Esquire: Why 3/4 White Supremacists Support Barack Obama
Love Europe, Hate the EU
How do racists, anti-Semites and all-purpose hate-mongers view the
possibility of America’s first black president? Not necessarily the
way you think they would.
By David Peisner
If recent polls are to be believed, white voters favor John McCain
over Barack Obama by nearly ten percentage points, but the McCain and
Obama camps probably haven’t factored in the following fact: In an
informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer
Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists.
(Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample
size -- limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist
-- but just because it wouldn’t fly with Gallup doesn’t mean there
ain't a kernel of truth in there.) This is just one of many surprising
views that emerged after we talked to extremists about this historic
electoral showdown between a 46-year-old black man and a 71-year-old
white man.
Tom Metzger
Who: Director, White Aryan Resistance
Likes: White people, karaoke, environmentalists
Dislikes: Race-mixing, Jews, the federal government, capitalism
Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won
the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980; appeared
on the episode of Geraldo Rivera’s show in 1988 when Rivera’s nose was
broken in a brawl.
“The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make
much difference who's in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a
warmonger. He’s a scary, scary person -- more dangerous than Bush.
Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I
have no problem with black racists. I’ve got the quote right here: ‘I
found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity
against my mother’s white race.’ The problem with Obama is he’s being
dishonest about his racial views. I’d respect him if he’d just come
out and say, ‘Yeah, I’m a black racist.’ I don’t hate black people. I
just think it’s in the best interest of the races to be separated as
much as possible. See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist. I hate the
transnational corporations far more than any black person.”
Erich Gliebe
Who: Chairman, National Alliance
Likes: Third Reich, the movie Rocky
Dislikes: integration, Jewish-controlled media
Career Highlights: Turning white-power record label, Resistance
Records, into a million-dollar-a-year business juggernaut; an 8-0
record as a professional boxer under the nickname, “The Aryan
Barbarian.”
“Obama might be a better candidate for our cause because he’s racially
conscious. One of our big things in the National Alliance is to raise
the racial consciousness of our people. Young whites in universities,
they’ve been stripped of any kind of racial identity. Obama may be a
racist in a positive sense for his people -- that will awaken a lot of
the whites, knock some sense into them. They’ll see that non-white
Americans are allowed to be proud of who they are, to be racially
conscious, to talk about their people or their community without being
attacked as being racist. Let’s face it, white people aren’t going to
fight for their causes, for their kind with a white president. I don’t
think McCain even acknowledges that a white race exists. He’s all
about granting amnesty to illegal aliens. The fact he wants to keep us
in wars in the Middle East for 100 years, that’s not a good thing. I
give Obama credit, he seems to have stuck to his guns as far as
pulling the troops out of Iraq. He’s a very intelligent man, an
excellent speaker and has charisma. John McCain offers none of that.
Perhaps the best thing for the white race is to have a black
president. My only problem with Obama is perhaps he’s not black
enough.”
Ron Edwards
Who: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America
Likes: Guns, bed sheets, burning crosses
Dislikes: Black people, homosexuals, immigrants
Career Highlights: Sued in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center for
inciting the brutal beating of a Latino teenager; building the IKA
into one of the nation’s largest Klan groups by allowing non-
Christians to join.
“Obama, I think he’s a piece of shit. I don’t care that his mother was
white. I don’t think he has enough brains to do anything good. All
he’s living off of is the color of his skin to get elected. I don’t
think America wants a black president. Most of them are too afraid to
say that they believe the way I believe. They sit around their dinner
table and talk the way I do, but when they get out in public, they
have two faces and show the other face. When people are voting in the
booth privately, they’ll vote Republican even if they’re a Democrat.
If he wins, I’ll laugh. I don’t like McCain, but he’s the only one I
can vote for. He’s against a lot of the things that I’m for. I’m
afraid that he’s going to mess with gun laws. But I’m going Republican
and I talked to my guys and most of them are voting for McCain too.”
Yahanna
Who: General, Israelite School Of Universal Practical Knowledge
Likes: Segregation
Dislikes: White oppressors, black women, American culture, Muslims,
Christians, Martin Luther King Jr.
Career Highlights: Featured in 1999 BBC program about black
supremacists; his street corner rants in Washington D.C. spurred
changes in the local noise ordinance.
“Finding out Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president was
one of the saddest days in black history. Another legacy of black
death is about to begin, just like it began back in the '60s with
probably the greatest traitor to black people in modern-day history,
Martin Luther King. Every black leader that has some form of power has
given black people false hope, when in fact, the closer they get to
the white establishment, the more they become an actual enemy to black
people. Black people need to move away from the establishment and
towards a moral change. As for Obama, first of all, he’s not even a
black man in the terms of what real black people consider a black man.
He’s of African and white descent. How easily he dismissed his
affiliation with Reverend Wright, was a clear indication that this is
a politician, not a man of any real conviction. The same way he threw
away that Reverend, once he becomes president, he must throw away
black people. He’s going to have to harm black people to make white
people satisfied that he’s not Reverend Wright’s boy. The
disappointment we’re going to suffer from him is going to set us back
another fifty years. McCain is definitely the better shot for black
people.”
Rocky Suhayda
Who: Chairman, American Nazi Party
Likes: Hitler, white people
Dislikes: Jews, immigrants, multinational corporations
Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so
few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: “If we were
one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere.”
“White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who
happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National
Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is
almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the
globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who
supports the invasion of America by illegals -- basically a
continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a
black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist
religion, is married to a black women -- when usually negroes who have
‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize -- that’s
the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person
embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all
racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the
interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair
with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic
justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern
Sodom and Gomorrah.”
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308
www.natvan.com
www.davidduke.com
www.resist.com
www.stormfront.org
www.vnnforum.com
Topaz
THE ENEMIES of White people around the world have a pathological
love affair with the term 'White supremacist' whenever they report
on or describe White people who act in a collective manner, no
matter how benign, on behalf of their own group interests..
However, the same people who decry 'White supremacism' seem to have a
difficult time describing the actions of non-Whites acting on behalf
of their group interests, often violently, as supremacists of any
kind.
And never mind the fact that most so-called White supremacists
simply work to promote separate living space and political
independence from Jewish or other non-White influence.
All right then, I have a question for you about this 'White
supremacism': where is it? Where is this so-called White
supremacism? Have you seen it?
