice! :-)
>
>Only for the hotties.
>
>
>Fuckin-A!
>
>
>What about in three-ways? She wouldn't still where that rag, would she???
>
>
>But how is she suppossed to get a job to support her husband, in the US, if
>she is wearing that rag and can't get a driver's lisense??? I say "Bitch!
>take off that rag, put on a bikini and get your ass a job!". How else is
>she going to put the beer and poptarts on the table???
They best job for White women is to be a mother.
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet:
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
>
>Hey, for those of us with a big bank account, we are FINE with that. Don't
>go knocking "the system", just because YOU can't afford some hot, young
>pussy!
>
>Yeah, she is HOT, isn't she!
>
>
>Hey, if she wants my seed....
>
>
>But the younger ones are fit for MY bed!
>
>Is that the same as NOW???
>
>
>God, you are getting me HOT!
>
>
>Oh, God! I LOVE those pants!!!
>
>
>Hey, don't bring me down, I am thinking of Brittany in those low-rise
>pants!
>
>
>Of course, in Muslinm countries, when she looses her fertility you can
>assure her that she will not be lonely, because you will have acid thrown
>on her or have her beheaded.
>
By Dr. William Pierce
http://www.natvan.com
"The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World
War. They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in
banking,
in advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice,
in publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the
spirit of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and
literature. They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They
were
ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German
sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe
that
it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were promoting the
same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.
That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification
of a new German constitution, took place in the city of Weimar. The
Jews
loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the most degenerate
period
in Germany's history. The Jews, of course, didn't think of it as
degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and
"cool."
Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was considered a
virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been written by
Jews
in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to the skies and
looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the so-called
"Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to
the Weimar period.
There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one
hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a
normal,
healthy White person would view things differently. Check it out for
yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.
The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War,
the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to America
after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the healthiest
elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as many
Americans
have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany the Jews were a
bit premature. Although they had much of the media under their
control,
they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The
healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.
In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before
they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully. In
America
they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in America. It's
still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to be a lot
tougher
this time. We'd better get started. The first step is to regain at
least
partial control of our media, so that we can begin contradicting the
lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a part of that first
step."
XXX
> On 14 Jun 2003 22:59:27 GMT, xxx...@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote:
>
> >
> >Nice! :-)
> >
>
> >Only for the hotties.
> >
> >
> >Fuckin-A!
> >
>
> >
> >What about in three-ways? She wouldn't still where that rag, would
> >she???
> >
> >
> >But how is she suppossed to get a job to support her husband, in the US,
> >if she is wearing that rag and can't get a driver's lisense??? I say
> >"Bitch! take off that rag, put on a bikini and get your ass a job!".
> >How else is she going to put the beer and poptarts on the table???
>
> They best job for White women is to be a mother.
>
> Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet:
And after loosing two world wars and pussing out on the last Gulf War I
know I am really going to take the Germans seriously!!!
Hey, I know some HOT jewish girls! TOTALLY fuckable!
Mr. XXX
Undying Supporter or Pussy-Socialism
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <bcg8fv$tua$0...@pita.alt.net>, David Sherok
<she...@christians.united.com> wrote:
<snipped the article, it's OK, but nothing groundbreaking - go back if
you're interested, but the point I found more interesting was this last
poster's sig..>
> It's good to see the that some people in the World (even if they are
> Muslims) realise that creatures like Rockbitch
> (http://www.rockbitch.co.uk) must be resisted and their viewpoints on
> female sexuality supressed.
>
>
> David Sherock.
> A Chrstian Man of Worthwhile Values.
Worthwile Values? Like advertising for a dyke goth/pagan band?
Nice site, BTW.
Thanks! :)
Deb.
Scott Gilbert
> neptune3 wrote:
> > In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
[snip]
> It's good to see the that some people in the World (even if they are
> Muslims) realise that creatures like Rockbitch
> (http://www.rockbitch.co.uk) must be resisted and their viewpoints on
> female sexuality supressed.
>
>
> David Sherock.
> A Chrstian Man of Worthwhile Values.
Given modern "values", it is Christian viewpoints that will be
suppressed if we allow censorship to be perceived as a legitimate
government activity.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <62711e56.03061...@posting.google.com>,
scot...@hotmail.com (Scott Gilbert) wrote:
No doubt! God Forbid we live the way He teaches us to.
Why who would go into credit debt in Malls and shopping plazas, buying
useless material posessions that they don't need?
That's un-American, anti-consumer, and just plain out wrong. SPEND! Consume!
Be the rapacious maw of materialism. It will make you feel better about
yourself, until the newness of your posessions wears off. Then you spend
some more! It is your Sacred Patriotic duty for the betterment of the state!
XXX
The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not run-up debt.
The 12th Commandment: Thou shalt not allow women to think for themselves.
Mr. XXX
Founder and President
Young Men's Anti-Christian Association
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
Part of the year I LIVE in a bikini (and you know what?) I don't care about YOUR
values. I don't care about your weird religion either.
:P
LS
Jim Austin
> In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Yes. We've seen plenty examples of His compassion and mercy.
> The Debauchery of American Womanhood: Bikini vs. Burka
> By Henry Makow Ph.D.
> September 18, 2002
> http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html
> On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
>
> Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing
> nothing but a bikini.
That's on the wall?
> One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally
> exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of
> so-called "civilizations."
It does, but not in the way Makow indicates.
> The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing
> Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping
> Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a
> bikini.
This is incorrect. Nobody has said anything about dictating women's
attire.
> I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love
> feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am
> defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
The premise behind the burka is that feminine beauty is evil since it
tempts men to do evil, and thus feminine beauty must be covered up so
as not to tempt men to do evil. It places the responsibility on women
if men succumb to such temptation.
> For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and
> family. Only they see her.
For Moslems, the burka represents the husband's ownership of his
women.
> It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic
> sphere.
It affirms women as the property of her husband, or if unmarried, her
father.
> The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children
> are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that
> sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her
> children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
In the Moslem world, the burka is required. Women who do not wear them
are punished. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, which was the most
consistant exponent of Moslem values, police would attack and beat
women who do not wear the burka. In other Arab countries, radical
Moslems have reportedly thrown acid in the faces of women not wearing
burkas.
> In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically
> naked in front of millions on TV.
The beauty contests I've seen involved women wearing one-piece
swimsuits, not bikinis.
> A feminist, she belongs to herself.
Makow believes that a woman should belong to somebody else.
> In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no
> one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is
> auctioning herself all of the time.
They could not auction themselves if they did not own themselves.
Makow apparently believes that such decisions about women should be
made entirely by men.
> In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal.
That is only one measure, but not the only measure. There are numerous
prominent women who have not made it by their sex appeal.
> (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with
> appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
People in general do not like getting old or fat. These are not traits
of one particular culture.
> As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act
> approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be
> loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than
> to demand patient courtship and true love.
As we have seen, it's doubtfull that Makow would go for courtship and
true love, since both involve freedom of choice by women, the vary
choice that Makow would deny women.
> As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her
> innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and
> calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
All this assumes that sex is evil per se.
As an example of the love displayed by Moslem women, I've seen news
films of Palestinian mothers of sons blowing themselves up in
terrorist attacks against Israel wishing they had more sons to
sacrifice for the cause of destroying Israel.
> The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship
> between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.
Such relationships involve a choice by women to enter into such
relationships. Such would imply a choice not to.
> Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and
> prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
During primative times, men did do the hunting, and some male traits
may well be traced to that. That doesn't necessarly control men's
destiny, and, of course, reason is not the prerogative of men.
> Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in
> "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead.
That was 1970s feminism. It was about expanding options for women.
Unfortunately, feminism has evolved into victimhood where everything
is reduced to some sort of male oppression.
> The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her
> shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
Such women have decided that men are the enemy. Men like Makow only
serve to confirm such conclusions. They are an embarassment to men who
want to convince women that we are not the enemy.
> This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO:
> undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and
> personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world,"
> women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the
> race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge
> in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.
People like Makow begrudge women getting physical pleasure. We see the
full implementation of such resentments in Moslem countries where
clitorectomies are performed on female infants to prevent them from
getting physical pleasure later in life.
> At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian
> women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied
> that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise
> "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for
> sexuality in America?
Makow would prefer to condemn women to the oppression characteristic
of Moslem countries.
> Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when
> we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates:
> creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us
> to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for
> marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and
> self-obsessed.
Makow would prefer that women be owned and controlled by men, where
the sex is only for the benefit of men.
> We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain
> lonely and isolated,...
I can't think of anything more "lonely and isolated" then the sort of
slavery that Makow wants to impose on women.
> ...dependent on consumer products for our identity,...
Poverty and deprivation of consumer products do nothing for our
identities.
> in a state of perpetual courtship.
Beats perpetual ownership by another human being.
> This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a
> function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex
> appeal.
No. The decline of fertility and sex appeal are functions of age.
> If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent,"
> she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
The statistical study so asserting turned out to be flawed.
> Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making
> marriage and family her first priority.
For certain women, yes, and then only with the men they choose.
> Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched
> American women and despoiled Western civilization.
No. Feminist have joined with other leftists to protest the New World
Order.
> It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
No. Islam has ruined millions of lives, and the destruction of Islam
would be a benefit.
> I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it
> represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband
> and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
Makow advocates enslavement of women, which is the main value
represented by the burka.
> The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies
> somewhere in the middle.
The extremes involve choice versus no choice.
The bikini involves choice. A woman may wear one or not as she
chooses. There is no punishment if she doesn't.
The burka involves the lack of choice. Where Moslems have political
control, women refuse to wear burkas at their peril.
<Snip> Stuff about Henry Makow.
neptune3
>
>Part of the year I LIVE in a bikini (and you know what?) I don't care about YOUR
>values. I don't care about your weird religion either.
>
Fine. It's just too bad that you cared enough to click on the
reply button. Try to care even less next time.
Alfred Einstead
> For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and
> family. Only they see her.
>
> It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic
> sphere.
Guess that's why the Arab penninsula has WAY BY FAR the highest
male/female ratio on the planet ... with the rest of the Islamic
world following closely behind, all majority-male big time (outside
the ex-USSR). The burka was so popular with the women, they all left.
EAC
> The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not run-up debt.
Because if you do, then you will be more in debt.
Then chances are, if you can't pay, the creditor might want some
special favours for you to done.
And the USoA seems to be the biggest debitor in history. Chances are,
many of the USoA policies are done not because that's what they want
themself, but because these are special favours done to please the
creditor. The latest war on Iraq probably is done to please the USoA's
creditors.
By the way, in Arabic the word ?din? not only means ?religion?, but it
could also mean ?debt?.
> The 12th Commandment: Thou shalt not allow women to think for themselves.
Because women don't have much brainpower to begin with.
EAC
It should be noted that Aisha the wife of Muhammad, is quite a fashion
conscience girl, she got quite a collection of loveley dress, where
the neighbourhood women usually came to her to ask her if they can try
some of them.
And it should be noted that there's NO WAY Aisha would want to wear a
burka. Then again, Muhammad never advise women to wear burka either.
There's no ayat in the Qur'an that told women to wear burka.
Now on how did burka somehow got the impression that it was an
Islamic?
Personally, I think that the burka is the Jinns' ideas of a fashion
statement, I mean that one already look like a Jinn when wearing one.
The Jinns' fashion sense seems to be always a joke in comparison of
the Adamic fashion sense.
GodEvolved
news:6482ad0.03061...@posting.google.com:
> xxx...@hotmail.com (XXX) wrote in message
> news:<20030616103219.669$W...@newsreader.com>...
>> The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not run-up debt.
>
> Because if you do, then you will be more in debt.
>
> Then chances are, if you can't pay, the creditor might want some
> special favours for you to done.
Chances are. Might want.
>
> And the USoA seems to be the biggest debitor in history. Chances are,
Seems. Chances are.
> many of the USoA policies are done not because that's what they want
> themself, but because these are special favours done to please the
> creditor. The latest war on Iraq probably is done to please the USoA's
Probably is.
> creditors.
>
> By the way, in Arabic the word ?din? not only means ?religion?, but it
> could also mean ?debt?.
Could also mean.
When did ignorance become a point of view?
neptune3
>neptune3 wrote:
>
>Yes. We've seen plenty examples of His compassion and mercy.
>
>
>That's on the wall?
>
>
>It does, but not in the way Makow indicates.
>
>This is incorrect. Nobody has said anything about dictating women's
>attire.
>
>
>The premise behind the burka is that feminine beauty is evil since it
>tempts men to do evil, and thus feminine beauty must be covered up so
>as not to tempt men to do evil. It places the responsibility on women
>if men succumb to such temptation.
>
>
>For Moslems, the burka represents the husband's ownership of his
>women.
>
>
>It affirms women as the property of her husband, or if unmarried, her
>father.
>
>In the Moslem world, the burka is required. Women who do not wear them
>are punished. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, which was the most
>consistant exponent of Moslem values, police would attack and beat
>women who do not wear the burka. In other Arab countries, radical
>Moslems have reportedly thrown acid in the faces of women not wearing
>burkas.
>
>
>The beauty contests I've seen involved women wearing one-piece
>swimsuits, not bikinis.
>
>Makow believes that a woman should belong to somebody else.
>
>
>That is only one measure, but not the only measure. There are numerous
>prominent women who have not made it by their sex appeal.
>
>
>People in general do not like getting old or fat. These are not traits
>of one particular culture.
>
>
>As we have seen, it's doubtfull that Makow would go for courtship and
>true love, since both involve freedom of choice by women, the vary
>choice that Makow would deny women.
>
>
>All this assumes that sex is evil per se.
>
>As an example of the love displayed by Moslem women, I've seen news
>films of Palestinian mothers of sons blowing themselves up in
>terrorist attacks against Israel wishing they had more sons to
>sacrifice for the cause of destroying Israel.
>
>
>Such relationships involve a choice by women to enter into such
>relationships. Such would imply a choice not to.
>
>
>During primative times, men did do the hunting, and some male traits
>may well be traced to that. That doesn't necessarly control men's
>destiny, and, of course, reason is not the prerogative of men.
>
>
>That was 1970s feminism. It was about expanding options for women.
>Unfortunately, feminism has evolved into victimhood where everything
>is reduced to some sort of male oppression.
>
>
>Such women have decided that men are the enemy. Men like Makow only
>serve to confirm such conclusions. They are an embarassment to men who
>want to convince women that we are not the enemy.
>
>People like Makow begrudge women getting physical pleasure. We see the
>full implementation of such resentments in Moslem countries where
>clitorectomies are performed on female infants to prevent them from
>getting physical pleasure later in life.
>
>
>Makow would prefer to condemn women to the oppression characteristic
>of Moslem countries.
>
>Makow would prefer that women be owned and controlled by men, where
>the sex is only for the benefit of men.
>
>
>I can't think of anything more "lonely and isolated" then the sort of
>slavery that Makow wants to impose on women.
>
>Poverty and deprivation of consumer products do nothing for our
>identities.
>
>Beats perpetual ownership by another human being.
>
>No. The decline of fertility and sex appeal are functions of age.
>
>
>The statistical study so asserting turned out to be flawed.
>
>
>For certain women, yes, and then only with the men they choose.
>
>No. Feminist have joined with other leftists to protest the New World
>Order.
>
>No. Islam has ruined millions of lives, and the destruction of Islam
>would be a benefit.
>
>Makow advocates enslavement of women, which is the main value
>represented by the burka.
>
>> The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies
>> somewhere in the middle.
>
>The extremes involve choice versus no choice.
>
>The bikini involves choice. A woman may wear one or not as she
>chooses. There is no punishment if she doesn't.
>
>The burka involves the lack of choice. Where Moslems have political
>control, women refuse to wear burkas at their peril.
>
The Muslim world and the Liberal world are two extremes. Makow was
saying that it is best to have something in the middle. The main
differences between the cultures are pornagraphy and feminism. Makow
said he didn't agree with the Burkas but he also doesn't like all the
porn that is in liberal countries.
The "choice" part is the point. We can have too many laws or too
few laws. The Muslim world is too strict and the Liberal world is too
lax. In the liberal world there are things on TV that would have been
been shocking fifty years ago. Homosexual perversion is legal. There
are "adult" bookstores and things like that.
The Muslim world does seem to be -too- anti-feminst. But the
liberal world is not good either.
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was
the most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings
and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million
women lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place
was in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was
over. Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place
to come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some
of the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen,
church) as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated...
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
>
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:31:58 GMT, Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Part of the year I LIVE in a bikini (and you know what?) I don't care about YOUR
>>values. I don't care about your weird religion either.
>>
> Fine. It's just too bad that you cared enough to click on the
>reply button. Try to care even less next time.
People like you and that other nazi need to be reminded that you are a tiny
minority of cranks and nobody is listening to you.
LS
John Jones
<Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
news:Q2GHa.627$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <1plsevgf8kflm2hmv...@4ax.com>,
neptune3 says...
> >
> >On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:31:58 GMT, Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Part of the year I LIVE in a bikini (and you know what?) I
don't care about YOUR
> >>values. I don't care about your weird religion either.
> >>
> > Fine. It's just too bad that you cared enough to click on
the
> >reply button. Try to care even less next time.
>
that you are a tiny
[Emphasis added]
Aren't you the one who keeps complaining about ad hominem
arguments?
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
says...
A man walks into the room and slaps me.
So I kick him in the balls (just like my black belt brother taught me.)
Then this same man, (cradling his wounded balls) asks, "why'd you do that?"
Dah!
LS
John Jones
<Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
news:lpIHa.695$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
So it's OK for you to do the very thing you consistently condemn
when others do it?
"Mommy! He started it!"
"Mommy! He hit me back!"
Take your pick. Either way, you're a crybaby if you cry "ad
hominem" in the absence of any logical counter-argument.
Hope That Helps!
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
As my brother is fond of say: "you don't start no shit - and there won't be no
shit."
LS
John Jones
<Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
news:wPIHa.708$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
I used to hear that from kids in Junior High school. It didn't
work well even in those days.
Shall we take that as your admission that you will continue to
use ad hominem arguments when it suits you, and blame this use on
your interlocutors?
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
Just as soon as the soc.men'rs quit.
Also, they need to stop with their "barrage of lies, distortions, and wildly
erroneous accusations" tactic.
It doesn't fool anybody and it looks bad for y'all.
But it's bikini time, got to run!
:)
LS
Jim Austin
<Snip> Previous stuff.
> The Muslim world and the Liberal world are two extremes. Makow was
> saying that it is best to have something in the middle. The main
> differences between the cultures are pornagraphy and feminism.
No. The main difference between the cultures is freedom and
oppression.
> Makow said he didn't agree with the Burkas but he also doesn't like all the
> porn that is in liberal countries.
Makow believes women have too much freedom.
> The "choice" part is the point. We can have too many laws or too
> few laws.
I'm one of those people who think we have too many laws.
> The Muslim world is too strict and the Liberal world is too
> lax. In the liberal world there are things on TV that would have been
> been shocking fifty years ago. Homosexual perversion is legal. There
> are "adult" bookstores and things like that.
This poster wants to reduce what we are free to read.
> The Muslim world does seem to be -too- anti-feminst.
The Muslim world is anti-female.
> But the liberal world is not good either.
Apparently too pro-female for this poster.
> The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
> for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
> manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
> are different.
A belief in strong sexual identities does not entail reducing the
freedom of either sex.
> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers.
If they meet the necessary qualifications, I have no problem with
that.
> Men don't need to be protected by female policemen.
If I'm in danger, I'll take protection from whomever is available.
> We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
> government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
> enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
> changed.
I think he's mixed up on who the main adversaries are.
On one side are those people who genuinely believe in freedom,
liberty and rights of the individual. On the other side are the
enemies of freedom. They include leftists, Molsems and Nazis. With the
latest war in Iraq, it's interesting how all three have combined to
oppose Bush's policies.
> The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
> and nationalism. There certainly wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim
> country like Afganistan.
Afghanistan was definitely anti-female.
> And it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan.
I should hope not. Stomping on Afghanistan was long overdue.
> The USA and its masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we
> need to be clear about if we are going to change things.
We now know which of the enemies of freedom this guy belongs to: he's
a Nazi.
> There were also Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and
> the other leftists.
Yes. America has bombed Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, as well as
Moslem countries like Iraq and Libya. Of course, the U.S. has also
bombed leftist countries like North Korea and North Vietnam as well
having maintained a vast nuclear force ready to vaporize the Soviet
Union. It's interesting how America's enemies are invariably enemies
of freedom.
> The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries were.
Sometimes, the media tells the truth.
> We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
> the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
Actually, the media has become less and less of a monolith. The rise
of Fox News and conservative radio talk shows have been a continual
sourse of frustration to the liberal contingent.
> Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
> man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad.
What about men like this poster who has become an enemy of women?
> Feminism may be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is
> only a symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
> And feminism is Jewish:
>
> Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
> a Jew.
Jewish culture is a significant subculture of Western civilization.
Jewish culture places a high value on education, learning and the
intellect. Thus where free, Jews have achieved disproportionate
success in the professions. This has inflamed the inferiority
complexes of certain people who become angry, bitter, mean, who work
up a genocidal rage against Jews whom they want to blame for their
failures, who like Josef Gobbels like to rage against "Jewish
intellectualism".
Jewish intellectual have been on the cutting edge of various left wing
movements like feminism, etc. However, Jewish intellectuals have been
on the cutting edge of right wing movements as well. For those
beliving in capitalism, there are economists Ludwig von Mises,
Friedrich von Hayek and, of course, Milton Friedman. For the most
consistant believer in freedom, there is Ayn Rand, born Allisa
Rosenbaum, who has been bitterly attacked by feminists, as well as
other leftists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, etc.
<Snip> Stuff about Friedan.
John Jones
<Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
news:eAJHa.724$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
So it's the "Mommy, they hit me back!" excuse.
> Also, they need to stop with their "barrage of lies,
distortions, and wildly
> erroneous accusations" tactic.
You make this claim all the time, but I don't see you supporting
it with evidence.
>
> It doesn't fool anybody and it looks bad for y'all.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Indeed, your claims
don't fool anybody, and it looks bad for you and anyone else who
relies on this tactic.
>
> But it's bikini time, got to run!
Announcing that you are about to remove most of your clothing
doesn't impress adults. I've seen a *lot* of half-naked
feminists, but I haven't seen many that could support their
arguments.
Ralph DuBose
In The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ,one key notion was that all
that remained to defend against the advance of modernism were the
Russian Tsar and the Roman Pontiff. (An older version of the above
idea) It was all bullshit, a total forgery produced by the Tsars
secret police for obvious propaganda purposes.
There is a big hint here and that is that insecure institutions
love to cast themselves in the role of being the neccessary salvation
of all that is wholesome. And these sort of people love to make "The
Jews" their scape-goat. Anyone who falls for that is just being
scammed and used by power hungry assholes.
Andre Lieven
>>news:Q2GHa.627$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
>>> In article <1plsevgf8kflm2hmv...@4ax.com>,
>>> neptune3 says...
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:31:58 GMT, Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
>>> >
>>> >>Part of the year I LIVE in a bikini (and you know what?) I
>>don't care about YOUR
>>> >>values. I don't care about your weird religion either.
>>> >>
>>> > Fine. It's just too bad that you cared enough to click on
>>> >the reply button. Try to care even less next time.
>>>
>>> People like you and that other **nazi** need to be reminded
>>> that you are a tiny
>>> minority of **cranks** and nobody is listening to you.
>>
>>[Emphasis added]
>>
>>Aren't you the one who keeps complaining about ad hominem
>>arguments?
>
> A man walks into the room and slaps me.
This part is *highly funny*. Smyth-Sexist is so addled that she *cannot*
distinguish between someone replying to her postings *on a public
newsgroup*, with actual violence.
This clearly disqualifies her from any sort of jury duty, where a
portion of the job is to *be aware of the actual events and their
gravity*...
> So I kick him in the balls (just like my black belt brother taught me.)
Pity he never taught you how to debate...
> Then this same man, (cradling his wounded balls) asks, "why'd you do
> that?"
So, if you slapped a man, he'd be just as justified to *kick you in the
genitals* ? Just checking...
> Dah!
Can't even spell that right... A pity what the schools are letting
graduate these days...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
> into a room and kick a guy in the balls? Is he then justified in
> slapping you?
Sunny, re-read what she actually wrote. By her " standards ", if she
slapped a guy, he would be justified in *kicking her in her genitals*.
Betcha she doesn't like that kind of " equality ", either...
Bigots never do...
Andre Lieven
> In article <kXIHa.74093$X43....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>, John Jones
> says...
>>
>><Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:wPIHa.708$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
>>> In article
>><BIIHa.74092$X43....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>, John Jones
>>> says...
>>> >
>>> ><Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:lpIHa.695$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
>>> >> In article
>>> ><d0IHa.74085$X43....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com>, John
>>> >> Jones says...
>>> >> >
>>> >> ><Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:Q2GHa.627$cJ5...@www.newsranger.com...
>>> >> >> In article <1plsevgf8kflm2hmv...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >neptune3 says...
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:31:58 GMT,
" Mommy, they started it first ! " Uh huh.
> Also, they need to stop with their "barrage of lies, distortions, and wildly
> erroneous accusations" tactic.
Bzt: " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary *proof*. "
> It doesn't fool anybody and it looks bad for y'all.
Projection...
> But it's bikini time, got to run!
Paige ?
> :)
Ah, the sign of the grinning sexist idiot... Got it.
neptune3
>
>People like you and that other nazi need to be reminded that you are a tiny
>minority of cranks and nobody is listening to you.
>
Here is a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Munich, July 31, 1932
"They claim to be the defenders and proponents of the nation and of
Christian culture, yet they stand at the side of the Prussian Marxism
of Severing, Braun and Grzesinksi. They want people to believe that
fate of the Church and the Fatherland should best be put in their
hands, yet they form coalitions with those who deny God and betray the
Fatherland. They resist the reawakening German nation in the form of
National Socialism.
These gentlemen should realize that their political days are numbered.
We took care of the political hacks of Social Democracy in Prussia,
and we will do the same with the hacks of the Bavarian People's Party!
The days are gone in which one could draw lines through Germany, when
the nation tore itself apart, when we were first of all Bavarians or
Prussians, Catholics or Protestants. National Socialism has brought
the German people once more to an inner unity that transcends class,
occupation or Church membership. That unity is the best guarantee of
the power, strength and future of the Reich. Those who benefited from
our internal conflicts sense that their last days have come. As long
as we quarreled with each other they could carry on their cowardly
political business at our expense, but now their parasitic political
life is over. Now they are shouting that socialism or the Church are
in danger! No, the Marxist traitors were the ones who betrayed
socialism, and the Church was betrayed by those who claimed to defend
Christianity but in reality made coalitions with God-denying atheists,
thus destroying the foundations of national and Christian morality.
We have two Marxist parties for the workers. Are things going well for
workers?
We have two Catholic parties. Has Catholicism been saved? No, the
opposite is true. Ever since the Marxist parties in Germany began
their fevered games, the workers have lost their jobs and their
prosperity, and since the Christian-Catholic parties have joined with
Marxism, God-denying atheism has gone about its work unhindered. These
parties are the cause of the misery of the German people; the best
thing for Germany is to kick this dead system's fat hacks in the rear.
These gentlemen have recently had a small taste of what is to come in
Prussia. What must Severing, Braun and Grzesinski be thinking? The
good old days at Aranjuez are gone. They were ever so comfortable.
They had fourteen years in power, fourteen years to translate their
program into reality. They took power as socialists, as men of the
people, and the broad masses gave them power. There as probably never
been a system that began with as much support as this new government
had in 1918. They had power, they had signed an honorable peace
treaty, they wanted to realize socialism, to bring on an age of
freedom, beauty and dignity. We lost the war, they said, but the
people won. When the Treaty of Versailles was forced on the people,
they said that the rich would pay for it, but the people would enjoy
social progress. They wrote a constitution in Weimar. It was supposed
to give the people freedom of belief and freedom of opinion, and they
ruled under this constitution for fourteen years. They signed treaties
they knew could not be fulfilled, and at home they oppressed the
nation by brute force and an iron hand.
In 1927 the Prussian Prime Minister Braun declared that he was
determined to root out National Socialism. The only thing that got
rooted out was Dr. Braun himself. Minister Severing declared that the
fire department could deal with National Socialism. He pretended to be
strong, declaring that he would leave office "only by force." A
lieutenant and ten men were enough to chase him out the back door...
The party hacks accused National Socialism of making easy promises to
make itself popular, which explains its broad following. Well, we
National Socialists are prepared to do things better, but first these
hacks will have to leave their offices. As long as we are in the
opposition, we have the right to criticize and they have the duty to
govern.
The gentleman say that one may criticize, but only in moderation.
Criticism must be directed against mistakes that must be criticized.
If the government's mistakes are minor, one can criticize gently. But
when the government's mistakes endanger the entire nation, the
opposition has to do more than open its mouth; it has to yell. If the
government envies our comfortable position in the opposition, they are
free at any time to give up the burdens of office for the pleasures of
opposition. They need only resign their offices. As long as they sit
firm, however, we can do nothing other than criticize them.
They say we want power! Certainly, of course we want the power to
implement our ideas, and as long as power is in their hands we have to
attempt to win it.
Power doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the people. You are the
people's servants, and when you use power poorly, the people will take
it away from you. That has to be made clear to the people when one
criticizes the government, and that we have certainly done.
The government's parties say that we could join them, we could form a
coalition. If we want to squeeze in, they can make room for us.
That is out of the question! We National Socialists have no desire to
sit next to you, we want to get rid of you. You must make room for
young Germany.
The governing parties say that it would be nice if we learned the art
of governing. They are for example willing to give us the Welfare
Ministry and teach us politics. But education requires two, one who
teaches, and one who wants to learn. They say we want total power?! We
say "Yes!" They ask if there is to be only one party? We say "Yes!"
We do not think thirty parties are to Germany's advantage, rather its
misfortune.The parties are the beneficiaries of our division; they use
politics only to preserve their own interests through their control of
the government. They have spread the pestilential stench of their
coalitions across Germany, and that is why these parties must vanish.
They have lost their right to exist over the past fourteen years. They
were born to help the people, but they have become the people's
greatest enemy. One can say of them what the Englishman Cromwell said
as he dissolved Parliament: "The people elected you to eliminate their
misery, and you have become their greatest misery. We are therefore
putting an end to your chatter. Is their a virtue you still possess or
a vice that you do not possess? You came to help the people, but I
tell you that you were never a government."
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, is not Germany today in the same
situation?
Isn't it necessary to eliminate these parties, and isn't it time to
put an end to their useless activity?
They will not go happily, one can understand that; it is sweet to hold
and use power. They are comfortable in their offices. They have
governed for fourteen years, and would be ready to do so for fourteen
more. If they were a decent government, they would go before the
people and say: This is what we have done in fourteen years. If you
want us to continue, vote for us. If you want things to be different,
and if you think the other side could rule better than we, then vote
for them.
A real government would be too proud to say that it was a real
government. A real government does something! Frederick the Great did
that when he gave hundreds of thousands of peasants land; he entrusted
the administration of his land to thousands of soldiers. Thousands of
civil servants ran his government. The finances were solid, the
economy was healthy, the land was strong internally and
internationally. Such a king did not need to talk about the future; he
could point proudly to what he had accomplished. But the men of this
government can only talk about what they want to do. They said
conditions were more than we could handle or that we are the unhappy
victims of the war that is responsible for everything.
That is not true, and even if it were true it would be the worst
condemnation of Social Democracy, for it was they who wanted to lose
the war. They were the traitors in 1918. They used outward collapse to
take power at home, they were willing to sell the entire nation into
slavery to bring down a system they hated.
They can't hide the truth any longer. We will compare their promises
with their accomplishments, we will remind them of what they said at
the beginning and of what has happened since. Where are the jobs, the
prosperity, the freedom, the beauty, the dignity they promised? Where
is the socialism, where the international peace, where the
disarmament, where the silver lining, where the growing economy, where
the elimination of unemployment, where the reduction of taxes?...
Was it easier to sit in a ministerial office and get fat while
deceiving the people with illusions, or to resist? Was it more popular
to lay dead comrades in their graves, or to accuse the National
Socialist movement over the radio of being rabble rouses, traitors,
and the enemies of the workers? Now we see the results of their
policies. These results do not come out of the blue, for we foresaw
them, we predicted them.
Our finances have collapsed, the economy is in ruins, the factory
chimneys have stopped smoking and the furnaces are cold. Seven million
unemployed are on the streets, the middle class is ruined, the specter
of civil war is about, farmers are driven off the land, the people are
divided by class and occupation.
Everywhere the battle cry sounds: Catholics, Protestants, Bavarians,
Prussians, the middle class, the workers. One almost is forced to the
conclusion that there are no Germans in Germany any more. Germany is
torn apart, the plaything of international forces. They stand on our
bleeding backs. The nation needs all its strength domestically; it no
longer wants to, no longer is able, to turn its strength outward. That
is the result of their failed party politics. They have mobilized
interests against each other, they have awakened the lower instincts.
They have become defenders of selfishness and pleasure; the result is
that the nation is divided and will be struck from the list of great
nations...
These gentlemen still seem to live in the year 1918. They would simply
like to forget about the intervening years; they want to make us
responsible for their own shameless deeds, following the old practice
of accusing someone else of one's own sins. The murderer isn't guilty,
but his victim. They have worn cylinder hats for fourteen years; now
they want to wear the worker's cap again. For fourteen years they have
forgotten about the people. We get to admire them only in the
illustrated magazines. They got fat and the people starved. Now they
suddenly want to forget it all.
Now they even steal our methods. We have carried the Swastika for
twelve years. Now they are waving those Sklarek arrows. We have
greeted each other for twelve years with "Heil Hitler." Now they
stretch out their hand and say "Freedom." How should one take that? Is
it a wish or an observation? One has to assume it is an observation,
since it is hard to imagine that a party that has had power for
fourteen years could want anything more. They had fourteen years to
fulfill their wishes; why haven't they done so and realized freedom?
Now they pretend they are in the opposition.
For fourteen years they have spoken only of law and order and peace,
but now they talk of barricades and uprisings and resistance and
"giving way only by force" and "taking off their jackets." When one
has been in the government fourteen years, one forgets what the masses
smell like. Schiller's words from "Kabale und Liebe" apply here: "It's
gone flat, Luise."
No one believes them any more. They sound false, hollow and weak,
particularly given their unfortunate record.
They talk of their great leaders and in newspaper articles ask how one
can throw out such a spotless man as Severing in so brutal and
unscrupulous a manner. We have already shown them "how." If Severing
is one of the spotless leaders of the Social Democrats, one can
imagine how clean the rest of them are. Their posters proclaim: "The
Nazis lie, the Nazis lie!" The crazy always think that the sane are
crazy.
They write that ninety percent of the German people have nothing, ten
percent have everything. Should things stay that way? To change it we
have to get rid of the party hacks who haven't done anything about it
for fourteen years.
They ask if we want to do it all by ourselves, without any help from
them at all. They worry what will become of them. We National
Socialists hope to find a "place" for them. They ask us rudely - as if
they were a decent party - well, what do you really want?
It is none of your business what we want. We will do it with the
people, not you.
Let me satisfy a bit of your curiosity. First we want to get rid of
you, then march in on 31 July.
Surely you do not expect me, the representative of a movement of
fifteen million people, to come before you and beg for your vote. It
is not my goal to deceive you, but to persuade you. If someone will
vote only for a party that promises him something, I say: Don't vote
for us, vote for someone else. We don't promise you a bed of roses. We
believe that the good of the individual depends on the good of the
whole; that is the sum of the good of each individual.
Germany fell into misfortune only after the individual believed he
should pursue his interests at the cost of the general welfare.
Germany's misery will end when the individual sees the general welfare
as the best guarantee of his own own.
Twelve years ago we appeared in public for the first time. People
laughed at us, they mocked and joked about us, they called us utopians
and dreamers. Seven men founded this gospel in 1919, In the twelve
years since they have grown to an army of fifteen million. All of us
are the bearers and pathfinders, the witnesses, of this unique popular
movement.
Wherever we look today, we see an awakening people on the march, a
young generation of fighting activists who have torn down the old
barriers. They are men who are not first of all Bavarians or
Prussians, Catholics or Protestants, middle class or proletarian,
rather their first loyalty is to their land, their people, their
nation.
We believe that the two thousand year old longing of our people for
inner unity is being fulfilled. We have thrown down the glove before
class struggle and occupational lines. We have been slandered, mocked,
beaten bloody and thrown in jail. Despite that, or I say because of it
- our movement has grown strong.
This seed should grow on 31 July. 31 July will show if Germany will
find new inner unity that will break the chains of Marxism, or if it
will collapse entirely, still bound by those chains."
neptune3
>neptune3 wrote:
>
><Snip> Previous stuff.