Far too many White people in America and around the world are
race-mixing and aborting themselves out of existence. Our
politicians are allowing record Third World immigration into our
White ancestral homelands. Our White corporate 'free traders' and
White globalists continue to impoverish us as they send our jobs
overseas, and our White politicians send our White soldiers to die
in a senseless war in Iraq for Israel, soldiers who will never sire
another generation of their own kind.
]
Does that sound like 'White supremacism'?
We continue to allow the media masters to produce their filth,
surpassing each other in obscenity as they abuse our people in print
and on screen. Does that sound like White supremacy?
Ubiquitous misinformation in the media and in the schools has made
too many of us ashamed of our nature and our traditions; our
accomplishments, we are told, belong to the entire world. Even most
Whites-who know they're being lied to-are still too scared to
organize for our common good, because Jewish supremacists such as
the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, their
allies in the media, and their lapdog politicians attack any who
try to stand up to them; even as Jews and other non-Whites are
encouraged, even paid, to organize.
How "supreme" is that, my friends?
If you recall, the recent demonstrations of Mestizo invaders across
America bore a simple message: 'We claim your land! We claim your
jobs! We want your women! We demand your future! If you don't hand
us America, then you are racist pigs!'
Where was the massive so-called White supremacist backlash to these
invaders? Where was the White resistance to this clear and present
danger to our posterity? With the exception of the street activism
of National Vanguard members and supporters and a few other stalwart
patriots, I didn't see it. Did you?
So, where were all the White people during these Mestizo
demonstrations? Well, my guess is they were figuring out how they're
going to pay their next tax bill; working longer hours for less and
less inflation-reduced take-home pay; shopping at yet another new
Wal-Mart for the only kind of goods many can afford, Chinese junk;
watching ball games; attending yet another anti-White motion
picture, and so on. Some are blind, happily embracing their lives as
the new peons in a multiracial America, while others know something
is wrong, but haven't yet figured it out. Some know exactly what is
happening, but are afraid to say anything, falsely believing they
are all alone in their beliefs.
Fear is the dominant note in this funeral march.
Everywhere our borders have been opened and the
new elite teaches our children that intermarriage is good and
desirable. Everywhere the new elite teaches our children that to
defend our genetic heritage is the very definition of evil. The end
result, if trends continue, will be genocide.
There is no fortress against this persistent onslaught. There are no
mighty gates on the horizon swinging open to offer us sanctuary. The
Other is in every city, every county, every town, every hamlet now.
The Opponent continues to work overtime to convince us all that
White racial consciousness is "evil," because they know that we are
the only real obstacle to their malevolent plans for a global
plantation. They are the real supremacists. Not us.
History has set a task for us. It is to dispel the fog of fear that
immobilizes the sleeping White giant of our people. It is to change
the now-dominant note of fear to one of determination. It is to turn
that funeral march into a march of triumph.
National Vanguard. Our time has come and our time is now.
I'm Frank Roman. Thank you for listening and I shall speak with you
again.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
jcon
> THE ENEMIES of White people around the world have a pathological
> love affair with the term 'White supremacist' whenever they report
> on or describe White people who act in a collective manner, no
> matter how benign, on behalf of their own group interests..
> However, the same people who decry 'White supremacism' seem to have a
> difficult time describing the actions of non-Whites acting on behalf
> of their group interests, often violently, as supremacists of any
> kind.
> And never mind the fact that most so-called White supremacists
> simply work to promote separate living space and political
> independence from Jewish or other non-White influence.
Shot in the dark here, but maybe it's the tendency to
make bugshit insane statements - like referring to Jews
as "non-white".
-jc
Topaz
Jews are an ethnic group. They are not just a religion. If a Jew
becomes a Christian or an atheist he still says he is a Jew. Most of
the Jews in the Jew country are atheist. They say that a Jew is anyone
that has a Jewish mother. Therefore it is a hereditary thing.
We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.
The Jews have their own Jew country, but they demand multi-culture and
pluralism for us. Their leaders agree with something Hitler wrote:
"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to
the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one
day become ruler of the Earth."
Jews are enemies of White civilization. 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
throughout 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 throughout
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 Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
jcon
Did I already use the phrase "bugshit insane"?
-jc
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama
>
> How do racists, anti-Semites and all-purpose hate-mongers view the
> possibility of America’s first black president? Not necessarily the
> way you think they would.
>
a socialist one rather than the national socialist one that white
supremacists want.
Michael
Topaz
No Way Out But Through the Jews
A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
by Alex Linder
Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders.
Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish
participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are
destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like
the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The
Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.
...the review
In his 1993 book The Conservative Movement, Jew Paul Gottfried
provides an excellent short history of post-WWII conservatism, and one
that provides a clear, if implicit, message for today's White
nationalist. That message is the title of this review: No way out but
through the Jews. If you plan to pursue the political goal of a
civilized White America, these Jews will be at your throat every step
of the way. So you might as well not kid yourself about that but set
your phaser on "kill" from the start.
Gottfried never comes right out and says it, but the upshot of his
history is that the right has been taken over by Jews. Centered around
the Podhoretz and Kristol families, this Jewish movement pushes an
anti-American ideology. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
advocated no entangling alliances abroad and local rule at home, the
neocons promote a plus-sized managerial state at home, and global
democratic crusades abroad. Since their infiltration in the late
sixties, early seventies, says Gottfried, these Jewish "conservatives"
have garnered the lion's share of money and media access,
marginalizing the traditional right. And although he nowhere mentions
talk radio or the Internet, Gottfried sees virtually no options at the
disposal of those who would usurp the usurpers.
Who are the neoconservatives? Essentially, they are a small group of
East Coast Jewish intellectuals of regular private morality. They are
former reds or red-diaper babies who departed from the New Left when
it started advocating odd sex and communism and other policies they
felt were potentially anti-Semitic. As they emerged from this sixties
morass, they gravitated to the right, where they found allies in the
anti-communist cause; friends with foundation money that could be used
to construct a bulwark against their crazier New Left brethren. Over
the course of the seventies, the Jewish neoconservatives took over one
foundation after another, supplanting the Christian traditionalist
bias of American conservatism with their detailed policy studies and
position papers. These bore proof of their sociological and
statistical cast of mind, different from the Kirkian
religious-literary bias of traditionalists.
By the time of Reagan, they had achieved dominance. Any conservative
hoping to make a career of it, whether in politics or writing or
commentating, had to hew to their specific vision of the America they
wished to conserve if he wished to preserve his own office, air-time
or sheet space. Any vestigial strains of racial feeling or regional
sympathy were anathema to these racist philo-Semitic anti-racists who
are unstinting in their anathematizing of anyone who diverges from
their pluralist, democratic dogmas. Any American, that is. The
dogmatic democratic pluralism disappears when it comes to Israel,
where Semitic chauvinism is, quite rightly they think, the law. What
White racialists want for America is no different from what Jewish
neoconservatives want for Israel. But they will try to shout down
anyone who makes the equation, just ask Joe Sobran. Only Jews have a
right to an ethnostate; democratic pluralism is good enough for the
rest of us. This hypocritical double-standard springs directly from
the gut Jewish feeling that an America made up of many conflicting
groups, riven by cultural standards, divided by ethnicity, history and
behavior, is the America in which the Jew is safest, and can move
about most freely. A strong, sure White nation scares the Jew. So
whether it's America or Europe, he tries to undercut it with
anthropological lies about the unreality of race, falsified histories
("diversity has always been our greatest strength") support for open
immigration, suppression of free speech and the destruction of free
association-all in the name of "civil rights." Neoconservatives are
Jews, no need to look further than that. Jews, whether left or right,
ask only one question: Is it good for the Jews? They hide behind
universalist rhetoric, but their concern is for themselves. And you
can be absolutely sure of this: Their interests are not our
interests..
David Horowitz would be a prime example of an expert deployer of a
plausible, counterfeit theory and history of America to suck in
potential White racialists and get them four-square behind a nutty,
extremist, ahistorical view of politics that can only lead America
into South Africa's pit of horrors. The triumph of individual rights
in Black lands means the triumph of the jungle. It is extremist,
rationalist and counter-historical to elevate a political process over
the character of the people. How can ignorant, 75-IQ blacks produce
civilization protecting the individual rights these neoconservatives
claim to love? Can one-man, one-vote really produce that miracle? Of
course not, and these Jews know it. And they know that the Founders
knew it. So they lie. The truth, as they know and cover up, is that
the Founders understood that only civilized, self-controlled White men
were capable of civilization, and that to expect dissolute, lazy,
TV-drenched slobs mixed with mulattoes and Negroes and Mexicans to
vote in ordered liberty was to expect the impossible. But David
Horowitz, living in Los Angeles, can look out the window and tell you
it's possible. Never underestimate the power of Jewish duplicity in
furthering Jewish self-interest. That's a second corollary to
Gottfried's study.
We asked above whether or not these neoconservative Jews were really
conservative. Perhaps that question isn't important. One point
Gottfried does develop, writing in 1993, is just how little difference
there is in today's political discourse between left and right. As I
write, George W. Bush is battling Al Gore, so the point is hardly
stale. Effectively, the left and right may differ in degree, but
everybody supports a capitalist welfare state and global democracy.
Everybody is "inclusive." Everybody bows before the great God of
Diversity. Are the Jews conservative? In the deeper sense, no. They
are still radicals, intent on spreading their lies about human
fungibility, from which they aone are exempt as the "Chosen" people.
Left or right, they are eager to destroy our White civilization to
further their group interests.
On the second most important political issue of the day-leaving the
borders open to the third world-the Jews speak with one voice: no
patrols. Note this well: Never in American history has a majority of
Whites favored colored immigration. The Jews alone favored it, for
reasons outlined above. Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of
the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You
thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong.
Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in
those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans
are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the
pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught
them to). The Jews almost to a man push open-borders immigration, and
they denounce anyone who differs as an evil racist/nativist/xenophobe.
All the Jewish lies dovetail intellectually, and all of them advance
Jewish interests. I recommend, I urge, I wish I could force everyone
who hasn't to read Kevin MacDonald's paper on the Jewish influence in
the hundred years of debate preceding the nation-killing 1965
immigration act that opened the floodgates to the third world. The
Jewish hatred of the White world is the story that doesn't make the
news, even as it remakes your neighborhood. I doubt the plush-paunched
Republicans watching TV politics as spectator sport will ever pick up
on it. You will run a long way before you meet an average American
with the slightest historical awareness-nor the interest in developing
one. But the arguments are lying there, exactly as I've presented
them, and perhaps in a crisis people will take a hard look at what
brought us to our current position. For all the disinformation out
there, it's still not too hard to detect the patterns once you have
the facts. . .
So we've seen that Jews claiming themselves "conservatives" but not
all that different from their leftist brethren have come in and
dominated the right. Where does this leave whatever is left of the
non-Jewish right? I would break this set into two subsets: those who
are openly racist (which Gottfried avoids) and those who make veiled
or open Semitically Incorrect arguments while attempting to maintain
their "respectability." The former have no political power, while the
latter are desperate to hang on to their columns and speaking
engagements.
Although there are a handful of Jews pushing standard White-racist
arguments, and who would receive even less notice than they do get if
they weren't Jewish, these same never take into account that Jews can
never simply be another ethnic group assimilated into a purified White
America. The nature and qualities and history of their group shows
just that-they are a group. And since they are a group that recognizes
itself as a group and fights against other groups on that basis-they
must be opposed as a group. This is not so much guilt by association
as guilt by genetics and behavior and history. As a group they have
strategized to destroy the civilized White America they felt
threatened by, and anything we do to them in return is more than
deserved. Treating them as individuals, just like we are, has failed.
The correct path is to treat them as the radical alien outsiders and
eliminate their influence. We need to take their flag off the
courthouse, so to speak.
Getting back to the lesson at the top of the page, Jews have so
strategized their evolution (see Kevin MacDonald's work) as to be
considerably more intelligent than their hosts, with an average IQ of
115, a standard-deviation above the White mean. This intelligence and
their proven historical character combine to ensure Jews will always
be the yeast, the irritants, the makers-uncomfortable, the
revolutionaries. Wherever they exist in White society they will be a
force for disruption. The fact that some can exist as peaceful ethnics
among the White majority does not negate this Big Truth (for if there
can be Big Lies, there can also be Big Truths). Because
class-arguments can be abused, and because injustice will be meted out
to individual non-Whites when we rebuild civilization, the Jews
enforcing their dogma of individualism will always have points to make
that resonate with our myopic right-wing individualists. But just as
surely as these Jews averted their eyes from the general horrors
ensuing in South Africa after their racial-and-political equality
dogmas were enacted, the pro-White right must be louder than ever in
showing that their ethnic Jewish self-interest can only end in the
extinction of the White race. Really. Those are the stakes.