>
>> The Muslim world and the Liberal world are two extremes. Makow was
>> saying that it is best to have something in the middle. The main
>> differences between the cultures are pornagraphy and feminism.
>
>No. The main difference between the cultures is freedom and
>oppression.
Some people may call outlawing homosexual perversion oppression.
Other people think its a great idea.
>
>Makow believes women have too much freedom.
Free to do what?
>
>I'm one of those people who think we have too many laws.
One example would be....
>
>This poster wants to reduce what we are free to read.
Years ago people knew the difference between outlawing ideas and
beliefs, and outlawing porn.
>
>The Muslim world is anti-female.
That is the same thing they used to say about the Christian world.
>Apparently too pro-female for this poster.
>
>
>A belief in strong sexual identities does not entail reducing the
>freedom of either sex.
Unless you want to make some practical use of your beliefs. We
should be wary of people who say "freedom" without telling us what
they want to be free to do.
>
>> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers.
>
>If they meet the necessary qualifications, I have no problem with
>that.
I do.
>
>> Men don't need to be protected by female policemen.
>
>If I'm in danger, I'll take protection from whomever is available.
And like it?
>
> I think he's mixed up on who the main adversaries are.
>
> On one side are those people who genuinely believe in freedom,
>liberty and rights of the individual.
i.e. homosexual perversion, feminism, drugs, prostitution.
>On the other side are the
>enemies of freedom. They include leftists, Molsems and Nazis. With the
>latest war in Iraq, it's interesting how all three have combined to
>oppose Bush's policies.
>
>Afghanistan was definitely anti-female.
>
>> And it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan.
>
>I should hope not. Stomping on Afghanistan was long overdue.
So much for all your freedom. You want to impose your liberal
values on people who want no part of it.
>
>We now know which of the enemies of freedom this guy belongs to: he's
>a Nazi.
>
>
>Yes. America has bombed Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, as well as
>Moslem countries like Iraq and Libya. Of course, the U.S. has also
>bombed leftist countries like North Korea and North Vietnam as well
>having maintained a vast nuclear force ready to vaporize the Soviet
>Union. It's interesting how America's enemies are invariably enemies
>of freedom.
And if people don't want freedom for homosexual perversion America
will bomb them.
>
>Sometimes, the media tells the truth.
nit picking
>
>Actually, the media has become less and less of a monolith. The rise
>of Fox News and conservative radio talk shows have been a continual
>sourse of frustration to the liberal contingent.
Conservatives are liberal and agree with most of what you say.
>
>What about men like this poster who has become an enemy of women?
>
>Jewish culture is a significant subculture of Western civilization.
As much as a parasite is a subculture of it host.
>Jewish culture places a high value on education, learning and the
>intellect. Thus where free, Jews have achieved disproportionate
>success in the professions. This has inflamed the inferiority
>complexes of certain people who become angry, bitter, mean, who work
>up a genocidal rage against Jews whom they want to blame for their
>failures, who like Josef Gobbels like to rage against "Jewish
>intellectualism".
Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.
The Jew
by Joseph Goebbels
Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the
right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic,
the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a
capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing
dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question.
Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or
confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is
one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate
even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a
scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like
water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at
how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've
been found out."
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening
speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any
attempt at defense.
Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker
becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be
more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants.
He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the
result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he
has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused
has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the
dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought
the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully
aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the
following radical conclusions:
1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and
this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will
forever corrupt it.
2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can
hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.
3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest
opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and
nobility only to trap his enemy.
4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a
foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights
that he always abuses.
5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all,
rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to
protection from the state.
6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and
craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically-he follows
entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken
through political means.
7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of
honor for a German opponent of the Jews.
8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the
more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a
sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who
is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.
9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a
result, the opposite of what he says must be true.
10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the
Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish
opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.
These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success.
Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a
movement will be feared by them.
The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore
is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we
are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about
terror. We answer with Mussolini's familiar words: "Terror? Never! It
is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just
as a doctor does to a bacterium.
>
>Jewish intellectual have been on the cutting edge of various left wing
>movements like feminism, etc. However, Jewish intellectuals have been
>on the cutting edge of right wing movements as well.
It's the Jews themselves who claim their policies are somehow
rightist. Rush Limbough is a Jew.
> For those
>beliving in capitalism, there are economists Ludwig von Mises,
>Friedrich von Hayek and, of course, Milton Friedman. For the most
>consistant believer in freedom, there is Ayn Rand, born Allisa
>Rosenbaum, who has been bitterly attacked by feminists, as well as
>other leftists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, etc.
OK. If they attack feminsts the are rightist on that. But Communism
and Captialism are both Jewish.
><Snip> Stuff about Friedan.
neptune3
>
> In The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ,one key notion was that all
>that remained to defend against the advance of modernism were the
>Russian Tsar and the Roman Pontiff. (An older version of the above
>idea) It was all bullshit, a total forgery produced by the Tsars
>secret police for obvious propaganda purposes.
It is bull but truth.
> There is a big hint here and that is that insecure institutions
>love to cast themselves in the role of being the neccessary salvation
>of all that is wholesome. And these sort of people love to make "The
>Jews" their scape-goat. Anyone who falls for that is just being
>scammed and used by power hungry assholes.
>
It was Communism that overthrew the Russion Tsars. Was that a good
thing? And Communism was Jewish.
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married
to a Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish,
London Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the
Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen).
In Hungary, IIRC, the head of their VERY bloody communist secret
police, Farkas (Wulf) was a Jew. In fact, nearly all the highest
ranking communist officials in post-war Hungary were Jews.
The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc,
Skryeszewski, Modzelewski, and Berman.
The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf
Slansky.
The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
Communism in America was also Jewish.
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was
Gerhart Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist
Party in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film
writers of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of
Congress and sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here,
most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless 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."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920)> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
itself, in the fact that so
many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
with
many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
April, 4, 1919) "Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by
Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism,
as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
LadyLuck
> > In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
> >
> > By Henry Makow Ph.D.
> > September 18, 2002
> > http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html
> > On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
> >
> > Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing
> > nothing but a bikini.
> >
> > exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of
> > so-called "civilizations."
> >
> > Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping
> > Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a
> > bikini.
This crap was posted on <alt.support.marriage> 9/19/02 by RonnB and
got a whole different kind of response in slant and focus than it has
received here. You might want to check it out by way of comparison.
> >
> > I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love
> > feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am
> > defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
> >
> > For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and
> > family. Only they see her.
> >
> > It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic
> > sphere.
> >
> > The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children
> > are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that
> > sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her
> > children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
> >
> > In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically
> > naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself.
> > In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no
> > one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is
> > auctioning herself all of the time.
> >
> > In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal.
> > (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with
> > appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
> >
> > As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act
> > approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be
> > loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than
> > to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of
> > males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which
> > is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable
> > to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
> >
> > The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship
> > between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.
> > Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and
> > prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
> >
> > Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in
> > "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The
> > result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her
> > shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
> >
> > This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO:
> > undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and
> > personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world,"
> > women are not supposed to be "nest" makers, or progenitors of the
> > race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge
> > in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.
> >
> > At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian
> > women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied
> > that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise
> > "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for
> > sexuality in America?
> >
> > Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when
> > we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates:
> > creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us
> > to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for
> > marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and
> > self-obsessed.
> >
> > We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain
> > lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity,
> > in a state of perpetual courtship.
> >
> > This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a
> > function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex
> > appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent,"
> > she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
> >
> > Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making
> > marriage and family her first priority.
> >
> > Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched
> > American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined
> > millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
> >
> > I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it
> > represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband
> > and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
> >
> > The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies
> > somewhere in the middle.
> >
> >
> > Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the
> > author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in
> > English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your
> > feedback and ideas at he...@savethemales.ca.
> >
> >
> > www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
> > http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
> >
>
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
>
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:01:04 GMT, Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com wrote:
>
>>
>>People like you and that other nazi need to be reminded that you are a tiny
>>minority of cranks and nobody is listening to you.
Your point? (For this pile of nazi stuff?) Are you telling me that the nazis are
against bikinis too?
[aside] Where do these people come from?
LS
wd
> In article <khmvev0pv51moquuh...@4ax.com>, neptune3
> says...
>>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:01:04 GMT, Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>People like you and that other nazi need to be reminded that you are a
>>>tiny minority of cranks and nobody is listening to you.
>
> Your point? (For this pile of nazi stuff?) Are you telling me that the
> nazis are against bikinis too?
>
> [aside] Where do these people come from?
>
> LS
Surely you saw the point in that simple sentence didnt you?
The 'nazi like' radical thinking types of people that want to tell
everyone what to think, what to eat, how to talk, how to behave and how
to live, are a tiny minority of cranks, ko0ks and krack-pots.
These types of politically correct people have forced their radical
agendas and their version or moriality on the majority of americans for
too long.
So no one is listening to them any more.
See how easy that was?
~wd
Ms.S...@troubledplanet.com
>>
>> So what if your little scenario is turned around? What if you walk
>> into a room and kick a guy in the balls? Is he then justified in
>> slapping you?
>
>Sunny, re-read what she actually wrote. By her " standards ", if she
>slapped a guy, he would be justified in *kicking her in her genitals*.
>
>Betcha she doesn't like that kind of " equality ", either...
>
>Bigots never do...
>
>Andre
>" I'm a paranoid man... and I won't take the little pills the shrink gave me. "
> Andre
It was an analogy swifto...
What is this, soc.men.mentally.handicapped?
LS
Andre Lieven
> In article <bcnv5b$bgm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Andre Lieven says...
>>>
>>> So what if your little scenario is turned around? What if you walk
>>> into a room and kick a guy in the balls? Is he then justified in
>>> slapping you?
>>
>>Sunny, re-read what she actually wrote. By her " standards ", if she
>>slapped a guy, he would be justified in *kicking her in her genitals*.
>>
>>Betcha she doesn't like that kind of " equality ", either...
>>
>>Bigots never do...
>>
>>Andre
>
>>" I'm a paranoid man... and I won't take the little pills the shrink gave me. "
>> Andre
More of Smyth-Sexist's *forgeries*... We expect evasive deciet from
the likes of you... Since, its all you have to offer...
> It was an analogy swifto...
Just not one you would accept going in *both ways*...
Uh huh. Only Festering Femmeroids could call that " equality "...
> What is this, soc.men.mentally.handicapped?
No, " This is soc.men. WE *know* better. " Michael Snyder.
And, we *caught you* in making your " analogy " that says that
brutalising men in the genitals for a slap is fine and dandy, but
*equally* brutalising *women* in the genitals for a slap isn't.
That, of course, is... *sexism*. Yours. We're just pointing it out.
HTH.
neptune3
>
>Your point? (For this pile of nazi stuff?) Are you telling me that the nazis are
>against bikinis too?
I don't know if they outlawed bikinis or not. They outlawed porn
though.
" Following a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
(10th May 1933) the nation gathered up masses
of pornographic, communist, seditious and anti-German
publications and burnt them
at public bonfires attended by enthusiastic patriots.
Interestingly Germanys student population initiated
the book burning. Thousands of university students,
fired by the ministers speech, formed a torchlight
procession and entered the Unter den Linden Square
opposite Berlin University to light bonfires which
sent the signal across Germany. "
The Michael Walsh News Desk
www.etc.com/HRP
>
>[aside] Where do these people come from?
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
neptune3
wrote:
>
>Surely you saw the point in that simple sentence didnt you?
>
>The 'nazi like' radical thinking types of people that want to tell
>everyone what to think, what to eat, how to talk, how to behave and how
>to live, are a tiny minority of cranks, ko0ks and krack-pots.
I 'm not aware of any foods they outlawed. They did outlaw
homosexual perversion, pornagraphy, prostitution, and other bad things
though.
>These types of politically correct people have forced their radical
>agendas and their version or moriality on the majority of americans for
>too long.
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
>
>So no one is listening to them any more.
>
>See how easy that was?
>
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
wd
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:36:13 -0500, "wd" <ro...@localhost.localdomain>
> wrote:
>
<snip utter BS>
In other words, you have nothing to say.
~wd
Jim Austin
> On 17 Jun 2003 12:09:33 -0700, b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
>
> >neptune3 wrote:
> >
> ><Snip> Previous stuff.
> >
> >> The Muslim world and the Liberal world are two extremes. Makow was
> >> saying that it is best to have something in the middle. The main
> >> differences between the cultures are pornagraphy and feminism.
> >
> >No. The main difference between the cultures is freedom and
> >oppression.
>
> Some people may call outlawing homosexual perversion oppression.
> Other people think its a great idea.
Some people think oppression is a great idea.
> >Makow believes women have too much freedom.
>
> Free to do what?
Whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
> >I'm one of those people who think we have too many laws.
>
> One example would be....
The alphabet soup of regulatory agencies.
> >This poster wants to reduce what we are free to read.
>
> Years ago people knew the difference between outlawing ideas and
> beliefs, and outlawing porn.
Those who want to outlaw porn are among the first to blur the
distinction.
> >The Muslim world is anti-female.
>
> That is the same thing they used to say about the Christian world.
With Christianity, it's true.
> >Apparently too pro-female for this poster.
> >
> >
> >A belief in strong sexual identities does not entail reducing the
> >freedom of either sex.
>
> Unless you want to make some practical use of your beliefs. We
> should be wary of people who say "freedom" without telling us what
> they want to be free to do.
Whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others.
> >> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
> >> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers.
> >
> >If they meet the necessary qualifications, I have no problem with
> >that.
>
> I do.
They call that a personal problem.
> >> Men don't need to be protected by female policemen.
> >
> >If I'm in danger, I'll take protection from whomever is available.
>
> And like it?
I like protection against danger.
> > I think he's mixed up on who the main adversaries are.
> >
> > On one side are those people who genuinely believe in freedom,
> >liberty and rights of the individual.
>
> i.e. homosexual perversion, feminism, drugs, prostitution.
Some people definitely have an obsession with homosexuality,
perversion, etc.
> >On the other side are the enemies of freedom. They include leftists, Molsems
> >and Nazis. With the latest war in Iraq, it's interesting how all three have
> >combined to oppose Bush's policies.
No challenge here.
> >Afghanistan was definitely anti-female.
> >
> >> And it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan.
> >
> >I should hope not. Stomping on Afghanistan was long overdue.
>
> So much for all your freedom. You want to impose your liberal
> values on people who want no part of it.
No. Stomping on Afghanistan was not about imposing anything. It was
about stomping on a nation that supported, cooperated with and
sanctuary to a terrorist organization that had attacked the U.S.
Nazis are supposed to be so nationalistic. Yet they support a faction
that attacked their own country.
Indeed, America's own homegrown Nazis are among the first to turn
quisling and traitor when America is confronted with a nationalistic
opponent.
> >We now know which of the enemies of freedom this guy belongs to: he's
> >a Nazi.
> >
> >
> >Yes. America has bombed Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, as well as
> >Moslem countries like Iraq and Libya. Of course, the U.S. has also
> >bombed leftist countries like North Korea and North Vietnam as well
> >having maintained a vast nuclear force ready to vaporize the Soviet
> >Union. It's interesting how America's enemies are invariably enemies
> >of freedom.
>
> And if people don't want freedom for homosexual perversion America
> will bomb them.
If they endanger the U.S., yes. Bomb the hell out of them.
> >Sometimes, the media tells the truth.
>
> nit picking
Whatever.
> >Actually, the media has become less and less of a monolith. The rise
> >of Fox News and conservative radio talk shows have been a continual
> >sourse of frustration to the liberal contingent.
>
> Conservatives are liberal and agree with most of what you say.
Possibly.
> >What about men like this poster who has become an enemy of women?
> >
>
> >Jewish culture is a significant subculture of Western civilization.
>
> As much as a parasite is a subculture of it host.
Nazis are parasites of the worst kind: destructive parasites.
> >Jewish culture places a high value on education, learning and the
> >intellect. Thus where free, Jews have achieved disproportionate
> >success in the professions. This has inflamed the inferiority
> >complexes of certain people who become angry, bitter, mean, who work
> >up a genocidal rage against Jews whom they want to blame for their
> >failures, who like Josef Gobbels like to rage against "Jewish
> >intellectualism".
>
> Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.
>
> The Jew
> by Joseph Goebbels
<Snip> Nazi tirade against Jews.
> >Jewish intellectual have been on the cutting edge of various left wing
> >movements like feminism, etc. However, Jewish intellectuals have been
> >on the cutting edge of right wing movements as well.
>
> It's the Jews themselves who claim their policies are somehow
> rightist. Rush Limbough is a Jew.
Didn't know that. Don't care.
> >For those beliving in capitalism, there are economists Ludwig von Mises,
> >Friedrich von Hayek and, of course, Milton Friedman. For the most
> >consistant believer in freedom, there is Ayn Rand, born Allisa
> >Rosenbaum, who has been bitterly attacked by feminists, as well as
> >other leftists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, etc.
>
> OK. If they attack feminsts the are rightist on that. But Communism
> and Captialism are both Jewish.
Which is to say, both A and -A are Jewish.
Nazism is a killer ideology. It differs from communism only in the
criteria by which they direct their genocidal rage. The virulence they
direct against their targets is but a limited expression for a much
wider rage: rage against life itself.
> ><Snip> Stuff about Friedan.
<Snip> The rest.
Ralph DuBose
> On 17 Jun 2003 13:04:19 -0700, rdu...@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ,one key notion was that all
> >that remained to defend against the advance of modernism were the
> >Russian Tsar and the Roman Pontiff. (An older version of the above
> >idea) It was all bullshit, a total forgery produced by the Tsars
> >secret police for obvious propaganda purposes.
>
> It is bull but truth.
I am tempted to take your phrase here and have some fun, but it
is not worth it.
>
> > There is a big hint here and that is that insecure institutions
> >love to cast themselves in the role of being the neccessary salvation
> >of all that is wholesome. And these sort of people love to make "The
> >Jews" their scape-goat. Anyone who falls for that is just being
> >scammed and used by power hungry assholes.
> >
> It was Communism that overthrew the Russion Tsars. Was that a good
> thing? And Communism was Jewish.
Communism was (is) a set of ideas that have always been present in
human affairs, in one form or another. What happened in the
intellectual climate of the period you mention was just a matter of
repackaging.
As to the specific role of Jewish individuals in those
transformations, yeah, it was a large one. It is also true that the
intellectual class of that period was quite small in most countries
and for a number of complex reasons, the intellectual classes of many
European societies were heavily Jewish. So any new revolution in
Russia or Hungary or Poland was likely to be instigated by people
outside the mainstream and who had funny sounding names.
In the 1980s, much of the theorizing that formed the basis of the
successful counter-assault against Marxism was formulated in places
like the Chicago School of Economics led by Milton Friedman. The
government of Margret Thatcher, which had a large role in pushing
communism into the dustbin of history, had at one time a majority of
cabinet chiefs who were of Jewish backgrounds.
And Israel, we may safely describe as "Jewish", went through a
prolonged flirtation with a sort of Marxism but for decades now has
become one of the most free market, free speech oriented societies on
earth.
The real point here is that if you want to change the world, just
go out and do it. No one is stopping anyone. There is no more honesty
in blaming everything on some International Jewish Conspiracy than on
blaming everything on the "Patriarchy". Both concepts are just excuse
mongering and hate speech.
There is only do or do not. There is no such thing as fate.
neptune3
>> Some people may call outlawing homosexual perversion oppression.
>> Other people think its a great idea.
>
>Some people think oppression is a great idea.
>
>Whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Put "Withcraft Rede" in your search engine. You will find the
liberal philosophy.
>The alphabet soup of regulatory agencies.
>
>>
>> Years ago people knew the difference between outlawing ideas and
>> beliefs, and outlawing porn.
>
>Those who want to outlaw porn are among the first to blur the
>distinction.
>
>> >The Muslim world is anti-female.
>>
>> That is the same thing they used to say about the Christian world.
>
>With Christianity, it's true.
>
>
>Whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others.
>
>
>They call that a personal problem.
>
>
>I like protection against danger.
>
>
>Some people definitely have an obsession with homosexuality,
>perversion, etc.
>
>
>No challenge here.
>
>
>No. Stomping on Afghanistan was not about imposing anything. It was
>about stomping on a nation that supported, cooperated with and
>sanctuary to a terrorist organization that had attacked the U.S.
"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why
the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
would
blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
lies to
keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who
committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government spokesmen
repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do with
America's
support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by the President
to the
U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked us because they hate
our
freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks before Congress
"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that
even this intellectually challenged President cannot really believe
it. Does
Bush really think that a bunch of young men would give up their
families,
their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge ball of fire simply
because
they hate our democracy! Right on Mr. President! Next week, will we
will
hear about Islamic kamikazes crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest
enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years.
We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge costs
could well
bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers of American
lives.
Before we can make such a crucial decision, we deserve to have the
whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big
Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated
lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our support for
Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public
relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they want is
for
the American people to realize that our unconditional support of
Israel has
directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to
ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is our
support of
Israel really worth it?"
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big
Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly people who
hated
freedom and democracy!
The real reason for the attack
Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
motivation.
The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
League
of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The
date
represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the
Balfour
Declaration and the establishment of Israel.
Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
people?
Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
more than
most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their enormous
media
power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and read the "Who
Runs the
Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening. (Located at
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby
afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every American to
think
that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the service of a
foreign
nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish Lobby is a proven fact,
and
nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this all-powerful lobby. Even
one of
the most powerful U.S. Senators in American history, William
Fulbright,
bluntly said on CBS's Face the Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres
warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed American
requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could cause
America to
turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do
that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America,
and the
Americans know it." (2)
The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons
behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama Bin
Laden. He
and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has put support for
Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating America. Bin
Laden and
countless millions in the Muslim world regard the attacks on Lebanon,
on
Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and on Sudan as a direct
result of
Israel's control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing
torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political
enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive wars launched
by
Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all these Israeli crimes
are
completely dependent on unconditional American aid. They also see the
deaths
of the 500,000 Iraqi children, as admitted by our former Jewish
Secretary of
State, as a direct result of Jewish control of America.
The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia,
might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy, but
the
Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all understand it;
and they
hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's
real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the
media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of
ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he seeks to
attack
America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web sites. Here are
excerpts
of bin Laden's own words.
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and
assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have
been blasted, their crops destroyed.
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government
that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people's
lands,
or other people's honor. And my word to American journalists is not to
ask
why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us
to
defend ourselves."
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and
American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the
lives of
their children, to find a patriotic government that will look after
their
interests and not the interests of the Jews."
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe
that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the
sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of
Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand
in
them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world.
In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic
principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So, now we know
Laden's
true motivation. He attacked us not because he "hates democracy", but
because he thinks Israel controls and uses America to attack his
people."
David Duke
(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.
Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml
IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS
Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
>
>Nazis are supposed to be so nationalistic. Yet they support a faction
>that attacked their own country.
I don't support anyone who attacked Nazi Germany.
>
>Indeed, America's own homegrown Nazis are among the first to turn
>quisling and traitor when America is confronted with a nationalistic
>opponent.
I'm not a traitor to the White race. Ameica is bent on the
destruction of the White race and that is because America is ruled by
the Jews.
>
>If they endanger the U.S., yes. Bomb the hell out of them.
America would not have any enemies if it did not have its "only
freind in the Middle East", the Jews.
>
>Whatever.
>
>Possibly.
>
>
>Nazis are parasites of the worst kind: destructive parasites.
That is the opposite of the truth.
Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
><Snip> Nazi tirade against Jews.
>>
>Didn't know that. Don't care.
>
>
>Which is to say, both A and -A are Jewish.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
>
>Nazism is a killer ideology. It differs from communism only in the
>criteria by which they direct their genocidal rage. The virulence they
>direct against their targets is but a limited expression for a much
>wider rage: rage against life itself.
"Even cremated bodies leave about 9 pounds of remains.
With millions dead, thousands of tons of ashes should be out there.
What about detailed plans, drawings, and operating manuals for those
specially designed killing chambers? Surely they can be found in the
tons of documents recovered after the war. Studying the Holocaust
should be like tracking a herd of elephants through deep snow; just
look at all those deep tracks and ruts left by those gigantic animals.
But there is no such visible trail left by the gigantic Holocaust.
Professional trackers must be used, and they are needed to point out
the subtle signs of the trail. The most popular are photographs. But
as it turns out, there are no photographs standing alone that prove
anything. All the photographs must be analyzed, properly captioned,
and explained by experts. Hundreds of pictures of dreadful looking
dead bodies are always boldly displayed; but they are usually from
places that were not considered killing centers. Even the Holocaust
experts grudgingly admit people shown in the photographs were not
murdered, but instead died of starvation and disease.
But what of all the other trail evidence? We still need the
professional Holocaust trackers. No building plan was ever found with
any kind of killing device included. Experts must be employed to point
out the places in the plans where gas chambers were located. What
about those written orders and detailed reports about gassings? Not a
single one has been found. In the tons of official documents, in the
thousands of official reports, in the hundreds of personal diaries,
there is not a single mention of gas chambers. In fact, there is very
little outright talk of killing. Again the specially trained
Holocaust experts must be brought in to find "code words" in the
documents which mean kill. What's more, the remains of millions of
bodies of the victims seem to have completely disappeared. The experts
just ignore that.
The very idea that the enormous massacre called the Holocaust
could have happened without leaving mountains of clear and
indisputable evidence is absurd."
Morghus
>
>> ><Snip> Stuff about Friedan.
>
><Snip> The rest.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
neptune3
>neptune3 <np...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<v7ovev0i146snc490...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Jun 2003 13:04:19 -0700, rdu...@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) wrote:
>
>> It is bull but truth.
>
> I am tempted to take your phrase here and have some fun, but it
>is not worth it.
Err, not bull but truth
>
>
> Communism was (is) a set of ideas that have always been present in
>human affairs, in one form or another. What happened in the
>intellectual climate of the period you mention was just a matter of
>repackaging.
> As to the specific role of Jewish individuals in those
>transformations, yeah, it was a large one. It is also true that the
>intellectual class of that period was quite small in most countries
>and for a number of complex reasons, the intellectual classes of many
>European societies were heavily Jewish. So any new revolution in
>Russia or Hungary or Poland was likely to be instigated by people
>outside the mainstream and who had funny sounding names.
> In the 1980s, much of the theorizing that formed the basis of the
>successful counter-assault against Marxism was formulated in places
>like the Chicago School of Economics led by Milton Friedman. The
>government of Margret Thatcher, which had a large role in pushing
>communism into the dustbin of history, had at one time a majority of
>cabinet chiefs who were of Jewish backgrounds.
Communism died on its own. The Jews never really cared about "the
workers" in the first place. They just want to be the leaders of any
big movement. That is why they also want to be the leaders of
"anti-Communists". Their brand of anti-Communism has many defects and
is of course quite kosher with the Jews.
> And Israel, we may safely describe as "Jewish", went through a
>prolonged flirtation with a sort of Marxism but for decades now has
>become one of the most free market, free speech oriented societies on
>earth.
Palestinians can absorb whatever Israel hurls at them
By Reach CharleyReese |
Posted July 11, 2001, 11:14 PM EDT
The Israelis bulldozed another 14 Palestinian homes
this week in a refugee camp in Gaza. The United
States said the act was "provocative."
Actually, it was a war crime. Actually, what the Israelis
have been doing to the Palestinians has been correctly
characterized by the International Red Cross as war
crimes and by a United Nations official as "an affront to
civilization."
But, hey, you misled, sleeping Americans, you don't
know what a breakthrough it is for the U.S. State
Department to utter even the mildest criticism of some
Israeli atrocity.
"Provocative."
Wow. Golly gee whiz. Old George W. Bush promised
he would provide leadership, and that's real leadership, calling a war
crime
"provocative." Finally, after eight months of refusing to utter even
that bland a
criticism, he managed to say the destruction of homes so precious to
such
terribly poor people is "provocative."
It is such an improvement over Warren Christopher. When he was
secretary of
state, the Israelis were indulging in one of their periodic and
gratuitous
artillery
attacks against villages in South Lebanon.
A group of about 100 Lebanese women and children fled to a United
Nations
compound for safety. It didn't matter. The Israelis fired on it
deliberately, as a
subsequent U.N. investigation demonstrated. They were all killed,
along with the
U.N. peacekeepers. Bits and pieces of their flesh hung like grotesque
decorations, dripping blood from shattered debris and blasted trees.
Do you know what Christopher said?
"The United States urges both sides to show restraint."
I wonder how he expected the shattered flesh of the dead Lebanese
women and
children to show restraint. Perhaps he thought that they should not
bleed so
profusely from their wounds. I think that was the very first time I
felt ashamed
to
be an American, listening to that rat-faced, cold-blooded
international lawyer
brushing off an atrocity like a crumb on his expensive coat sleeve.
One day, Americans are going to wake up from more than 50 years of
Zionist
propaganda and suddenly feel like strangers in a strange land, to
borrow the
title
of an old science-fiction work. They're finally going to see the
simple truth:
Israelis drove Palestinians out of their own country and confiscated
their land
and
wealth. Israelis refused to allow (and still refuse) Palestinian
refugees to
return,
despite United Nations resolutions instructing them to do so.
In 1967, the Israelis attacked and took the West Bank, Gaza and East
Jerusalem. Since then, they have ruled it and still rule, despite U.N.
resolutions
against their actions.
Now, after dragging out so-called peace negotiations for 10 years --
how can the
simple question, "When are you going to withdraw from the territories
you
illegally
occupy?" take 10 years? -- the drama is heading toward a climax.
The Israelis have tried economic strangulation. They have tried to
force the
Palestinians to accept a chopped-up pseudo-country. They have tried
killing their
children, demolishing their homes and assassinating their leaders.
They tried
uprooting their agricultural orchards and sealing the Palestinians off
from normal
travel.
By the way, where are you environmentalists while the Israelis commit
this
environmental atrocity? Don't you know how long it takes for an olive
tree to
reach
maturity and start bearing fruit? I thought you were concerned about
the
environment. Oh, excuse me -- not when it's a Palestinian environment.
My
mistake. I sometimes forget who is a hypocrite and who isn't, because
there are
so many these days.
What's next, of course, is for the Israelis to take off the bloody
glove and
commit
one super massacre in an attempt to drive the Palestinians out or to
break their
spirit. This is what the Palestinians expect. They are bracing for it.
They know
that the Israelis have elected the one politician, Ariel Sharon,
willing to do it.
They figure they can absorb that blow. If the survivors can rise from
the rubble
and
say to the Israelis, "You can bury us here, but you can never drive us
out of our
own country," then the Israelis will have exhausted their options.
They will dump
Sharon and replace him with somebody who will finally, at long last,
do some
serious talking.
It's already terrible what the Palestinians are going through, and
this new
assault,
when it comes, will be far worse. They need the support now of decent
people
with the courage to stand up for human rights. As you can see, the
Bush
administration prefers to remain on its knees. Most members of
Congress are
afraid even to do that. They prefer the supine position, total
prostration.
If you can't find the courage to speak out against evil financed with
your tax
money, then at least watch as Palestinian children show you how real
men and
women live and die with honor.
Reach Charley Reese at 407-420-5315 or cre...@orlandosentinel.com.
Source: The Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-edpreese12071201jul12.story
> The real point here is that if you want to change the world, just
>go out and do it. No one is stopping anyone. There is no more honesty
>in blaming everything on some International Jewish Conspiracy than on
>blaming everything on the "Patriarchy". Both concepts are just excuse
>mongering and hate speech.
No, Jews are in fact the enemy. For one thing Feminism is Jewish.
> There is only do or do not. There is no such thing as fate.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Jim Austin
> On 18 Jun 2003 18:44:42 -0700, b...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
>
>
> >> Some people may call outlawing homosexual perversion oppression.
> >> Other people think its a great idea.
> >
> >Some people think oppression is a great idea.
> >
>
> >Whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
>
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
>
> Put "Withcraft Rede" in your search engine. You will find the
> liberal philosophy.
It's doubtful that source has anything relevant or important to say
about freedom, liberty, rights.
> >The alphabet soup of regulatory agencies.
> >
> >>
> >> Years ago people knew the difference between outlawing ideas and
> >> beliefs, and outlawing porn.
> >
> >Those who want to outlaw porn are among the first to blur the
> >distinction.
> >
> >> >The Muslim world is anti-female.
> >>
> >> That is the same thing they used to say about the Christian world.
> >
> >With Christianity, it's true.
> >
> >
> >Whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others.
> >
> >
> >They call that a personal problem.
> >
> >
> >I like protection against danger.
> >
> >
> >Some people definitely have an obsession with homosexuality,
> >perversion, etc.
> >
> >
> >No challenge here.
> >
> >
> >No. Stomping on Afghanistan was not about imposing anything. It was
> >about stomping on a nation that supported, cooperated with and
> >sanctuary to a terrorist organization that had attacked the U.S.
>
>
> "Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
> they did it is even more important to us.
No. Who did it would be the most import. The "why" would be much
farther down the list.
> Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
> why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us
> completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men
> would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd
> lies to keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.
I don't really care about their reasons. If they attack, stomp them.
> We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
> who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government spokesmen
> repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do with
> America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by the President
> to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked us because they hate
> our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks before Congress
>
> "Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
>
> "They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
> elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
> freedoms."
In as much as this poster has spent his time denouncing freedom, it's
little wonder that he would empathize with the worst of terrorist's
hatreds.
It's more than just hating freedom. It has to do with hating life.
Said Al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith, "Americans must
know...there are thousands of young people who look forward to death
as Americans look forward to life."
> I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
> that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really believe
> it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would give up their
> families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge ball of fire simply
> because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr. President! Next week, will we
> will hear about Islamic kamikazes crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest
> enduring democracy on earth.
>
> Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
> years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge costs
> could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers of American
> lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we deserve to have the
> whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
>
> Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
> Big Lie put out by the American mass media.
>
> Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
> calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our support
> for Israel.
>
> You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
> public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they want is
> for the American people to realize that our unconditional support of
> Israel has directly led to this disaster.
>
> If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
> begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is our
> support of Israel really worth it?"
He expects Americans would want to appease the worst of terrorists by
allowing them to dictate what nations America should support.
> To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
> the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly people who
> hated freedom and democracy!
This is from the poster who has spewed his own hatred of freedom and
democracy.
> The real reason for the attack
>
> Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
> motivation.
>
> The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
> League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The
> date represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the
> Balfour Declaration and the establishment of Israel.
>
> Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
> people?
Because the wishes and desires of terrorists not that important.
> Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
> thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
> disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
> more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their enormous
> media power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and read the "Who
> Runs the Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening. (Located at
> http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Nazis can put anything they want on documents.
> Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
> Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every American to
> think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the service of a
> foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish Lobby is a proven fact,
> and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this all-powerful lobby. Even
> one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in American history, William
> Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the Nation, that, "Israel controls the
> U.S. Senate."
This is the same Fulbright who wanted the U.S. to appease communist
countries during the Cold War.
In any event, Jewish political influence is largely confined to the
Democratic Party since the overwhelming majority of Jews vote for
Democrats, and practically all the money raised by Jewish
organizations go to the Democrats. They may well have restrained
Democrats from wanting to appease terrorists more than they do now.
Republican politics cannot be explained in terms of organized Jewish
influence.
> Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
> reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
> Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed American
> requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could cause
> America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon responded to Peres:
>
> "Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
> do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about
> American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America,
> and the Americans know it." (2)
I've heard that quote before. Either he didn't say it at all or he
said something totally different.
> The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
> reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama Bin
> Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has put support
> for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating America. Bin
> Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard the attacks on
> Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and on Sudan as a direct
> result of Israel's control over America.
>
> They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians,...
Retaliations against terrorist attacks.
> ...the ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners,...
I doubt that.
> ...the use of assassination of political enemies,...
Of terrorists.
> ...the bombing of refugee camps,...
Of terrorist training camps.
> and the expansive wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors;...
Responding to threats against Israel.
> ...that all these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
> American aid.
Liberals, lefties and Nazis all see self defense as a crime.
> They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,...
This supposedly happened during the sanctions while this guy's hero,
Saddam Hussein, built palaces all over Iraq.
> ...as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct result of
> Jewish control of America.
I doubt that any such admission was ever made.
> The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
> multimedia,...
Actually, the bias is very much the other way where the media portrays
terrorism and response thereto as equivalent, as the media searches
for any pretext to report that U.S. efforts have resulted in a
quagmire.
But then, this guy would consider anything short of calling for the
destruction of Israel as bias in favor of Israel.
> ...might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy,
> but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all understand it;
> and they hate us for it.
Their hatred is their problem, not ours. They should pay the price
when they act on it.
> In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
> terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
> Laden's real motivations.
Their hatred goes beyond hatred for freedom, one shared by this
poster, given his denunciation of freedom. It goes to hatred of life,
of everything that makes life possible and makes life worth living.