The media neoconservatives can't afford to admit the evidence of the
failure of their dogma in South Africa, rape and murder capital of the
world; rather they redouble their insistence on individualism to evade
the Big Truth that colored demographics and political democracy doom
White minorities everywhere. And taking a global perspective-as we are
all supposed to do, nowadays-the White race is a small minority, and
growing smaller every day. Our White kinsmen are already being
butchered in their homes and driven off their farms in South Africa
and Zimbabwe. Literally tens of millions of Whites have become victims
of violent Black assault in America since the Jew-eased passage of
"Civil Rights" legislation. The Jews well know these facts, and that
is why they avoid reporting them. They hated South Africa when it was
ruled by civilized Whites. They don't give a damn what happens to
Whites once their beloved Negroes are carrying the whip. Foolish,
foolish White man-will you not wake up while there is time?
What we are discussing is a very simple: the Jews are a class fighting
to dominate other classes, just as Benjamin Stein saw in his report on
the TV Weltanschauung, The View from Sunset Boulevard. Jew Stein, like
Jew Michael Levin (Feminism and Freedom), will never name his people
as that class, pointing to "writers and producers," "feminists," and
"neoconservatives." (It is really truly amazing the way that Jews are
able to camouflage their interests, always presenting their specific
goal as a general good, and that their terms are tacitly accepted in
their opponents' rhetoric. It's like we all are under contract to
agree that the Jews aren't a group and don't have any specific
interests and certainly don't work to advance those interests and even
if they do, they aren't in conflict with ours. But notice that on the
flip side, the opposite conditions obtain: Jews always attack their
opponents by class (right-wing Christian extremists, racist haters,
Arabs), lingering lovingly on the specific interests of their
undifferentiated opponents; always forestalling counter-arguments as
"anti-Semitism" driven by the only motive Jews ever allow their
opponents-all together now-"hate." The Jews can only get away with
this clever I-criticize-you-and-you
criticize-that-bag-of-flour-over-there setup because they exert
extraordinary control over television and newspapers. And their backup
line of defense, of course, is to denounce anyone who notices the
strategies behind their tactics as an anti-Semitic conspiracymonger.
This is a second aspect of what the 'ZOG'-minded are pointing to.
Stein is writing about the class of TV writers and producers;
Gottfried is writing about neoconservatives; Levin is writing about
feminists. All of them mean Jews, none of them can afford to say it.
When you become a Jew, it's almost as though you have to sign a sheet
saying you will either avoid mentioning negative Jewish
characteristics or-pace Marx and Freud-reinterpret specific, offensive
Jewish behaviors or patterns as generically human: i.e., repression,
or characteristic of an exploited class. (An excellent book, The
Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, covers this topic in
depth.) The one thing none of these rightist Jews wants is a civilized
White society where Jews are nonexistent. Or ghettoized. Or looked
down on socially. Or in which you are free to speak and write and talk
about Jews as specific people who act, look and think in generalizable
ways. Jews may be physically ugly duplicitous socialist troublemakers,
but they don't want you saying that. They will propagandize through
the schools and TV until you are practically unable to notice it
because the whole context in which you might make such an observation
has been destroyed. They will make hard to find the few books that
dare discuss it. (Just try finding Cuddihy's book.) History is nothing
but a propaganda tool to them. In living memory they were kept out of
the better hotels and clubs and colleges, and since treatment of the
Jews, to Jews, is the true measure of civilization, any time they were
legally or socially treated as other than the God-sent gift they
present themselves (that is, all history up until about fifty years
ago) must be falsified into Dark Ages (Jews out of power) preceding
today's Enlightened Age (Jews running the show). Let alone the
ghettoes of old Europe, these people are capable of portraying the
fifties in America as some sort of racist hellhole, saved only through
heroic Blacks led by saintly Jews in the name of civil rights or
federal tyranny, if you prefer your descriptions accurate. What is
clear to every Jew seems to be unclear to most White Americans,
especially those on the right who ought to know better:
this is a war of classes, a war for power and dominance between a
small but smart and well-positioned ethnic group and the vast majority
of civilized White people. The Jews instinctively recognize this
battle, feel it in their blood, and are fighting hard for their side.
Most on our side aren't even aware a war is going on.
Gottfried points to two symbolic episodes that show the transfer of
power from the traditional right to the neocons: 1) Rockford's firing
of John Neuhaus, and his subsequent denunciation of traditionalist
racism and anti-Semitism among the Old Right; and, 2) the neocons'
successful defeat of M.E. Bradford, a traditionalist historian, as
head of the National Endowment of Humanity. What was the traditional
right to do? Basically, it retreated, licked its wounds, and looked
about in search of allies and money and media outlets. What has
happened, and this is clearer now than when Gottfried completed the
book, is that the American political system under Clinton has gotten
so corrupt that even average people began to notice. This alone has
strengthened the traditional right's never-too-strong confidence, and
strengthened its new ally, the libertarians, too. And both sides have
benefited hugely from the Internet, which at once strengthens small
groups and somewhat threatens established media institutions. By 2000,
there were enough ganglia of pro-Whites on the Internet to get
mainstream Jewish groups scribbling "hate crimes" model statutes,
anti-gun legislation, and politically correct browser censorware at
top speed.
It might have been expected that the loss of power and funding would
have resulted in the radicalization of the traditional right, at least
to the point of open talk about taking the American right back from
the Jews. There was very little of such talk, none of it open-at least
among those with one eye on "respectability," that ever leftward
moving boundary observed by fools.
What we still see on the right in the year 2000 are leading non-Jewish
right-wing Whites couching what they know to be racial arguments in
regional or race-neutral terms. Sam Francis speaks of Middle American
Revolutionaries. He means Whites, but he's afraid to come out and say
it. Of course, he gets called racist just the same. And he got fired
from the neocon Washington Times just the same. But Jews, to him, are
just people with a different religion, and he can still find a way to
fit minorities into that Middle American revolution.
Then there are the various Southern separatist groups. All are
carefully non-racial. All get accused of being racist. All fail to
draw the correct conclusion. It is amusing in a sick and increasingly
irritating way. Is there nobody left who can think clearly and isn't
afraid to voice his conclusions publicly? No, the Southern Semitically
Correct separatists present as sorry a face as they always do. Always
trying for that elusive respectability, always failing to achieve it,
and always losing the few-and merely symbolic-battles they do engage
in. For people who brag incessantly "on" their heroic Confederate
ancestors, they show little courage and less intelligence.