> I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
> the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
> Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he seeks to
> attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web sites. Here are
> excerpts of bin Laden's own words.
>
> "For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
> and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
> houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.
He's angry that Palestinians could not commit terrorism with impunity.
> "This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
> government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other
> people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American journalists
> is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that
> forced us to defend ourselves."
Yes. American has failed to allow terrorists to dictate American
foreign policy.
> "So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
> soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and
> the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government that will look
> after their interests and not the interests of the Jews."
Bin Laden wants someone who will appease terrorists.
> I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
> government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
> believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the
> sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary
> of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand
> in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world.
By all means, blame the Jews for the U.S. not appeasing terrorists.
> In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
> democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So, now we
> know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he "hates
> democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses America to attack
> his people."
>
> David Duke
It's interesting how Ku Kluxers and Nazis have joined with liberals,
lefties, commies, pinkos to push for appeasement of terrorists.
> (1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
> (2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
<Snip> Hate group URLs.
> >
> >Nazis are supposed to be so nationalistic. Yet they support a faction
> >that attacked their own country.
>
> I don't support anyone who attacked Nazi Germany.
Or anyone attacked by Nazi Germany.
> >Indeed, America's own homegrown Nazis are among the first to turn
> >quisling and traitor when America is confronted with a nationalistic
> >opponent.
He does not deny that American Nazis are traitors to America.
> I'm not a traitor to the White race. Ameica is bent on the
> destruction of the White race and that is because America is ruled by
> the Jews.
The collective is everything and the individual is nothing.
> >If they endanger the U.S., yes. Bomb the hell out of them.
>
> America would not have any enemies if it did not have its "only
> freind in the Middle East", the Jews.
He thinks that America can win friends by abandoning its friends to
appease its enemies.
> >Whatever.
> >
> >Possibly.
> >
> >
> >Nazis are parasites of the worst kind: destructive parasites.
>
> That is the opposite of the truth.
No. That is the truth. Nazis make use of freedom to destroy freedom.
That is the most destructive sort of parasite.
> Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
<Snip> Extravagant praise of workers under Nazi Germany.
>
> ><Snip> Nazi tirade against Jews.
> >>
> >Didn't know that. Don't care.
> >
> >
> >Which is to say, both A and -A are Jewish.
>
> Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
<Snip> One of Hitler's tirades against Jews.
Here's another quote from "Mein Kampf":
"...(T)rue idealism is nothing but the subordination of the
individual's interest to the community...It alone leads men
voluntarily to recognize the primacy of power and strength, and makes
them into grains of sand in the order which shapes and composes the
whole universe."
In other words, the individual is nothing ("grains of sand"). The
collective is everything. Individuals exist for the collective. It is
right for the state ("power and strength") to sacrifice the individual
for the collective. Individuals have no rights to assert against the
whims the the Furher.
> >
> >Nazism is a killer ideology. It differs from communism only in the
> >criteria by which they direct their genocidal rage. The virulence they
> >direct against their targets is but a limited expression for a much
> >wider rage: rage against life itself.
<Snip> Holocaust denial.
Given the ideology of Nazism, its denial of individual rights,
including the right to life, given Nazis' own continuous, hateful
tirades against Jews, what other result can one expect when they get
in power?
If the collective herd is everything, then killing off 12 to 16
million people is just reducing the size of the herd.
> >
> >> ><Snip> Stuff about Friedan.
> >
> ><Snip> The rest.
>
<Snip> More hate group URLs.
neptune3
>>
>> Put "Withcraft Rede" in your search engine. You will find the
>> liberal philosophy.
>
>It's doubtful that source has anything relevant or important to say
>about freedom, liberty, rights.
>
The philosophy of libertarians and the philosophy of witchcraft are
the same thing. These are the same kind of people who said they were
fighting for "equality, fratinaty,brotherhood" in the French
revolution. The Communists also said they were fighting for "freedom".
Of course the words they are fighting for sound good to the ear but
they don't explain in specifics what exactly they are fighting for.
Take your three freedom, libery, rights. Freedom to do what exactly?
Obviously something that their opponants think they should not do.
It is freedom for homosexual perversion, pornagraphy, prostitution,
drugs. No one cares if people go on picnics. No one is trying to
outlaw star gazing. If there is a "freedom" to be argued about it must
be because some people find the activity highly offensive, immoral, or
bad.
This is they the liberarians and witchcraft have exactly the same
philosoply. They are liberals and put liberty far above morality.
>>
>> "Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
>> they did it is even more important to us.
>
>No. Who did it would be the most import. The "why" would be much
>farther down the list.
Who attacked Iraq would be most important. The "why" would be much
futher down the list. The Iraqis should be against the USA because
they are the "who". Even if the "why" was a good excuse, which in this
case it is not, it is not important according to you. Your side are
such hypocrites.
>
>I don't really care about their reasons. If they attack, stomp them.
The Jews who rule America are the ones who should be stomped.
>
>In as much as this poster has spent his time denouncing freedom, it's
>little wonder that he would empathize with the worst of terrorist's
>hatreds.
>
>It's more than just hating freedom. It has to do with hating life.
Life is lovable but would be much more lovable if the Jews were not
running things.
>
>Said Al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith, "Americans must
>know...there are thousands of young people who look forward to death
>as Americans look forward to life."
>
>
>He expects Americans would want to appease the worst of terrorists by
>allowing them to dictate what nations America should support.
The Jews rule America and that is why there are terrorists.
>
>This is from the poster who has spewed his own hatred of freedom and
>democracy.
"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.
"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in
1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little
more of the gist of his message. I quote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical
result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains
a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the
sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons .
.
. who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness
old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. .
.
"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people
expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of
the
people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for
it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who
understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .
"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making
the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the
community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life."
--
end of quote --
I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the
way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that
propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of others
always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It is not
for
nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as they were in
the
time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose Bernays' book to quote
is
that it provides a more concise and clear summary, in a few quotable
paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in modern life than most other
books on the subject.
If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but
it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking
of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead us to
greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the question
of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.
If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals
with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater honesty
than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:
"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --
To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy
has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that the
policies
guiding our nation should be decided by counting the votes of every
featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.
This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe
Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.
And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy
we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that we have a
greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up our own
minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we still have
some degree of individual freedom in the United States today because
more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far more
aristocratic
than democratic in the modern sense of the word were willing to go to
war against their legitimate government in order to secure that
freedom
for us, and people with a truly democratic temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.
Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing
in the myth of democracy is an important element in maintaining
control
over the thinking and behavior of the public. It is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely
to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read in the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious and
self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
The National Alliance: http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
>Because the wishes and desires of terrorists not that important.
The wishes and desires of Jew bootlickers are not important.
>
>Nazis can put anything they want on documents.
>
>
>This is the same Fulbright who wanted the U.S. to appease communist
>countries during the Cold War.
Communism was Jewish.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
>
>In any event, Jewish political influence is largely confined to the
>Democratic Party since the overwhelming majority of Jews vote for
>Democrats, and practically all the money raised by Jewish
>organizations go to the Democrats. They may well have restrained
>Democrats from wanting to appease terrorists more than they do now.
>
>Republican politics cannot be explained in terms of organized Jewish
>influence.
No, the USA in total is explained by organized Jewish influence.
By Dr. William Pierce
"Last week I gave an interview to an English-language radio station in
Teheran. The program was "The Islamic Voice of Iran." We talked about
a
number of things, including Ariel Sharon's visit to the White House,
which was taking place at the time, and about President Bush's
popularity ratings. The Iranian interviewer asked me whether Bush
would
take a more sensible, pro-American policy in the Middle East or would
continue taking orders from Israel, to the detriment of American
interests, the way the Clinton administration had.
Of course, I explained to him that there was really no difference
between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. They both dance to
whatever tune the Jews are playing at the moment, and that George Bush
would no more dare to disobey the Jews than Bill Clinton would. I told
the Iranian interviewer that there are minor differences between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with the Democrats
pandering
a bit more to the welfare class and the Republicans paying a bit more
lip service to things such as military preparedness and energy
production, but that on the really essential issues -- immigration,
racial policy, media control, foreign policy -- both parties do what
they're told and don't give the Jews any back talk.
The Iranian had a hard time understanding this. If one party -- the
Democrats, say -- were controlled by Jews and supported Jewish
interests, then surely there would be another party -- presumably the
Republicans -- representing the interests of the American people. He
couldn't understand how the Jews, making up only 2.5 per cent of the
U.S. population, could have the whole political process under their
control and in particular could dictate U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East, regardless of who is in the White House and which party
controls the Congress. What about the other 97.5 per cent of the
population? They also have interests, and they can vote. Why aren't
their interests supported by some political party?
The difficulty my Iranian interviewer had in understanding how
politics
works in America has two facets. One of these is the dominant
influence
the mass media of news and entertainment, which are largely in the
hands
of the country's very small Jewish minority, have on public opinion
and
attitudes, on the mass culture, and on the political process. In Iran
tradition is much more important in determining public opinion. And
Iran
is a much more homogeneous country, at least in a cultural and
religious
sense, than is the United States. In America the media have to a large
extent weaned the people away from their traditions and from their
cultural and religious roots and substituted a made-in-Hollywood
trash-culture with ersatz traditions in their place. The media are
increasingly important in influencing public opinion everywhere in the
developed countries -- even in Iran, no doubt -- but nowhere has the
process been as thorough and as destructive as it has been in the
United
States.
A second barrier to understanding is the subtlety and indirection
which
is used by the media bosses in achieving their aims. They almost never
make a head-on attack against the traditions or values of the host
population. They look for conflict, for inconsistency, for vice or
hypocrisy or weakness, and they exploit it to gain a foothold. Then
they
use one facet of popular belief or tradition to undermine another. For
example, they will proclaim themselves champions of "fair play," and
then they will persuade the public that fair play requires that no
distinction be made between Asians and Europeans in setting
immigration
policy. If we let Englishmen and Germans and Swedes into America, then
it wouldn't be fair to keep out Vietnamese and Chinese and Pakistanis,
they tell us.
Or they will play on the average American's resentment of governmental
interference in his private affairs to promote the idea that
homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and that neither
the
government nor individuals should make a distinction between the two.
What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's
business, therefore the government should require landlords,
employers,
Boy Scout troops, and everyone else to treat homosexuals just like
heterosexuals: a bit of a non sequitur, but the media have been
remarkably successful at using such illogical arguments to shift
public
opinion on a number of issues.
And because the media are able to influence public opinion so
strongly,
all the politicians, Republicans as well as Democrats, dance to their
tune. The politicians understand that the tiny Jewish minority, only
2.5
per cent of the population, through their control of the media are the
single most important influence on the public's perception of issues,
of
government policies, and of the politicians themselves -- and
consequently are the single most important influence on the outcome of
elections. And it is for this reason that everyone can safely count on
George Bush's policy toward Israel being whatever the Jews want it to
be.
Anyway, although I explained this as clearly as I could to my Iranian
interrogator, I think he didn't really believe me. He was ready to
accept the fact that the Jews are a very bad influence on American
policy in the Middle East, but he couldn't accept the fact that
through
their control of the mass media of news and entertainment they have
made
irrelevant and meaningless the whole idea of mass democracy. He
couldn't
assimilate the idea that party politics in America has become just a
shell game to keep the rubes confused about what's really happening
and
who's running the country. He knew that Jews are bad news, but he
couldn't grasp the fact that the most powerful country in the world,
economically and militarily, is so totally in their malign grip.
And really, when I try to put myself in the Iranian's shoes, it's hard
for me to believe it myself: a mere 2.5 per cent of the population, a
historically despised and hated group who have been kicked out of
every
country in Europe, and there's not a single mainstream American
politician brave enough to defy them; a tiny, clannish group who have
a
stranglehold on the mighty American nation; a case of the tail wagging
the dog. How do they do it? It doesn't seem possible.
Well, of course, it is possible, and I'll tell you how they do it:
they
do it with images and myths. They do it by controlling the perceptions
that most people have of the world around themselves. The Jews create
myths about what the world is like and then generate false images to
match the myths. And they project these myths and false images of the
world into the minds of their hosts.
I'll give you a specific example of this. There is a new film out by
Universal Pictures. It's called The Fast and the Furious. It's a film
directed at White teenagers, a film designed to give them a particular
image of the world and instill in them a myth about the way the world
works. It's a film about modern, urban teenagers -- specifically
street
gangs in Los Angeles -- and cars and street racing. That might seem
harmless enough, but the street racing is just a gimmick on which to
hang the message, and that message is that the world is multicultural,
and it's good that it's multicultural. It's good not to live in a
White
world, with White friends and White role models and White values and
White standards and traditions. That's boring. That's not cool.
The message is that there's nothing special about being White. The
message is that if one is White, then one should hang out with Blacks
and Asians and mestizos. One should behave like non-Whites, talk like
them, dress like them, be like them. That's what's cool. That's what's
sexy. That's what everybody who's really cool is doing. And when you
feel like having some sex, you just reach for whoever is nearest. It
doesn't matter at all what race the other person is. If you're a White
girl, it's especially cool to have sex with a Black or Asian or
mestizo
male.
That's the most obvious message of the film, but actually it's more
than
that. It's not really that the film says race doesn't matter, that
we're
really all the same; that culture doesn't matter, that all cultures
are
equivalent. The film says that Whites should become non-White, because
non-White is better. The cultural milieu of the film is not raceless
or
a little of this and a little of that. The cultural milieu is Black.
The
culture is hip-hop. The music is hip-hop. The clothing style, with the
baggy shorts and the rest, is hip-hop. It's Black. That is the world
into which White teenagers should blend, the world to which they
should
subordinate themselves.
Surely, White teenagers aren't actually absorbing that message. Are
they? Yes, unfortunately, many of them are. The Fast and the Furious
is
drawing bigger crowds than any other film produced by Hollywood this
season. It grossed $78 million in its first ten days. White teenagers
are flocking to it more than to any other movie. The attraction, of
course, is the action, the street racing, the exciting car stunts.
That's the gimmick that pulls them in. But that's not the message. The
message -- which of course, is subliminal: that is, which is intended
to
change the kids' perception of the world at a subconscious level -- is
exactly what I just described: it's cool to be part of the hip-hop
culture; it's cool to be multicultural; it's cool not to act White,
think White, or be White.
That's the message, and it's a Jewish message: Jewish in its
conception,
Jewish in its promotion, Jewish in its genocidal intent.
You think I'm imagining things? I'll read to you from a story about
the
film in last Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. I quote:
"Hollywood was stunned when the youth-oriented action film The Fast
and
the Furious streaked past the competition to become the number-one
movie
. . . With its relatively unknown cast of Latinos, Asians, and
African-Americans, heavy doses of high-speed chases, and a driving
hip-hop soundtrack, the movie defied expectations . . . . But the
teen-oriented movie's success isn't so surprising when one glimpses
the
youthful crowds flocking to theaters . . . . With their ultra-baggy
cargo shorts, doo-rags wrapped around their heads, and bodies
festooned
with tattoos and piercings, the look of these young moviegoers mirrors
the multiethnic melange of actors on the screen. . . .
"Hollywood likes to pride itself on being ahead of the cultural curve,
but with last summer's sassy white-versus-black cheerleading comedy
Bring It On grossing $68.4 million domestically and this winter's Save
the Last Dance, with its once-taboo interracial dating, raking in more
than $90 million in North America alone, the studios have only begun
to
catch up with the colorblind nature of today's MTV generation.
"Rob Cohen, who directed The Fast and the Furious, said the film not
only reflects today's "multiculti" youth culture without purposely
drawing attention to it, but depicts what is really going on. When the
movie opened, it drew a cross-section of races, Cohen said. Surveys
taken at theaters where The Fast and the Furious played showed that 50
per cent of moviegoers were white, 24 per cent were Hispanic, 10 per
cent were black, and 11 per cent were Asian. "I look at this and go,
'This is exactly what I'm talking about,'" Cohen said. . . .
Attracting
a young audience across the country -- a mainstay of big summer
popcorn
hits -- The Fast and the Furious has grossed an estimated $78 million
in
less than two weeks and is on track to make well over $100 million."
--
end of quote --
I want to emphasize a couple of things in what I just read to you,
besides the fact that the director of the film is the Jew Rob Cohen
and
the studio is Universal Pictures, owned by the Jew Edgar Bronfman.
First, note that Mr. Cohen is very much aware of the racial angle in
his
film. That's all he talks about, not the racing stunts. And note that
he
says he put the racial propaganda into his film in way that would not
"draw attention to it": that is, he put it in as subliminal
propaganda.
One other thing: the story in the Los Angeles Times implies that this
film and other films like it are imitating society, not the other way
around. But that's not true. These Jewish films are propaganda
deliberately designed to move society in the direction the Jews want
it
to go. White kids didn't start wearing baggy shorts and backward
baseball caps and listening to rap music and using jive talk just
because that's what young Blacks were doing: it was Jewish films and
Jewish television and Jewish advertising that pushed them in this
direction, that persuaded them it is cool to imitate Blacks.
The Times story refers to the studios catching up with "today's MTV
generation." But really, how did it become the "MTV generation"? That
name is appropriate just because it is MTV which has been the single
largest influence on White teenagers in moving them away from their
roots in their own race and making rootless cosmopolitans out of them.
MTV has been the foremost promoter of the hip-hop lifestyle among
young
Whites. And I hardly need to remind you that it is the very Jewish
Sumner Redstone, originally known as Murray Rothstein to his parents,
who owns MTV. Redstone's MTV and his Paramount Pictures studio may be
a
little ahead of the other Hollywood studios, but they're all pushing
in
the same direction as hard as they can.
This is an essential point: namely, that the Jewish media are pushing
our society, and not the other way around, and the Jews are
understandably reluctant to admit that. Last Saturday's Los Angeles
Times story interviewed another Jewish film producer in this regard,
and
I quote from the story: "Marc Abraham, one of the producers of Bring
It
On, noted: 'There is a much more interracial aspect in today's culture
than the way this country used to be. Any movie that reflects that --
and it doesn't mean they'll all be hits like The Fast and the Furious
--
will ring true with the audience.'" -- end of quote --
As I indicated, that is deliberate misdirection. And there's more
misdirection in the Times story. It also interviews the Black director
of Sumner Redstone's racemixing film Save the Last Dance, and I quote:
"'The movie business is certainly catching up with what's happening in
society,' said Thomas Carter, who directed Save the Last Dance. 'Youth
culture has been shifting a long time . . . . Places like MTV are
right
on the edge and totally involved in the change. In filmmaking we lag
behind.'" -- end of quote -- But of course, Redstone's MTV, which as
Carter notes is "totally involved in the change," is into filmmaking
too. Anyway, it's really an artificial distinction to contrast Jewish
television with Jewish cinema. Redsone isn't the only Jewish media
boss
who is deeply involved in both media.
One of Bronfman's subordinates, the Jew Marc Shmuger, says it a little
more plainly, and again I quote from last Saturday's Los Angeles Times
story: "'I think the segregated groupings are breaking down in today's
America, and I think today's movie audience is a complex mix,' said
Marc
Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, which released The Fast
and the Furious. But Shmuger warned that if the movie industry starts
making multiethnic movies 'in a calculating and cynical fashion,' the
audience will sense that and stay away." -- end of quote -- In other
words, keep the propaganda subtle, keep it subliminal, so that we
don't
tip off the goyim that it's really propaganda.
I'll read one more section from the Los Angeles Times story. I quote:
"Just as The Fast and the Furious shows young people of all races
gathered in large groups unmindful of their racial differences and not
hung up on sex, Gary Scott Thompson, one of the film's writers, said
today's young movie audiences also are that way. 'It used to be that a
boy and a girl would go on a date,' he said. 'Now what's happening is
groups of kids who are friends -- multiracial boys and girls -- all
move
in date packs together. It's like a date, but they don't consider it
dating. Some of them might neck; some of them might not. None of them
think anything much about it. They are much more open when talking
about
sex . . . . They've broken down the cultural barriers.' . . . Rob
Friedman, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures Motion Picture Group,
said
the studio began noticing the colorblind nature of young audiences
with
its 1999 high school pigskin drama Varsity Blues. 'It's really about
their peers, regardless of race, and to a certain extent gender as
well,' Friedman said. 'When it came to Save the Last Dance, it became
more and more apparent young people don't care whether the
relationship
is interracial. The music is great, the story is great.'" -- end of
quote --
As I've already mentioned, Paramount Pictures belongs to Sumner
Redstone, and I hardly need to tell you that his employee Rob Friedman
is a Jew, like nearly all the other executives at Paramount Pictures.
This new development of White teenagers running in "date packs," as
the
scriptwriter put it, with Blacks, Asians, and mestizos and having very
casual and very interracial sex did not evolve spontaneously, as the
media bosses and their employees would have us believe. It has been
promoted deliberately by Hollywood and by television and by Madison
Avenue. Sumner Redstone's MTV may be a bit bolder in this regard than
the other Jewish media, but all of them have been working together for
decades toward the same goal, and that goal is the annihilation of our
people. They say, "Oh, we're just reflecting with our films and our TV
shows and our magazine ads what your society has become all by
itself,"
but that is a conscious, calculated lie. They know exactly what they
have done and are doing, and one can easily sense them gloating over
it
when one reads their remarks in the Los Angeles Times.
I've said this a thousand times already in different words, but when
we
permitted the Jews to come into our society and take over our mass
media
of news and entertainment -- our newspapers and our radio broadcasting
networks and our motion picture and advertising industries and then
television broadcasting -- we handed them the weapons with which they
intended from the beginning to destroy us and now are destroying us.
This program of theirs to corrupt and destroy us didn't begin with the
Second World War and the so-called "Holocaust." It is a consequence of
their nature. The "Holocaust" was not the cause of their destructive
behavior, but rather a consequence.
If you believe that I am hallucinating when I say that, see for
yourself
what Jews such as Edgar Bronfman and Sumner Redstone are producing for
the entertainment of our children, and you try to explain it in any
other way. I know that the majority of our own people, lemmings that
they are, are dancing to the Jews' tune now, along with the
politicians.
That is a shame, but it in no way excuses us from our task. Many of
those who have become blinded by the Jews and have become
collaborators
of the Jews will unavoidably become "collateral damage" in the
struggle
and the chaos which lie ahead, but we must do whatever is necessary to
free our people from the spell cast over them by the Jews. To that
task
I have consecrated my life, and I invite each of you to do likewise.
>
>I've heard that quote before. Either he didn't say it at all or he
>said something totally different.
>
>
>Retaliations against terrorist attacks.
>
>> ...the ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners,...
>
>I doubt that.
"Having read most of the posts under the recent heading ' Are they
talking torture' I am amazed at the apparent naivety of most of those
posting.- Israel has been using all kinds of torturing methods for
decades, knowingly backed by the USA.
Within the last year there was an excellent program on Channel 4
England which looked in to the methods used in one infamous camp
called Khiam -- a snip below
(Palestinians arrested and 'interrogated' have been and are tortured
in one form or another. Although a place of such ghastly atrocities
that the Israeli government tried to deny it for many years, the
Khiam Detention and Interrogation Centre it maintained in Lebanon
from 1985-1999 during its occupation there is one of the most well
known (3, 4).) Unsnip.
The channel four programme was not easy to watch - from the many
methods described graphically, was that of the wives and children
being
tortured to make the prisoner confess, the TV team were at the now
closed camp - very atmospheric.
One search with Google, showing tens of thousands of different sites
will prove to him and anyone else that those in power must know.
A bit from one site =
Israel Shahak, head of the Israeli League for Human Rights, says:
"Slapping the face, beating the head against the wall, and beating
all parts of the body are common methods."
Victims are usually beaten by stick, boots, and gun butt all over the
body - on the head, limbs, stomach, genitals, accompanied by threats
of detaining or raping family members, or making them lose their
jobs.
But for Rhateb several other methods were used - he was wired up to
electrodes and bolts of high voltage current coursed agonizingly
through
his body. Later, he was hanged from the ceiling by one arm for hours.
After a few days, a man brought a water jug and told Rhateb that he
could drink as much as he wanted. However, acid was diluted in the
water and this caused him intense pain and severe burns.
The deprivation of basic necessities should also be considered as a
part of this torture; food and medical care are not provided and
sleeping is forbidden. Due to such methods, more than 500
Palestinian prisoners have died. More lucky ones suffer diseases
while others are maimed and physically disabled.
Last week, Amnesty International's annual report revealed that
Israeli forces arrested 1,200 Palestinians in 1997 for "security
reasons." Meanwhile, Israel also issued more than 1,900
administrative detention orders and detained 354 Palestinians at the
end of year.
Bear in mind, many of these people are not guilty of any crimes.
But just living on the wrong side in Palestine.
When doing a search just use the words ' Israel and torture', any way
round, you can also use 'camps'
John.
But isn't israel a "democracy"?"
John Bates
>
>> ...the use of assassination of political enemies,...
>
>Of terrorists.
>
>> ...the bombing of refugee camps,...
>
>Of terrorist training camps.
>
>> and the expansive wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors;...
>
>Responding to threats against Israel.
>
>> ...that all these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
>> American aid.
>
>Liberals, lefties and Nazis all see self defense as a crime.
>
>> They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,...
>
>This supposedly happened during the sanctions while this guy's hero,
>Saddam Hussein, built palaces all over Iraq.
If so, a country could be short on food and medicine and still have
plenty of bricks and mortar.
>
>> ...as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct result of
>> Jewish control of America.
>
>I doubt that any such admission was ever made.
>
>> The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
>> multimedia,...
>
>Actually, the bias is very much the other way where the media portrays
>terrorism and response thereto as equivalent, as the media searches
>for any pretext to report that U.S. efforts have resulted in a
>quagmire.
>
>But then, this guy would consider anything short of calling for the
>destruction of Israel as bias in favor of Israel.
>
>> ...might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy,
>> but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all understand it;
>> and they hate us for it.
>
>Their hatred is their problem, not ours. They should pay the price
>when they act on it.
The Jews rule America and Americans pay the price.
>
>Their hatred goes beyond hatred for freedom, one shared by this
>poster, given his denunciation of freedom. It goes to hatred of life,
>of everything that makes life possible and makes life worth living.
You are full of it.
>
>He's angry that Palestinians could not commit terrorism with impunity.
"Provocative."
>
>Yes. American has failed to allow terrorists to dictate American
>foreign policy.
Yes, America has allowed Jews to dictate American foreign policy.
>>
>Bin Laden wants someone who will appease terrorists.
>
>
>By all means, blame the Jews for the U.S. not appeasing terrorists.
>
>
>It's interesting how Ku Kluxers and Nazis have joined with liberals,
>lefties, commies, pinkos to push for appeasement of terrorists.
>
><Snip> Hate group URLs.
>
>Or anyone attacked by Nazi Germany.
The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The
Germans said that their people living on this land were being severely
oppressed by the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland .
If Florida were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get
it back. Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
Britain and the other liberal countries then went to war with
Germany even though the Communists also attacked Poland. After they
won the war, Poland was Communist, which shows what the liberals were
fighting for.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note
of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a
peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German
note. Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency
all along the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the
Jews later introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the
British public was deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation
of the situation. Finally their minds were closed against any further
regard to the demands of justice and reason by a new slogan, "You
cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie the British public was
finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds
and accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's
assurance given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as
that in into Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further
demands.". The misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press
steadily obscured the major fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler
referred were all along five-fold in character; and covered those five
areas taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population
was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia,
parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I
believe, accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no
additional demands to make. But here it must be clearly stated in the
interests of justice that he never said that this entailed reducing
the demands which he had originally very clearly delineated, and
repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in question.
"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that
when Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been
any statement of his full demands, some of which were still
unfulfilled. They were led to believe that Hitler either never had had
other demands, or that he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had
obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next installment was
added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that
Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest dealing needs no such
trickery and and deception. Such methods are only necessary to bolster
up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm and
disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his
last speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the
principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour,
as it was applied agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the
Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and
Danzig to the Reich."
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which
was foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one.
Small wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary
citizen.
Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these
demands of Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the
people of this island would have ruled out any question of war; and it
was war, not truth or justice, upon which international Jewry was
resolved."
Here is another quote from the book:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."
>
>He does not deny that American Nazis are traitors to America.
>
>
>The collective is everything and the individual is nothing.
>
>
>He thinks that America can win friends by abandoning its friends to
>appease its enemies.
Jews are not our freinds but our tyranical rulers.
>
>No. That is the truth. Nazis make use of freedom to destroy freedom.
>That is the most destructive sort of parasite.
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
>
>Here's another quote from "Mein Kampf":
>
>"...(T)rue idealism is nothing but the subordination of the
>individual's interest to the community...It alone leads men
>voluntarily to recognize the primacy of power and strength, and makes
>them into grains of sand in the order which shapes and composes the
>whole universe."
>
>In other words, the individual is nothing ("grains of sand"). The
>collective is everything. Individuals exist for the collective. It is
>right for the state ("power and strength") to sacrifice the individual
>for the collective. Individuals have no rights to assert against the
>whims the the Furher.
Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
"Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
the leadership of the state.
The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
towered above the individual fate."
>
>Given the ideology of Nazism, its denial of individual rights,
>including the right to life, given Nazis' own continuous, hateful
>tirades against Jews, what other result can one expect when they get
>in power?
Here are some examples of documents showing Jews were
deported to the East:
1. Weekly report entitled "Resettlement of the Jews" circulated by
the information division dated March 21, 1942:
(begin quote)
Since Monday, March 16, the ghetto of Lublin is being cleared of Jews.
Daily some 2,000 Jews are seized and sent eastward. Only a small
Jewish quarter is being preserved for the Jews who still work for
German agencies. It is therefore reckoned that the action will be
completed by April 1, with the deportation of 35-38,000 Jews.
(end quote)
2. Report of Richard Tuerk, of the Lublin district's Department of
Population and Welfare, on a meeting with Hermann Hoefle on March 16,
1942, the day that the clearing of the Lublin ghetto began.
(begin quote)
...daily 4-5 transports of 1,000 at the end station of
Belzec. These Jews would cross over the border and would never return
again to the General Government.
(end quote)
(Notice that Belzec was not a death camp at all; it was the end
station where the rail sizes changed and where the Jews would then
leave the train and cross the border into areas controlled by the
Jewish-led Bolsheviks.)
3. The Kreishauptmann of Pulawy reported on May 13, 1941:
(begin quote)
In the period from May 6-12 inclusive, 16,822 Jews from the Kreis
Pulawy were expelled over the Bug on the instruction of the SS and
Police Leader. With the exception of sick and old Slovakian Jews in
the ghetto of Opole, only working Jews remained.
(end quote)
(Note: at the time, the Bug River was the demarcation line between
German and Russian controlled territory.)
What's more Koherr's 1944 statistical report to Himmler accounted for
every Jew who passed through Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec. They all
wound up in the Russian zone. Every one of them.
The evidence is almost overwhelming--the Jews were being deported not
mass murdered.
>
>If the collective herd is everything, then killing off 12 to 16
>million people is just reducing the size of the herd.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Yitzchak Goodman
>
> Communism was Jewish.
>
>
>
> Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
> and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
> translated by Charles Malamuth.
>
> In this book he told who the principle members of the October
> Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
> Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
>
> "In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
> elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
> exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
> Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
> Trotzky--131."
>
> Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
> were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married
> to a Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish,
> London Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
>
> The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the
> Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen).
>
The following list of major Gentile Communist figures
was compiled for satiric purposes, but I tried to make
it as accurate as possible.
So here it is: an answer to all the net-Nazis
who try to convince us that the major Communist figures
were "mainly" or "mostly" or "almost exclusively" Jewish.
What follows contains no polemic, but only facts
(aside from a few snide observations). So
without further ado, the list that pushes back
the last frontier of ignorance, the list of
COMMIE GOYIM!!!!!!!
François Noël Babeuf ("French revolutionary, organizer of
a communist uprising against the Directory . . . he formed
a secret society that plotted to overthrow the government;
it became known as the Conspiracy of the Equals . . .
His doctrines, however, known as Babouvism, were kept alive,
largely by secret revolutionary societies . . . . " Columbia
Encyclopedia.)
Louis Auguste Blanqui ("Inspired by Babeuf, [Blanqui] coined the
phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and devoted
his life to achieveing it through conpsiratorial means. . ."
Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From.
By Daniel Pipes. New York: The Free Press, 1997, p. 78.)
Engels (Never forget that Das Kapital was written in German
by two guys named Karl and Friedrich.)
BOLSHEVIKS:
Alexander Bogdanov (Important early Bolshevik theorist, Had broken
with Lenin by the time of the revolution.)
Lenin (5th on Rudolph Rummel's list of the "20th Century's Bloodiest
Murderers" http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_murderers.html)
Stalin (Most blood-stained person who ever lived, #1 on Rummel's list)
Georgi Konstantinovich ("Sergo") Ordzhonikidze (Soviet leader in Armenia
and Georgia, Politburo member under Stalin, Beria named his son Sergo
after him)
Felix Dzerzhinsky (Founder, in 1918, of the Checka secret police agency,
precursor organization of the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, and KGB)
Nikolai Bukharin (Major Bolshevik theoretician, Politburo Member,
Editor of Pravda)
Lev Borisovich Kamenev (Member of the Original Politburo,
Often mistakenly identified as a Jew although mother was non-Jew,
Originally sided with Stalin and Zinoviev against Trotsky but
forced out by Stalin along with Zinoviev in 1926)
Anatoli Vasilyevich Lunacharsky (Revolutionary, Literary Figure,
Commissar of Education 1917–29)
Nikolai N. Krestinski (Member of First Politburo along with Lenin,
Stalin, Kamenev, and Trotsky)
Georgi Vasilyevich Chicherin (Foreign Comissar/Minister,
succeeding Trotsky, until 1928)
Aleksey Ivanovich Rykov (Commissar for the Interior after 1917,
Politburo member under Lenin and Stalin, Premier from 1924-1931,
Sided with Stalin against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky but
fell afoul of Stalin shortly afterwards)
Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin (Chairman of Central Executive Committee 1919-1946,
Politburo Member 1925-46)
STALIN'S RULE:
Kliment Voroshilov (Active Bolshevik prior to revolution, Major
Red Army commander during civil war, Close associate of Stalin, Politburo
Member under Stalin, Out of favor under Khruschev, restored to Central
Committee in 1966)
Vyacheslav Rudolfovich Menzhinsky (Succeeded Dzerzhinsky as head
of NKVD in 1926)
Nikolai Yezhov (Head of NKVD 1936-1938, replacing Yagoda,
Wave of terror known as "Yezhovshchina")
Lavrenti Beria (Head of Soviet Georgia and Transcaucasia,
Head of NKVD from 1938 until Stalin's Death, Probably second
most powerful figure in Stalin's government for much
of that time and certainly the most hated and feared,
Deputy Premier under Malenkov)
Nikolai Bulganin (Defense Minister under Stalin, briefly
succeeded Malenkov as Premier)
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev
Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (Early editor of Pravda prior
to revolution, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars
after Rykov, then Foreign Minister, negotiated non-agression pact
between Soviets and Nazi Germany)
Georgi Maksimilianovich Malenkov (Politburo member, Deputy Premier under
Stalin, briefly succeeded Stalin as Premier)
Mikhail Tomsky (Politburo Member, Trade Union Leader,
Another major figure in the power struggles that
eventually led to the consolidation of Stalin's power)
Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov (Central Committee Secretary,
Rival of Malenkov, Anti-Semite)
Stanislav Vikent'evich Kosior (Ukrainian First Secretary,
Reported to have said the following: " . . . the peasant
is adopting a new tactic. He refuses to reap the harvest.
He wants the bread grain to die in order to choke the
Soviet government with the bony hand of famine. We will
show him what famine is." Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow,
Oxford 1986, p. 221)
Pavel Petrovich Postyshev ("Postyshev was, in fact, Stalin's
effective plenipotenitary in the task of 'Bolshevizing' the
Ukrainian party and extracting further grain from the
starving Ukrainian villages" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 241.)
Grigori Ivanovich Petrovsky ("When a factory official told Petrovsky
that his employees were talking of five million people having already
died and asked what he should tell them, he is quoted as answering,
'Tell them nothing! What they say is true. We know millions are dying.
That is unfortunate, but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will
justify that. Tell them nothing!'" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 325.)
Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan (Armenian Communist Party head,
Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium, Politburo
member.)
Sergei Mironovich Kirov (Active in Party from Civil War, Politburo
Member under Stalin, Stalin used his assassination--which he probably
ordered himself--as a pretext for getting rid of Zinoviev, Rykov, and Kamenev.)