I'll say it again, a little louder now, so Johnny Reb can hear me:
THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE OR
PRETEND TO BE NON-RACIST. YOU ARE THREATENED AS A GROUP, BY A GROUP,
AND YOU'D BETTER GET THOSE GROUPS STRAIGHT IN YOUR HEAD TO HAVE ANY
HOPE OF PRESERVING THE LAND AND PEOPLE YOU LOVE.
A little more on the Southern-rights groups. The left always froths
over them, as though people too scared and powerless to say what they
mean openly are going to achieve anything. This frothing is more a
measure of media boredom and the fact that the left is so dominant it
has forgotten what real opposition feels like that it goes overboard.
The left so buys its own frothing demagoguery it can't even realize
these people have ceded the essential point before they even start
arguing. Pity the poor Southern separatist. He can't even keep the
flag in the air or the Blacks from pooping on the statue of his
great-grandaddy. Even with all that Confederate heroism running in his
blood, he's still selling his problem as Northerners, not Blacks. As
though America hasn't been homogenized by TV into one big mall or
airport lobby. As though the guy in Arkansas is worried about the
White man just over the Missouri line, more than the Black next door.
How pitiful and obvious he is, our man of gray, thinking the media
will buy that he's really not racist. He can't see that it doesn't
matter in the slightest if he isn't, and if he is, he's contemptible
for not arguing openly. Ditch the gray and go for black and white,
Southern Man.
How many times does the right have to learn that the media really is
controlled by Jews, by intimidation where not by ownership; that Jews
really are leftist; and that anyone preaching anything remotely
resembling White pride gets treated like a human showing emotion in
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (that is, squawked at and pointed out
to the cops by the aliens who are taking over the planet) - so that he
might as well oppose the Jew's anti-White hatred openly. You can't win
where the other guy defines the terms, sets the labels, interprets the
law. You must oppose him openly, directly, explicitly and give him no
quarter. Why are you always on the defensive? Could it be the same
reason you always lose? Here we come to a deep-lying problem with
conservatism. First of all, nobody's ever satisfactorily defined it. A
branch of that problem is that there is no philosophical basis for
incorporating political attack. A new conservatism must be envisioned
that incorporates not merely the preservation of custom and tradition,
but one that can accommodate formless spiritual or psychic drives that
are even more important than patterned behaviors: questing,
exploration, simple competitiveness. Even blood-lust. What could be
more conservative than blood-lust? But where do you find it among the
Republicans; over at the Jew-intimidated National Review? Among the
foundation-based low-tax remonstrators?
The funny thing is that once you say, Yes, I am a racist. Just like
George Washington. And you are a White-hating Jew-the poison is drawn.
They have set the terms of this political game we all play, and only
by refusing to play do we stand a chance of winning. It is utmost
foolishness, as anybody who has published conservative articles
anywhere in the world will tell you, to try to escape the racist tag.
You can't, and in any case it ain't a meaningful word, people-it's
just a way to smear and discredit you. Fight the smearers and
discrediters directly, refuse to play on their terms. Love and
fairness no more conquer hate than they conquer bullets. Prefixing
your conservative arguments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and
expecting to achieve your political goals is like one of those African
rebel guerillas smearing himself with magical pig grease thinking it
will stop bullets.
Apart from your opinion of the Nazis, consider their tactics. Did they
win-democratically-by adopting the tactics of the respectable American
right, or did they gain converts by their physical courage and their
willingness to confront the Jew-led communists? How much worse can the
Old Right do than it is doing right now? Not much. The mainstream
right-as I write, G.W. Bush and the Republican convention are in full
swing, every other speaker addressing the hall is a colored-has
decided to ape the liberals. In the words of the song, Freedom's just
another word for nothing left to lose. Well, what on earth do the Sam
Francises and Thomas Flemings and the Pat Buchanans have left to lose?
A column in an obscure magazine? A speech to a few dozen like-mindeds?
Is it possible they will turn to effective tactics out of sheer
boredom? Sam Francis (you'll serve as representative here), how could
you possibly do worse than you are doing now by openly criticizing
Jews instead of making pusillanimous attacks on East Coast elitists
and New World Order bureaucrats? How could you possibly fare any worse
by defending the Black-and-White truths of the Founders in
black-and-white terms?
Then you've got the libertarians, trying to get government off our
backs without any recourse to racial explanations or group interests
in explaining human behavior. Trying to understand the world one
person at a time. Some of these libertarians are products of Silicon
Valley, and to the extent they philosophize, they are Randian
individualists. They believe in free trade and free movement of
peoples, and make no distinctions between them. Libertarians seem to
instinctively turn away from any historical recognition of the
circumstances under which the freedoms they demand were actually
realized. Even their few (and in many ways impressive) intellectuals
who are interested in history tend to fall in line with the
politically safe Jewish lie about the non-racial aspect of our
founding, building their future utopias in that tired old,
misunderstood, misrepresented "all men are created equal."
Politically, libertarians are laughable, beyond their useful ability
to supply policy papers. Imagine a whole bunch of computer geeks and
economics professors marching on Washington under the fear-inspiring
banner of "Me!" Now there's an Army even our heroic neo-Confederates
could take! Libertarians maybe never will realize that, again I yell,
BLOOD AND RACE ARE WHAT MOVE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOOBIES
AND BUGGER YOUR BOYFRIEND. NOT EVEN ECONOMICS. Am I really the only
idiot to notice that when Whites ruled America, White people were
free? And that when Jews and Blacks rule America, they're slaves? But
most "right-wing" libertarians would rather support a minimum wage
hike than acknowledge this simple historical fact. They are too
rationalist in temperament, too much like our liberal dictators. Too
in love with their idea of
people-as-individuals-in-the-low-tax-multicultural-utopia-of-tomorrow
to pay attention to street-level political and historical reality.
Many of us want individual liberty, but it only obtains under certain
circumstances. There sure doesn't seem to be much of it around in
these days of "civil rights" for everybody except the people who
created the idea of 'em in the first place. If there's anything that
gives the lie to what passes for "conservatism" these days, it's right
here: Genuine civil rights-association, property, speech,
self-defense-were much better protected in the days before the prating
Jews and their colored parasite minions rose to the fore. Yet
recognition of the race-based nature of practical, effective, genuine
freedom will get you kicked out of the Libertarian party faster than
you can say Don't Do Drugs!
Libertarians take one aspect of looking at the world and inflate it
into the entire cosmos. This is their built-in bias. When you combine
it with their standard right-wing fear of crossing the Semitical
Correctness line, you have a second hurdle between them and racialism.
The conservative Christians share these political flaws. Their concern
is not for the race or the group, but for the salvation of the
individual soul. Of course, since in years past the Good Book has been
used to support virtually every position under the sun including
communism, there is a bit more hope for their conversion on the racial
issue, should the powers that be change. TV Christians have proven
able adopters of the Semitically Correct line. Israel is good and
racialism is bad. That's the message they're getting from New York,
and that's the message Pat Robertson is putting out to rural North
Carolina. The libertarians have their hated parties, but these are
always anonymous "bureaucrats" or "statists," or "socialists"-never
anyone you can actually get your hands on. Same with the Christian
conservatives. They are the equivalent of the libertarians in that the
former are excellent at certain types of economic reasoning (Why We
Should Privatize Trash Collection) while the Christians retain solid
moral and character-development advice. They are both good on the
small-picture stuff. But neither group can take a realistic look at
the general; they are both concerned about saving Heaven or Liberty
one soul at a time. They both simply refuse to make necessary
generalizations.
Christians, again like Libertarians, invariably throw their
opprobrium on carefully generic targets: Atheists, secular humanists
(gays are the one exception, and even here they say "Hate the sinner,
not the sin," as though that doesn't conflict with their doctrine of
free will). A Jew or a black or a Mexican is a vivid image,
immediately recognizable. The abstractions countered by the Christians
and the libertarians are creatures that nobody would recognize on a
public street. They are fighting abstactly against abstractions,
instead of coherently for something concrete.
Never do the Christians go after the Jews who are killing their
doctrines; never do they speak the name of their real enemy despite
the spittingly obscene provocations to which he has subjected them.
This is why, with tens of millions in numerical advantage, the
Christians aren't even masters of the civilization they created. In
fact, much of the leadership class of the Christians has become so
enthralled with Jewish ideas that now the church will bend any which
way the Jews require, whether it's removing the Commandments from the
classroom the way the Jew judge and Jew-created and -run ACLU tell
them to, or rewriting history to avoid the fact that Jews condemned
their own Savior to die (as in the revised [read: Semitically Correct]
Passion Plays)! They may think they are only turning the other cheek,
but self-abasing worms is what these new Christians truly are. This
used to be a religion whose adherents killed others in glorious
crusade for their Truth, and died at the stake before renouncing their
Faith. Today, the biggest name in Christendom hobnobs with nutty
Buddhists and faxes apologies to Jerusalem. For all its residual focus
on humility and self-discipline (welcome antacids to the Jewish public
school lies about self-esteem, which is really self-absorption and
self-worship; in a word, selfishness), the Christian church in America
is today furthering the racial evils that Jewish ideologues,
especially those misappropriating the name conservative, have
subjected us to. Pat Robertson has no problem with those influxing
Mexican chicken-pluckers heaping his collection plates, and has
publicly advocated miscegenation as the long-term solution to our
racial ills. If he preached miscegenation as a sin, as his hardier
forebears did, he would be burned at the stake. Pardon me, I mean, he
wouldn't be on TV. The fact that any evangelicals are on TV at all is
conditioned on their support for Israel and their multiracialism. This
is what makes their leaders despicable-not the hypocrisy and
White-trashiness the left and right would have us sneer at them for.
Recently Bush's first national campaign ad aired. It shows him at a
school surrounded by little black and brown kids, all well on their
way to becoming the computer programmers and doctors and lawyers and
Republicans of tomorrow. It seems the GOP has made up its mind which
way it's going. It's everyvato's party; down with the homies, too.
Make any show that persuades in order to capture power. The old
Clinton strategy. After all, reality is that waves of wets wash over
the border every night, and at some point they and their kids will
vote. The bulk White population is fading, and the core demographic
supporting conservative principles simply won't be there to swing a
presidential election in another ten years.
Even Jew-genuflecting National Review has noticed this Californication
of America, as has been termed in a different context. But sucking up
to the powers that be, angling for a spot, doing what he's told, is
something the middle-manager mind that makes up the Republican ranks
well understands. Ya got to roll with the punches, ya know?
White man, you have to decide. If you choose not to decide, you still
have made a choice, to make a phrase. You can pull a Christian
Scientist, and pretend that that brown spot on our national chest will
just go away if we think positive thoughts long enough, refuse to
acknowledge it. But it won't. Those coloreds swamping the border,
those grasping welfare niggers, those lying Jewish press manipulators
won't disappear of their own accord. Twenty years from now, George
Bush-Brown will be president, and all the things you fear today-
your kids blood-libeled at school; yourself discriminated against on
the job; your taxes higher than ever; your wife subject to insults,
rape or assault; your big cities gang-dominated; your small cities
dominated by nigger "music" and clothing pollution; your guns
outlawed; your political opinions criminalized; your TV louder and
more intrusive and hateful-will be worse. As Paul Gottfried shows,
but doesn't tell, the same Jews that have made the present possible
are working hard to make this future inevitable. But there is still a
window of opportunity. But only if you recognize that we-you and I
and the others reading this-are part of the White race, share
interests, and must band together. And that, politically, culturally
and socially, to achieve a civilized future, there is
NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS!
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index5.htm
Topaz
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> President Obama wants to build an infantilizing nanny state, albeit
>a socialist one rather than the national socialist one that white
>supremacists want.
>
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. That's why the Jews like it.
Obama wants to take from the Whites and give to the Blacks.
Democrats are for the Blacks, Republicans are for the Jews, it's all
bad.
And we are not supremacists, Jews are:
Exposing the Real Racists
Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been sold
worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian Duma (parliament).
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.
If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr.
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a
quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative
years... I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted
a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a
foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught
the superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.
'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.
In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an
'anti-Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In
very effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called
'anti-Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or
'anti-Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem
sects. But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important
leaders of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well
wind up in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.
While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.
INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT
In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled
'anti-Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define
that term.
In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.
Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-
'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'
With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.
ON ISRAELI TERROR
Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.
Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.
Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.
In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.
It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.
After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:18:49 -0800 (PST),Michael Ejercito
>
> > President Obama wants to build an infantilizing nanny state, albeit
> >a socialist one rather than the national socialist one that white
> >supremacists want.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. That's why the Jews like it.
>
> Obama wants to take from the Whites and give to the Blacks.
>
> Democrats are for the Blacks, Republicans are for the Jews, it's all
> bad.