Andrei Yanuarievich Vyshinsky (Chief Prosecutor of Soviet Union 1935-1939)
OTHER POLITBURO MEMBERS UNDER STALIN:
Valerian Vladimirovich Kuibyshev
Vlas Yakovlevich Chubar'
Yan Ernestovich Rudzutak
Aleksandr Sergeevich Shcherbakov
Andrei Andreevich Andreev
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Uglanov
Robert Ivanovich Eikhe
Sergei I. Syrtsov
NKVD OFFICIALS--BERIA PROTEGES:
Bogdan Kobulov (Deputy head of NKVD under Beria, with Serov oversaw
deportation of Crimean Tartars and other national groups,
Involved in day-to-day operation of the Gulag)
Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov (Deputy Head of NKVD along with Kobulov,
Head of KGB 1954-1958 "Ivan Serov was awarded the Order of Suvorov,
First Class, reserved for major victories in the field, on March 9
1944--that is, immediately after the largest of his deportation
operations, that of the Chechen-Ingush. He was later made a
Hero of the Soviet Union and received a number of other orders."
Robert Conquest, The Nation Killers, MacMillan 1960, p. 82)
Vsevolod Nikolayevich Merkulov (Head of NKGB 1941-1946, briefly head
of MGB in 1946)
Sergei Goglidze (Head of Leningrad NKVD, Later Deputy Minister
of State Security and Chief of Third Directorate of MGB)
Vladimir Dekanozov (Head of GUGB Foreign Department)
Lavrentii Tsanava (Head of Belorussia NKVD)
Grigorii Karanadze (Head of Crimea NKVD)
Aleksei Sadzhaia (Head of Uzbekistan NKVD)
Amaiak Kobulov (Head of Ukraine NKVD)
Mikhail Gvishiani (Head of Far East NKVD)
Avksentii Rapava (Head of Georgia NKVD)
Bagirov, M. D. (Head of the Communist Party in Azerbaijan)
MVD-MGB-KGB OFFICIALS:
Kruglov, Sergei (Briefly head of NKVD, MVD first deputy, Major
subordinate of Beria, but joined Khrushchev against Beria)
Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov (Head of MGB 1946-1951, Technically
another of Beria's subordinates, but independent of Beria and a rival
to Merkulov)
Sergey Ogoltsov (Head of MGB July 14 1951 - August 9 1951)
Semyon Denisovich Ignatiyev (Head of MGB 1951-1953, Since
he had been part of the Zhdanov faction, his appointment
was a blow to Beria)
Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shelepin (Head of KGB 1958-1961,
Supported Khrushchev's rise to power and was also involved
in his removal)
Vladimir Yefimovich Semichastniy (Head of KGB 1961-1967,
Also heavily involved in Khrushchev's removal)
Vitaliy Vasilyevich Fedorchuk (Head of KGB May 26 1982 - December 17 1982)
Viktor Mikhaylovich Chebrikov (Head of KGB 1982-1988)
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kryuchkov (Head of KGB 1988-1991)
(Source for MGB, KGB entries: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB ,
also The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present,
and Future By Yevgenia Albats, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994.
See also Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant by Amy Knight, Princeton, 1993)
LATER USSR FIGURES:
Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (Ideological watchdog maintaining purity of
communist doctrine, Central Committee member from 1941, Supported both Khruschev's
rise to power and his downfall)
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev
Alexei Nikolayevich Kosygin (Succeeded Khrushchev as Premier in 1964,
initially shared power with Brezhnev although power later declined)
Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov (Head of KGB 1967-1982, General Secretary
of Communist Party 1982-1984)
(See: http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/andropov.htm)
Konstantin Chernenko (Party General Secretary and Chairman of Presiduim after
Andropov's death, Gorbachev was his successor)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Josip Broz Tito (9th on Rummel's list of "20th
Century's Bloodiest Murderers")
Aleksandar Rankovic (Tito's second in command 1948-1966)
Vulko Chervenkov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1950-1956)
Todor Zhikov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1956-1989)
Mao Tse-Tung (2nd on Rummel's list)
Pol Pot (7th on Rummel's list)
Ho Chi Minh
János Kádár (Head of Communist Hungary 1956-1988)
Wladyslaw Gomulka (Head of Communist Poland 1956-1970)
Gheorgehe Gheorghiu-Dej (According to Dennis Deletant,
instituted "police terror" in Communist Romania)
Nicolae Ceausescu (Dej's successor, Head of Communist Romania
1965-1989--why are so many of these guys named "Nikolai"?)
Elena Ceucescu (Ceaucescu's wife, major figure in Ceaucescu's
government, promoted cult of personality surrounding Ceaucescu)
Tudor Postelnicu (Promoted to Interior Minister of Romania in 1987,
head of dreaded Securitate security service up to that point)
Iulian Vlad (Following Postelnicu's promotion, succeeded him
as Head of Securitate)
George Nicolae Doicaru (Head of Securitate at time of 1978 defection of
Ion Pacepa)
(Source on Ceaucescu and Romania: Ceausescu and the Securitate:
Coercion and Dissent in Romania, 1965-1989 By Dennis Deletant.
Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1995)
Deng Xiaoping ( http://www.laogai.org/comment/dissent.htm )
Jiang Qing (Mrs. Mao, the rest of the "Gang of Four" follow)
Wang Hongwen
Yao Wenyuan
Zhang Chunqiao
Walter Ulbricht (Head of East Germany 1950-1971, Built Berlin Wall,
sent troops to help Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia)
Erich Honecker (Succeeded Ulbricht)
Wilhelm Zaisser (Head of Stasi 1950-1953)
Ernst Wollweber (Head of Stasi 1953-1957)
Erich Mielke (Head of Stasi 1957-1989)
Willi Stoph (East German Politburo Member, Minister of Internal
Affairs and Minister for National Defense during 1950's, became
Chairman of Council of Ministers in 1964)
Fidel Castro
Kim Il Sung (Head of North Korea 1948–94)
Kim Jong Il (Son of the above)
Fusako Shigenobu (Head of Japanese Red Army)
Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof (Baader-Meinhof Gang)
William Z. Foster (U.S. Communist party candidate for President 1924, 1928, 1932)
Earl Russell Browder (U.S. Communist party candidate for President 1936, 1940)
Gus Hall (U.S. Communist Party candidate for President 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984)
Jarvis Tyner (Hall's running mate in 1972 and 1976)
Angela Davis (Civil rights activist and philosopher, Gus Hall's
vice-presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984.)
Enver Hoxha (Leader of Communist Albania 1946-1985)
Ramiz Alia (Hoxha's successor)
Klement Gottwald (President of Communist Czechoslovakia 1948-1953)
Gustave Husak (Leader of Czechoslovakia after suppression of
"Prague Spring.")
Otto Vilgelmovich Kuusinen (Finnish communist, exiled
to the USSR after Finnish independence was consolidated
following WW I and the civil war that ensued, headed failed
Soviet-supported bogus Terijojki government after Soviet
attack on USSR in 1939, eventually rose to be the only
foreign-born member of the Soviet Politburo.)
Hertta Kuusinen (Finnish communist leader, Otto's
daughter, In a notorious 1948 speech shortly after
the communist take-over in Czechoslovakia she
stated "Czechoslovakia's way will be our way.")
Antanas Snieckus (Grand old man of Lithuanian communism,
Lived in exile in the USSR, but tried repeatedly to subvert
the Lithuanian state. Lithuanian Communist Party head after
country incorporated into USSR. Defied Moscow
and built his own brand of Lithuanian communism.)
Arvid Yanovich Pelshe (Latvian Communist Party head, head
of the Soviet Communist Party Control Committee and responsible
for internal migration policies, including deportations,
ethnic dilutions, and policies leading to de facto
Russification of non-Russian republics)
Renato Curcio (Red Brigades)
Alberto Franceschini (Red Brigades)
Mario Moretti (Red Brigades, negotiated mutual aid pact with PLO)
Do Muoi (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese Communist Party in 1991)
Le Kha Phieu (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese
Communist Party in 1997)
Nong Duc Manh (Current General Secretary of Vietnamese Commuunist Party)
Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, "Carlos the Jackal"
Ernesto Che Guevara
George Habash, PFLP
Wadi Haddad, PFLP
Leila Khaled, PFLP
********************************************************************
(Thanks to Eugene Holman for entries on Mikoyan, Suslov,
the Kuusinens, Pelshe, Snieckus, and Angela Davis)
Hope you enjoyed it,
Yitz
T.E.
>
> The philosophy of libertarians and the philosophy of witchcraft are
> the same thing. These are the same kind of people who said they were
> fighting for "equality, fratinaty,brotherhood" in the French
> revolution.
Alex, your sense of proportion and degree requires refinement. Even
libertarians recognize the distinction between liberty and anrachy.
> The Communists also said they were fighting for "freedom".
> Of course the words they are fighting for sound good to the ear but
> they don't explain in specifics what exactly they are fighting for.
If "freedom" is some sort of code word for either the totalitarian
oppression of communism or unfettered anarchy, what is the "code
word" for "freedom?"
>
> Take your three freedom, libery, rights. Freedom to do what exactly?
> Obviously something that their opponants think they should not do.
> It is freedom for homosexual perversion, pornagraphy, prostitution,
> drugs. No one cares if people go on picnics. No one is trying to
> outlaw star gazing. If there is a "freedom" to be argued about it must
> be because some people find the activity highly offensive, immoral, or
> bad.
[...]
> The Jews who rule America are the ones who should be stomped.
So you want "freedom" from your "Jew Masters" do you? But, "If there
is
a 'freedom' to be argued about it must be because some people find the
activity highly offensive, immoral, or bad..." Aha! You just want to
engage in homosexual perversion, pornagraphy, prostitution and drug
use!
Got it. Request denied.
With all due honor and respect,
Tom Epstein
(OK, I'm not really a ZOG agent, but don't tell Vange.)
neptune3
wrote:
I'm pretty sure Beria was a Jew. And many Jews changed their names
to sound Russian. They didn't want people to know they were Jews.
Lenin was 1/4 Jew.
London Jewish Chronicle
April 21,1995
Lenin: Life and Legacy by Dmitri Volkogonov
Of course the Jews are going to make a list like the one above. How
accurate it is, is another question.
One thing we can be sure of is that the Nazis said Communism was
Jewish. This is obvious from Mein Kampf and Nazi speeches. So why did
the liberal media say the Nazis were against Jews because they wanted
a "scapegoat" and other lame reasons? It's because the liberal media
lies. The Nazis also said that the Jews controlled the media. Here are
some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."
Yitzchak Goodman
>
>
> I'm pretty sure Beria was a Jew.
And what evidence did you consider in the course of
becoming "pretty sure"? In a passage I quoted in
another thread, Amy Knight writes, "Beria was
often descibed as looking like a Jew and it was even rumored
that he was. Although these rumors seem
to have no foundation, their appearance may have connected
Beria with Jews in the public mind." Beria: Stalin's First
Lieutenant, Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 147.
And many Jews changed their names
> to sound Russian. They didn't want people to know they were Jews.
Many non-Jews also changed their names, but they evidently
didn't think they were fooling anybody.
The idea was to project a more Russian image, which should
tell you something about the national group that really
did dominate Communism.
> Lenin was 1/4 Jew.
The maternal grandfather you have in mind here
was baptised. So was his father.
See Robert Service's biography of Lenin.
> London Jewish Chronicle
> April 21,1995
> Lenin: Life and Legacy by Dmitri Volkogonov
>
> Of course the Jews are going to make a list like the one above. How
> accurate it is, is another question.
Accuracy is one of my goals.
Do you have any facts to contribute which
would make it more accurate?
neptune3
wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure Beria was a Jew.
>
>And what evidence did you consider in the course of
>becoming "pretty sure"? In a passage I quoted in
>another thread, Amy Knight writes, "Beria was
>often descibed as looking like a Jew and it was even rumored
>that he was. Although these rumors seem
>to have no foundation, their appearance may have connected
>Beria with Jews in the public mind." Beria: Stalin's First
>Lieutenant, Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 147.
>
I heard he was a Jew. It's possible you may be right. The problem
is that the USA is ruled by the Jews and any information that Jews
don't like is going to be suppressed.
>
> And many Jews changed their names
>> to sound Russian. They didn't want people to know they were Jews.
>
>Many non-Jews also changed their names, but they evidently
>didn't think they were fooling anybody.
>The idea was to project a more Russian image, which should
>tell you something about the national group that really
>did dominate Communism.
>
>
>> Lenin was 1/4 Jew.
>
>The maternal grandfather you have in mind here
>was baptised. So was his father.
>See Robert Service's biography of Lenin.
>
>> London Jewish Chronicle
>> April 21,1995
>> Lenin: Life and Legacy by Dmitri Volkogonov
>>
>> Of course the Jews are going to make a list like the one above. How
>> accurate it is, is another question.
>
>Accuracy is one of my goals.
>Do you have any facts to contribute which
>would make it more accurate?
>
>
It's hard to believe that the French guys in your post weren't
French Jews.
I still say Communism was Jewish. No one said there were not
non-Jewish Communists. Rockwell compared it to the Italians and the
mafia. You could make a list of non-Italian mafia people. But to say
there is no connection between Italians and mafia is not true.
The Jews still sing "The Fiddler on the Roof". In this they sing
about hating the Russian Czar. It's not hard to guess the political
officiation of people who sing songs hating the Russian Czar.
Yitzchak Goodman
You have a hard time associating the French and "Le Socialisme"
if they're not Jews?
> I still say Communism was Jewish.
Allow me to once again rub your nose in
the fact that it wasn't:
FrançoisBabeuf,LouisBlanqui,
Engels,Lenin,Stalin,Dzerzhinsky,Menzhinsky,
Bukharin,Kamenev,Lunacharsky,
Chicherin,Beria,Yezhov,Bulganin,
Khrushchev,Molotov,Malenkov,Rykov,
Tomsky,Voroshilov,Kalinin,Kirov,Kobulov,
Serov,Merkulov,Abakumov,Ogoltsov,
Ignatiyev,Shelepin,Semichastniy,
Fedorchuk,Chebrikov,Kryuchkov,Brezhnev,
Kosygin,Andropov,Chernenko,Tito,
Rankovic,Chervenkov,Zhikov,Mao,PolPot,
HoChiMinh,Kádár,Gomulka,Gheorghiu-Dej,
Ceausescu,ElenaCeucescu,Postelnicu,Vlad,
Doicaru,DengXiaoping,JiangQing,
WangHongwen,YaoWenyuan,ZhangChunqiao,
Ulbricht,Honecker,Mielke,WilhelmZaisser,
ErnstWollweber,WilliStoph,
Castro,KimIlSung,KimJongIl,
FusakoShigenobu,Baader,Meinhof,
GusHall,WilliamZFoster,EarlBrowder,
JarvisTyner,Hoxha,Husak,OttoKuusinen,
HerttaKuusinen,Snieckus,Mikoyan,Pelshe,
Suslov,AngelaDavis,RenatoCurcio,
AlbertoFranceschini,MarioMoretti,
DoMuoi,LeKhaPhieu,NongDucManh,
CarlosTheJackal,CheGuevara,
GeorgeHabash,WadiHaddad,LeilaKhaled
No one said there were not
> non-Jewish Communists. Rockwell compared it to the Italians and the
> mafia. You could make a list of non-Italian mafia people. But to say
> there is no connection between Italians and mafia is not true.
How about the Russians? Do you ever associate Communism
with the Russians?
> The Jews still sing "The Fiddler on the Roof". In this they sing
> about hating the Russian Czar. It's not hard to guess the political
> officiation of people who sing songs hating the Russian Czar.
See "The Real Jewish Conspiracy" at the following URL:
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com/
Yitz
neptune3
wrote:
>
>You have a hard time associating the French and "Le Socialisme"
>if they're not Jews?
No. But the French revolution was like the Communist revolution,
Jewish.
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married
to a Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish,
London Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the
Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen).
In Hungary, IIRC, the head of their VERY bloody communist secret
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
>
>How about the Russians? Do you ever associate Communism
>with the Russians?
Not particularly. There was a certain group in Russia that was
mainly responsible. This group sings "Fiddler on the Roof", that is,
they sing about hating the Russian Czar.
>See "The Real Jewish Conspiracy" at the following URL:
>
>http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com/
>
>Yitz
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Yitzchak Goodman
> On 24 Jun 2003 22:05:58 -0700, yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman)
> wrote:
>
>>You have a hard time associating the French and "Le Socialisme"
>>if they're not Jews?
>
>
> No. But the French revolution was like the Communist revolution,
> Jewish.
And what is your evidence for that?
I am waiting eagerly.
> Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
> and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
> translated by Charles Malamuth.
>
> In this book he told who the principle members of the October
> Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
> Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
>
> "In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
> elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
> exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
> Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
> Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
> were known Jews.
Kamanev wasn't.
Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married
> to a Jewess.
She wasn't Jewish.
It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish,
> London Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
Referring to his maternal grandfather, who was baptised.
Lenin did not even have one Jewish parent.
> The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the
> Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen).
He wasn't even in power for a year. János Kádár was dictator
of Hungary for 32 years.
> In Hungary, IIRC, the head of their VERY bloody communist secret
> police, Farkas (Wulf) was a Jew. In fact, nearly all the highest
> ranking communist officials in post-war Hungary were Jews.
>
> The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc,
> Skryeszewski, Modzelewski, and Berman.
Wladyslaw Gomulka was the head of Communist Poland from 1956-1970
> The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
She was part of a triumvirate along with Gheorghiu-Dej.
Guess who eventually emerged as the sole dictator?
None of the European Communist
dictators who ruled for decades were Jewish.
> The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf
> Slansky.
He didn't last long, and the show trial that brought
him down had anti-Semitic overtones.
> The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
> however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
He also liked bagels.
> Communism in America was also Jewish.
There is still a Communist Party in America today.
It is very anti-Israel.
Benjamin Pinkus in The Jews of the Soviet Union (Cambridge University
Press, 1988, p. 83) writes as follows:
"If we take all three sectors of the administration,
it emerges that of the 417 people who constituted the
ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s (the
members of the Central Executive Committee, the Party
Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the
Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the Ministers,
and the Chairman of the Executive Committee),
twenty-seven (that is 6%) were Jews."
And remember, the 390 non-Jews included Lenin,
Stalin, Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, and Lunacharsky.
> David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
> January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here,
> most
> of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
> little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
> they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
>
> The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
> "Unless 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."
> "The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
> Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
> new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
> Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
> dissatisfaction
> and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
> physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
> Hebrew, September 10, 1920)>
This "quote" is partially fabricated.
"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
> itself, in the fact that so
> many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
> with
> many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
> April, 4, 1919)
You were just browsing through back issues of
the Jewish Chronicle one day when you happened
across this quote, right? The quote doesn't exist.
"Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
> American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
Another non-existent "quote."
What's next, the fake Ben Franklin quote?