>
> And we are not supremacists, Jews are:
>
> Exposing the Real Racists
> Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
> Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
>
> More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been sold
> worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian Duma (parliament).
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> No Way Out But Through the Jews
> A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
> by Alex Linder
>
> Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
> they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders.
> Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish
> participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are
> destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like
> the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The
> Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.
As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.
You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know
you can not measure up.
You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.
You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.
You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National
Socialism.
Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you... which is why you choose minor
children as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent
adults in a consensually sexual
way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a helpless victim, be
it a prepubescent
boy, or a patient in a mental hospital.
That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or
honest about it.
Michael
Topaz
Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
Otto Dietrich
The "Dritte Reich" stands firm. It rests on its foundations, on the
immortal values of the Nordic Race, and in the depth of Germany's
soul.
We call Adolf Hitler our "Leader" (Fuehrer), because that is what he
is. He united State and Nation in Germany.
Only the eye-witness, who has experienced day by day, at the side of
Adolf Hitler, the wave of love and enthusiasm which greets him from
every class of German, can realize that such ovations, so rare in the
life of statesmen, signify no artificial feeling, but genuine
affection.. Hundreds, thousands throng the streets and roads, and
surge toward his car.. The scenes which we witness day by day are
touching and heart-rending. They are not isolated examples, but occur
everywhere.
The history of the National Socialist Movement shall be handed down to
posterity as the epic of the resurrected German Nation.
With indomitable will and unprecedented perseverance, which no
reverse can dishearten, this previously unknown man of the people,
with a few faithful adherents, dared to pierce the lines of the
Marxist terror.. He knows; terror is not overcome by intellect, but by
terror.
Adolf Hitler was not permitted to speak in public. The party lacked
the most essential means. It's existence during the following years -
probably the most arduous of its life - was one long series of
persecutions, muzzling, and trickery. Whoever admitted National
Socialism, was banished from civil life, from the decadent bourgeoisie
and from the class-conscious workers. The mere suspicion of National
Socialism meant the loss of employment and bread, boycott and ruin of
business interests, the inevitable acceptance of misery.
Hundreds, thousands were imprisoned by the November State Government.
Throughout the streets raged bloodshed and scenes of Marxist terror.
All the powers of hell were let loose against the advancing young
movement.
After twelve years of inconceivably laborious preparation, the
N.S.D.A.P. felt strong enough to knock at the door of power in the
Reich
But strong elements of economic opposition were still prevalent, and
these he attacked at the beginning of 1932.
Even today, I can picture this meeting of prominent men. We came for
Godesberg, and drove up to the Park Hotel, amidst the hooting of the
Marxists. The room was over crowded. Huddled together, sat the chief
West German magnates. There were familiar and unfamiliar faces. Men in
the public eye , and those quiet , but no less influential powers,
who, moving behind the scenes, control the fate of economy by the soft
sounds issuing from their private offices- men said to bear a ledger
rather than a heart.
Joyful expectation brightened the faces of those already converted.
But the vast majority bore an air of superiority and cool reserve-
probably flattered that Hitler had approached them. Mere curiosity,
and general interest lured them to the meeting. They wanted to hear
Hitler speak. They had no intention of being converted; the came to
criticize, seeking confirmation of their own infallible opinion.
Our leader received a chilly ovation; he spoke from a slightly raised,
projecting balustrade, he hands resting lightly on the iron railing. I
sat, amongst the listeners, taking notes, and observing the effect of
his speech which lasted for over two hours. From world political
perspective and with cogent logic, out leader elucidated the relations
between economy and politics, their reciprocal effect, and their
results in Germany. He explained the cause of the situation , and
proposed the only possible remedy.
The general impression upon this group of most impassive listeners was
astounding. After an hour, their chilly reserve gave way to intense
interest. Hitler spoke of the titanic struggle of his political
warriors, needy and persecuted, but making every sacrifice, even that
of life, for their nation. He contrasted the German youth's unselfish
idealism, personified in National Socialism, and the noble character
of working-class followers, with the lack of comprehension, the
materialism, and the heavy guilt of the purely economically
established Bourgeoisie. He pricked their social conscience without
causing offence.
They began to flush, fixed their gaze upon out Leader's lips, and it
seemed as if their hearts were moved. He spoke to their very souls.
Faint, then thundering applause greeted Hitler at the conclusion of
his speech; he had won a battle.
The Jewish and Marxist Press lied boldly next day that Hitler had
feasted with the industrial magnates on champagne and lobsters.
Actually, a few minutes later, the night say us on the road again,
bent on fresh work.
Next day, Hitler addressed with equal success the Crefeld Silk
magnates in Godesberg. Later the national club in Hamburg. Everywhere,
the scene was the same.
Those were daring journeys, fraught with danger, through the very
strongholds of the Marxist potentates who were on the track of their
hated, sworn foe.
But Adolf Hitler fought his way through. The number-plate of his car
was smeared with oil and coated with dust- quite indiscernible.
Then we held our first meeting in Goerlitz, where the attendance
exceeded the hundred thousand figure. All the roads were crowed with
masses of people on foot, on bicycles, and in lorries, all with the
same destination.
Hitler spoke as the stars arose in the heavens, and amidst the flaring
torches.
Now the crowds recognized the luminous plane carrying our leader, who
had just devoted his time to them. Cheers broke out from a hundred
thousand throats, drowning even the thunder of our motors, whilst the
crowds brandished flaming torches in greeting.
We have experienced the following fact; In Germany, wherever economic
and moral distress was greatest, wherever things seemed most
intolerable, there, confidence in our leader was strongest, and
gripped all the people.
Wherever our leader approached, every man and woman came out. Crowds
lined the streets. Aged grandmothers, on whose distressed faces the
direst poverty was written, raised their arms in greeting. Wherever we
stopped, the women stretched out their children towards our leader.
There were tears of joy and emotion.
They used to meet upon the Platterhof. Adolf Hitler would often come
in the night fog to the Platterhof, to take counsel with his friends.
The "Conservative State Idea" appropriated our ideas. The most ancient
political mummies of the past suddenly appeared upon the scene, and,
without shame, claimed the credit for out previous successes.
The Youth stood by Hitler, because it knew that he personified the
Nation's Youth. From the beginning, our leader had valued most highly
the immense importance of Youth for the movement. Not the old
generation, but a rising generation, uncorrupted by the destructive
poison of the world ideas of the ruling classes, could bear the new
Germany upon its shoulders.
Finally, on 30th January, 1933, our leader made the short drive over
the Wilhelmsplatz to the Reichskanzler's Office. Amidst boundless
cheers. The seige was over, the fortress had fallen, the gates lay
open.
The political lie had played a prominent role in all epochs of
parliamentary history. But such accumulations of lies and defamations
as our opponents have hurled against the awakening young Germany in
the course of our 13 years' struggle have not been experienced.
What National Socialist's blood does not boil, if he recalls the rapid
fire of press lies, that witches Sabbath of infernal songs of hatred,
which burst upon the National Socialist Movement every day?
The activity of the Marxist Press against National Socialism, by means
of profligacy, unscrupulous lies and base agitation of the public,
stands unrivalled throughout the press of the whole world.
But this systematic lying campaign of our opponents was always the
best evidence of the moral weakness of their own position. The more
desperate their situation was, the more unscrupulous became their
press agitation.
The agitation of the Jewish-Marxist Press against the N.S.D.A.P., has
been such an essential ingredient of our opponents' struggle during
all these years, that we would be guilty of historical forgery if we
did not lay due stress upon this lying campaign in our description of
the events.
The National Socialist Party has re-united people and State, it has
restored the people to the State, and the State to the people. In this
way, an organism, complete within itself, and comprising every
function of the life of the community, was born from the Nation
itself, in the midst of a decadent people and a corrupt State.
In Nuremberg, the Party represented the German people and the German
State, before the eyes of the whole world. This was a more complete, a
more morally dignified, and a more imposing representation than the
State and Nation have ever previously enjoyed.
If proves the recognition that a new valuation of men, a valuation
based upon the laws of nature, is beginning to force its way through
from the hearts of the European Nations. It is about to overcome
Liberalism, and replace it by a new conception of the living
community.
The democratic, parliamentary Liberalism apodictically claimed for
itself the eternal title of the most purposeful and best form of
representation of the peoples rights. At last with its own eyes, the
Nation has recognized National Socialism as the organization of
naturally chosen leaders. National Socialism's achievements in the
fields of Socialism, Economy, Administration, and Reformation of the
Reich, speak for themselves. In one sweep, these leaders have
accomplished what dozens of previous parliamentary, democratic
governments vainly attempted in the most deplorable way.
Probably it is an act of justice and compensation, that the German
Nation, so sorely afflicted by the world-war, is chosen to lead the
way to a better future for the nations.
Michael Ejercito
> Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
> Otto Dietrich
>
> The "Dritte Reich" stands firm. It rests on its foundations, on the
> immortal values of the Nordic Race, and in the depth of Germany's
> soul.
>
It lay in ruins in 1945.
Michael
Topaz
Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
they were outnumbered. Hitler made Germany great. Of course the Jew
parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately the bad side won the war.
Compare the size of Germany to the size of the Jewish controlled
countries, the USA and the USSR.
An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, January 21, 1945
The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
by Joseph Goebbels
One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind
the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural
forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and
keep humanity in the dark. It is so to speak the mortar that holds the
enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class,
ideology and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish
roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same
fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the
nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public
opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is
plain to see that it may never be named in newspapers, speeches and
radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes
anti-Semitism - or in plain English, public education about the Jewish
Question - by death. The expert in these matters is in no way
surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New
Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid
throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its
goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the
nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a
discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.
It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle
against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by
the executioner, rather by death through economic and social boycott
and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were made by the Jewry. They enjoy its
full support and reward it with their full protection. They present
themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one
never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing
hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is
fully justified. Jewry is a tabu theme in the enemy countries. It
stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its
host peoples. While enemy soldiers fight, bleed and die at the front,
the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and
black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the
Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press,
chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into
public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They
want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world: to give Jewry
absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even
debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe
through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the
epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the
nations that deserve freedom.
That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance.
We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the
Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had
mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer
conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every
Russian, English and American soldier is a mercenary of this world
conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war,
who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front
for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a
decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of
the war would mean the dawning knowledge of humanity of the unhealthy
role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out
this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become
unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the
night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which
are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.
They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International
Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things
are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples
of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here too
things can only go so far.
It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit
education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives,
thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse
cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public
opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies
and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful
illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the
publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends
to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish
Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The
Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although
everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is
where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends.
Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen and church leaders must be silent
here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the
blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in
enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public
life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be
pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is
backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress.
We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger,
and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German
knowledge will become the knowledge of he world at the end of this
war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to
make that happen.
Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull
and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the
incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has
guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as
noble, beautiful and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews
hate it. They despite our culture and learning, which they perceive as
towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and
social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives, They
are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their
anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that
is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political
and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national
body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us
from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan,
that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural
values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand
them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of
human creative activity are forever out of their reach, they must
attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations
of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews
are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account,
and soon and thoroughly!
International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great
reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that
one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help
them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist
revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and
small, is so plain that they can no longer be denied even with the
most clever lies and hypocrisy.
Who is it that drives the Russians, the English and the Americans into
battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless
struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and
radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have
deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of
hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a
dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life
and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the
unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and
Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its
continuance? Who covers the most perverse political situations with
cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the
nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe?
The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and
stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named
Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill's money bags and order
givers. They are named Kaganovitsch and Ehrenburg and are Stalin's
pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see
Jews. They march as political commisars behind the Red army and
organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They
sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and
fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have
fallen under their power.
That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in
their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their
ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the
spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently
believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.
And this is their mistake, which they always make when think
themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination.
Thoughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation
developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became
the grave diggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy
peoples, rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the
realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the
greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become
that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that
way this time too.
The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize
this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy
instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose
results will determine of fate and the future of International Jewry.
We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred
and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only
proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze
on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of
hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that
fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world
revolution against the Jews that threateend not only Germany, but all
the other nations, began.
It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth can not be
stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet
their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, rather they will
lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so
often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or
later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know
precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of he Earth may
still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How
will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power
rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay. One hard
blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of
the world in its ruins.
Michael Ejercito
> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> they were outnumbered. Hitler made Germany great. Of course the Jew
> parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately the bad side won the war.
> Compare the size of Germany to the size of the Jewish controlled
> countries, the USA and the USSR.
>
> An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, January 21, 1945
A Nazi nithing who murdered his children.
> The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
> by Joseph Goebbels
>
Age of consent laws are your misfortune.
Topaz
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.