> "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
> communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
> the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
This is a typo. Kahan obviously wrote 5.2 percent,
which was the real number. I read the book. You
should try reading books yourself.
Yitz
neptune3
wrote:
>>
>> No. But the French revolution was like the Communist revolution,
>> Jewish.
>
>And what is your evidence for that?
>I am waiting eagerly.
There is the book "The Nameless War".
Communism isn't a threat now though. Political Correctness is a
major problem now. And that of course is also Jewish:
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
When people learned how terrible Communism was the Jews wanted to
conceal that is was Jewish. Here is something the Nazis said:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
>
>> The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf
>> Slansky.
>
>He didn't last long, and the show trial that brought
>him down had anti-Semitic overtones.
>
>> The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
>> however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
>
>He also liked bagels.
>
>> Communism in America was also Jewish.
>
>There is still a Communist Party in America today.
>It is very anti-Israel.
>
>
>Benjamin Pinkus in The Jews of the Soviet Union (Cambridge University
>Press, 1988, p. 83) writes as follows:
>
>"If we take all three sectors of the administration,
>it emerges that of the 417 people who constituted the
>ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s (the
>members of the Central Executive Committee, the Party
>Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the
>Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the Ministers,
>and the Chairman of the Executive Committee),
>twenty-seven (that is 6%) were Jews."
Other people made entirely different conclusions. And was Benjamin
Pinkus a Jew?
>
>And remember, the 390 non-Jews included Lenin,
>Stalin, Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, and Lunacharsky.
>
>
>> and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
>> physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
>> Hebrew, September 10, 1920)>
>
>This "quote" is partially fabricated.
>
>
> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
>> itself, in the fact that so
>> many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
>> with
>> many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
>> April, 4, 1919)
>
>You were just browsing through back issues of
>the Jewish Chronicle one day when you happened
>across this quote, right? The quote doesn't exist.
Or more likely there was the memory hole.
>
>
>"Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
>> American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
>
>Another non-existent "quote."
>What's next, the fake Ben Franklin quote?
How do you know its fake?
>
>
>> "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
>> communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
>> the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
>
>This is a typo. Kahan obviously wrote 5.2 percent,
>which was the real number. I read the book. You
>should try reading books yourself.
>
>Yitz
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Yitzchak Goodman
> On 25 Jun 2003 09:08:13 -0700, yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No. But the French revolution was like the Communist revolution,
> >> Jewish.
> >
> >And what is your evidence for that?
> >I am waiting eagerly.
>
> There is the book "The Nameless War".
Containing what evidence? Give me a few sentences
of summary. Tell me what sort of evidence it is.
[long snip]
And this is supposed to somehow make it valid
to make a big deal out of the Jewish ancestry
of Anna Pauker while ignoring Dej and Ceausescu?
Based on what? Are you familiar at all with
the primary sources? Do you even know what
a primary source is?
>And was Benjamin Pinkus a Jew?
I assume so.
> >And remember, the 390 non-Jews included Lenin,
> >Stalin, Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, and Lunacharsky.
> >
> >
>
> >> and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
> >> physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
> >> Hebrew, September 10, 1920)>
> >
> >This "quote" is partially fabricated.
> >
> >
> > "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
> >> itself, in the fact that so
> >> many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
> >> with
> >> many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
> >> April, 4, 1919)
> >
> >You were just browsing through back issues of
> >the Jewish Chronicle one day when you happened
> >across this quote, right? The quote doesn't exist.
>
> Or more likely there was the memory hole.
If you post a quote followed by a citation
to the Blah Blah Blah Chronicle, some_city,
some_month, some_date, then presumably you want
your reader to believe that the citation
leads somewhere. Did you know it didn't lead
anywhere before I told you? It isn't that
hard to check a citation, you know.
> >"Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
> >> American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
> >
> >Another non-existent "quote."
> >What's next, the fake Ben Franklin quote?
>
> How do you know its fake?
The person who fabricated it wasn't familiar
enough with Colonial English to produce a convincing
fake. We don't even have to get into the fact
that it is not from any work whose existence
can be verified.
[remainder snipped]
Yitz
neptune3
wrote:
>>
>> There is the book "The Nameless War".
>
>Containing what evidence? Give me a few sentences
>of summary. Tell me what sort of evidence it is.
Here are some quotes about the French Revolution from the book "The
Nameless War".
"The late Lady Queenborough, in her work "Occult Theocracy" gives us
certain outstanding names, taking her facts from "L'Anti-Semitisme" by
the Jew Bernard Lazare, in 1894. In London she gives the names of
Benjamin Goldsmid and his brother Abraham Goldsmid, Moses Mocatta
their partner, and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, as being directly
concerned with financing the French Revolution, along with Daniel
Itsig of Berlin and his son-in-law David Freidlander, and Herz
Cerfbeer of Alsace."
"The Maquis de Mirabeau who succeded him (Duc d'Orleans) as the
leading figure of the Revolution was cast in much the same role..He
is known to have been financed by Moses Mendlessohn, head of the
Jewish Illuminati..He was not only a an early figure-head in French
Freemasonry in the respectable years, but introduced Illuminism into
France....
By 1789 there were more than two thousand Lodges in France
affiliated with the Grand Orient, the direct tool of the international
revolution."
"Marie Antoinette herself was one of the chief targets for this
typically Jewish form of attack. No lie or abuse was to vile to level
at her...A diamond necklace valued at nearly a quarter of a million
was ordered at the Court jewellers in the Queen's name by an agent of
the Jacobins...when she naturally disclaimed anything to do with the
matter. pointing out that she would consider it wrong to order such a
thing when France was in so bad a financial way. The printing presses
of the Palais Royal, however turned full blast on the subject...The
moving spirit behind the scene was Cagliostro, alias Joseph Balsamo, a
Jew from Palermo, a doctor of the cabbalistic art..."
"In their turn each of these leaders (of the revolution), a puppet
only of the real powers behind the revolution, is set aside and his
head rolls into the basket to join those of his victims of yesterday."
"The wild figures of Danton, Marat, Robespierre, and the fanatics of
the Jacobin club now dominated the scece."
Sir Walter Scott...In his "Life of Napolean, Vol. 2..on page 56 he
writes:
"The power of the Jacobins was irresistable in Paris, where
Robespierre, Danton and Marat shared the high places in the
synagogue."
"the Life of Robespierre" by one G. Renier.. He writes:
"On the 28th of July,1794 Robespierre made a long speech before the
Convention (saying against ultra-terrorists)
'I dare not name them at this moment and in this place. I cannot bring
myself entirely to tear asunder the veil that covers this profound
mystery of iniquity. But I can affirm most positively that among the
authors of this plot are the agents of that system of corruption and
extravagance,
the most powerful of all the means invented by foreigners for the
undoing of the Republic; I mean the impure apostles of atheism, and
the immorality that is at its base."
Mr Renier continues with all a Jews satisfaction:
"Had he not spoken these words he might still have triumphed!" In
this smug sentance Mr. Renier unwittingly dots the i's and crosses the
t's which Robespierre had left uncompleted.
Robespierre's allusion to the "corrupting and secret foriegners"
was getting altogether too near the mark. A little more and the full
truth would be out.
At 2 a.m. that night Robespierre was shot in the jaw and early on
the following day dragged to the guillotine
>
>And this is supposed to somehow make it valid
>to make a big deal out of the Jewish ancestry
>of Anna Pauker while ignoring Dej and Ceausescu?
Non-Jews may also like things like Communism, but Jews are a race
of leftists:
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
>Based on what? Are you familiar at all with
>the primary sources? Do you even know what
>a primary source is?
>
>>And was Benjamin Pinkus a Jew?
>
>I assume so.
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
>> >
>> > "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
>> >> itself, in the fact that so
>> >> many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
>> >> with
>> >> many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
>> >> April, 4, 1919)
>> >
>> >You were just browsing through back issues of
>> >the Jewish Chronicle one day when you happened
>> >across this quote, right? The quote doesn't exist.
>>
>> Or more likely there was the memory hole.
>
>If you post a quote followed by a citation
>to the Blah Blah Blah Chronicle, some_city,
>some_month, some_date, then presumably you want
>your reader to believe that the citation
>leads somewhere. Did you know it didn't lead
>anywhere before I told you? It isn't that
>hard to check a citation, you know.
Well, I will delete that from my post You might be right, or maybe
they did do a memory hole. They would of course do so. An original
copy of the magazine may differ from what it says on the internet.
>
>> >"Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
>> >> American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
>> >
>> >Another non-existent "quote."
>> >What's next, the fake Ben Franklin quote?
>>
>> How do you know its fake?
>
>The person who fabricated it wasn't familiar
>enough with Colonial English to produce a convincing
>fake. We don't even have to get into the fact
>that it is not from any work whose existence
>can be verified.
>
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction 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. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely 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 has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Yitzchak Goodman
> On 27 Jun 2003 00:04:42 -0700, yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> There is the book "The Nameless War".
> >
> >Containing what evidence? Give me a few sentences
> >of summary. Tell me what sort of evidence it is.
>
> Here are some quotes about the French Revolution from the book "The
> Nameless War".
I am going to suggest something that may
be a great intellectual leap forward for you:
Don't believe everything you read.
Assimilated Jews are statistically more left-leaning the
rest of the country. Jews that adhere to their traditional
religion and culture are more right-leaning than the
rest of the country. And the assimilated Jews seem to
be moving towards the right at the moment.
> >Based on what? Are you familiar at all with
> >the primary sources? Do you even know what
> >a primary source is?
> >
> >>And was Benjamin Pinkus a Jew?
> >
> >I assume so.
>
> State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
> July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
> government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
>
> From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
> on
> March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
> Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
> United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
> beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
> type"
>
> A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
> reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
> "...(T)here
> were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
> 22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
> come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
> Imperial Government.
Is this supposed to be the composition of the
Council of People's Comissars? Evidently, historians
have better sources of information than these telegrams.
> >> >
> >> > "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
> >> >> itself, in the fact that so
> >> >> many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant
> >> >> with
> >> >> many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
> >> >> April, 4, 1919)
> >> >
> >> >You were just browsing through back issues of
> >> >the Jewish Chronicle one day when you happened
> >> >across this quote, right? The quote doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> Or more likely there was the memory hole.
> >
> >If you post a quote followed by a citation
> >to the Blah Blah Blah Chronicle, some_city,
> >some_month, some_date, then presumably you want
> >your reader to believe that the citation
> >leads somewhere. Did you know it didn't lead
> >anywhere before I told you? It isn't that
> >hard to check a citation, you know.
>
> Well, I will delete that from my post You might be right, or maybe
> they did do a memory hole.
Meaning what?
They would of course do so. An original
> copy of the magazine may differ from what it says on the internet.
[remainder snipped]
Yitz
neptune3
wrote:
>
>I am going to suggest something that may
>be a great intellectual leap forward for you:
>Don't believe everything you read.
>
>
>rest of the country. Jews that adhere to their traditional
>religion and culture are more right-leaning than the
>rest of the country. And the assimilated Jews seem to
>be moving towards the right at the moment.
And the Jews who control America and the media tell us what "left"
and "right" supposedly are.
" the man who recently was given an astounding
multi-year radio contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars
disclosed that he and his Jewish rabbi--Rush used the words, "My
rabbi"- had traveled to Israel and met there privately with
former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
Never before has Rush Limbaugh admitted on air either that
he is Jewish or that he has a personal rabbi who travels with
him. Rush's listeners, however, have noted that in recent months
and weeks, the talk show host and political commentator has
become increasingly vocal in his support for Israel and for
Jewish causes. He has touted Benjamin Netanyahu and blasted
Yassir Arafat and the Palestinians.
"It's almost as if Rush Limbaugh overnight has become a
secret Mossad special agent," said one long-time fan. "Now that
the Arabs have attacked New York and Washington, D.C., the gloves
are really off. Rush is now more Israeli than he is American-a
real partisan.
Others note that Rush's liberal altar ego, CNN's Larry
King, is also Jewish and pro-Israel. "This is why unknowns like
Rush suddenly become famous," said one media expert.
"They are chosen by the elite." Rush's Jewishness didn't
hurt his chances of being made a media star-that insured it.
"That is the reason," the insider remarked, "why a talented
but relatively unknown nobody, Rush Limbaugh, was brought to New
York City from the hinterlands and was given a big plum radio
slot."
Rush Limbaugh now lives in New York City-"Little
Israel"-where more Jews reside than in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
Rush Limbaugh also has a luxurious condo down in Palm Beach,
Florida-where Jewish multimillionaires are in abundance. New York
and Palm Beach are both exclusive Jewish/Israeli enclaves in
America."
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/web/Articles/rush_limbaugh_goes_deaf.htm
>
>Is this supposed to be the composition of the
>Council of People's Comissars? Evidently, historians
>have better sources of information than these telegrams.
Orwellian memory hole.
>>
>> Well, I will delete that from my post You might be right, or maybe
>> they did do a memory hole.
>
>Meaning what?
From the book "1984" by George Orwell.
Yitzchak Goodman
Did you look at the main page and notice
how goofy this website is?
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/
> >Is this supposed to be the composition of the
> >Council of People's Comissars? Evidently, historians
> >have better sources of information than these telegrams.
>
> Orwellian memory hole.
>
> >>
> >> Well, I will delete that from my post You might be right, or maybe
> >> they did do a memory hole.
> >
> >Meaning what?
>
> From the book "1984" by George Orwell.
>
I've read 1984 more than once although it has been a long time.
If you want to believe that all the documents in all the archives
are fakes planted by "them," go right ahead. But nobody is going
to take you seriously if all you are doing is defending crackpot
websites put togeher by people who cannot even provide honest
citations to published sources. If someone is lying about
what it says in the "Jewish Chronicle, London, April, 4, 1919"
(which is easy to check), then he is probably lying about
everything else.
Yitz
neptune3
wrote:
>>
>> http://www.conspiracyworld.com/web/Articles/rush_limbaugh_goes_deaf.htm
>
>Did you look at the main page and notice
>how goofy this website is?
No
>
>http://www.conspiracyworld.com/
>
>>
>> From the book "1984" by George Orwell.
>>
>
>I've read 1984 more than once although it has been a long time.
>If you want to believe that all the documents in all the archives
>are fakes planted by "them," go right ahead.
Documents that show Communism to be Jewish could be memory holed.
Maybe you naively think they wouldn't do it.
> But nobody is going
>to take you seriously if all you are doing is defending crackpot
>websites put togeher by people who cannot even provide honest
>citations to published sources. If someone is lying about
>what it says in the "Jewish Chronicle, London, April, 4, 1919"
>(which is easy to check), then he is probably lying about
>everything else.
I am for being accurate. I deleted that one from my Communism cut
and paste. Even though I should have an original copy of the magazine
to really know you are right.
Yitzchak Goodman
> On 29 Jun 2003 10:51:05 -0700, yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> http://www.conspiracyworld.com/web/Articles/rush_limbaugh_goes_deaf.htm
> >
> >Did you look at the main page and notice
> >how goofy this website is?
>
> No
How about looking at it now?
> >http://www.conspiracyworld.com/
> >
> >>
> >> From the book "1984" by George Orwell.
> >>
> >
> >I've read 1984 more than once although it has been a long time.
> >If you want to believe that all the documents in all the archives
> >are fakes planted by "them," go right ahead.
>
> Documents that show Communism to be Jewish could be memory holed.
> Maybe you naively think they wouldn't do it.
What would this "memory hole" process involve for the
issue of the Jewish Chronicle that you claimed to be
quoting from? I am just asking you to think about what
you are saying. So what would they do? Let us suppose
that a number of libraries in various countries have
sets of bound volumes with each volume containing all
the issues of the Jewish Chronicle for a different year.
Other libraries have it on microfilm. So now what do they
do? Sneak into every library after hours and replace
every 1919 volume with a specially-prepared fake 1919 volume?
Tell me what you think they would do.
> > But nobody is going
> >to take you seriously if all you are doing is defending crackpot
> >websites put togeher by people who cannot even provide honest
> >citations to published sources. If someone is lying about
> >what it says in the "Jewish Chronicle, London, April, 4, 1919"
> >(which is easy to check), then he is probably lying about
> >everything else.
>
> I am for being accurate. I deleted that one from my Communism cut
> and paste. Even though I should have an original copy of the magazine
> to really know you are right.
How about having an original copy before posting
the supposed quote?
Yitz
T.E.
You're wasting your time by trying to reason with (neptune3)
Alex Vange. This is the same fellow who also believes the
current excavations of Manoan frescos showing the ancient
civilization's people did not have blonde hair and blue eyes
is the result of "Jew propoganda." He has yet to explain how
the Jews managed to sneak into ancient Crete 2000 years B.C.
and paint fesh frescoes depicting dark-haired, brown eyed
Cretins.
>
> > > But nobody is going
> > >to take you seriously if all you are doing is defending crackpot
> > >websites put togeher by people who cannot even provide honest
> > >citations to published sources. If someone is lying about
> > >what it says in the "Jewish Chronicle, London, April, 4, 1919"
> > >(which is easy to check), then he is probably lying about
> > >everything else.
Thus far, I've encountered only a handfull of posters who have
ever taken Vange seriously. One of them was Keven Strom's not-
too-bright wife (that's the latter one), who charcterized Vange
as one of the "elite." Being taken seriously by the non-idiotic
is not one of Vange's concerns.
> >
> > I am for being accurate. I deleted that one from my Communism cut
> > and paste. Even though I should have an original copy of the magazine
> > to really know you are right.
>
> How about having an original copy before posting
> the supposed quote?
Verification is a process as alien to Vange as is original thinking.
Good luck.
> Yitz
T.E.
> Commissar of Education 1917?29)
> Kim Il Sung (Head of North Korea 1948?94)
Bravo, Yitz!
I enjoyed that so much, I wish I'd compiled/written it.
Would you mind my using it from time to time, citing you
and your sources, of course? It will make a wonderful
"auto-spam" response to the standard COMMIE JEW spam.
--Tom Epstein
Yitzchak Goodman
> yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman) wrote
>
> > The following list of major Gentile Communist figures
> > was compiled for satiric purposes, but I tried to make
> > it as accurate as possible.
[snippage]
> > Hope you enjoyed it,
> >
> > Yitz
>
>
> Bravo, Yitz!
>
> I enjoyed that so much, I wish I'd compiled/written it.
> Would you mind my using it from time to time, citing you
> and your sources, of course? It will make a wonderful
> "auto-spam" response to the standard COMMIE JEW spam.
>
> --Tom Epstein
Be my guest.
Yitz