Humour, philosophy and racism
davout
are racist? Whether it includes a reference to the Irish or Pakistanis,
when is it philosophical valid to find such humour funny?
What should be the action of a person interested in philosophy to the
purveyors of such humour? Alternatively, if you happen to find a joke
funny and then afterwards realize that the content is discriminatory or
based upon negative ethnic stereotypes, what should be your own reaction?
Is humour above such reflections?
Tracy
"davout" <davoutXXX...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:433c113c$0$11728$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
because I was brought up to respect all races. I think I find some jokes
funny when they appear to be true but then that is stereotyping.
The *BEST* humour is when you hear a joke or watch a comedy on tv where the
people in question are laughing at themselves. It makes me feel more
comfortable knowing that the stigma of political correctness need not apply
when all people can see the funny side.
We should all be able to take a joke!
Robert Cohen
Since realities persist in absurdites, then so treat 'em.
Don't feel too guilty about whatever you think you should feel guilty
about.
I just read a book review about the Yiddish language.
I'll post it for philosophical reflection, infliction and derogation:
For instance, that white nationalist will say: "see."
copyrighted ny the ny times 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/books/28grim.html
Books of The Times | 'Born to Kvetch'
To Provoke in Yiddish, Try 'How Are You?'
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article
By WILLIAM GRIMES
Published: September 28, 2005
Most children watching "The Three Stooges" didn't realize it, but an
understanding of Yiddish was required to get a lot of the jokes. In one
episode, when Larry hears that Moe is heading to a hockshop, he says,
"While you're there, hock me a tshaynik." What must have sounded like
pure nonsense to most viewers was a Yiddish pun, one that Michael Wex,
in his wise, witty and altogether wonderful "Born to Kvetch," lays on
the table for analysis.
Skip to next paragraph
St. Martin's Press
Michael Wex.
BORN TO KVETCH
Yiddish Language and Culture in All of Its Moods
By Michael Wex
303 pages. St. Martin's Press. $24.95.
Forum: Book News and Reviews
St. Martin's Press
A "tshaynik" is a teakettle. "Hak," or "huk," comes from a verb meaning
"to knock." What's the connection? Imagine a boiling teakettle. The
more it boils, the emptier it gets, and the louder and more annoyingly
the lid bangs. The very popular phrase "Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik"
literally means "Don't knock me a teakettle." Figuratively, as Mr. Wex
translates it, it means "you don't have to shut up completely, but I'd
really appreciate it if you'd stop rattling on about the same damned
thing all the time."
Mr. Wex, a Yiddish translator, university teacher, novelist and
stand-up comic, has many such examples up his sleeve, but "Born to
Kvetch" is much more than a greatest-hits collection of colorful
Yiddish expressions. It is a thoughtful inquiry into the religious and
cultural substrata of Yiddish, the underlying harmonic structure that
allows the language to sing, usually in a mournful minor key.
Yiddish is the language par excellence of complaint. How could it be
otherwise? It took root among Jews scattered across Western Europe
during the Middle Ages and evolved over centuries of persecution and
transience. It is, Mr. Wex writes, "the national language of nowhere,"
the medium of expression for a people without a home. "Judaism is
defined by exile, and exile without complaint is tourism," as Mr. Wex
neatly puts it.
To be Jewish, in other words, is to kvetch. If the Rolling Stones' "(I
Can't Get No) Satisfaction" had been translated into Yiddish, Mr. Wex
writes, "it would have been called '(I Love to Keep Telling You That I
Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Because Telling You That I'm Not Satisfied
Is All That Can Satisfy Me).' "
Mr. Wex finds a second source of Yiddish's prevailing tone in the Torah
and its attached Talmudic commentary. The Jews who transmuted German
into Yiddish were steeped in Jewish law, whose style and phraseology
made their way into the developing language and put down deep roots.
Yiddish thrives on argument, hairsplitting and arcane points of law and
proper behavior. Half the time, Yiddish itself is the object of
dispute, a language, Mr. Wex writes, "in which you can't open your
mouth without finding out that, no matter what you're saying, you're
saying it wrong."
When you get it right, it can be a beautiful thing. Or a lethal weapon.
Yiddish excels at the fine art of the insult and the curse, or klole,
which Mr. Wex, in a chapter titled "You Should Grow Like an Onion,"
calls "the kvetch-militant." Americans generally stick to short,
efficient four-letter words when doling out abuse. Yiddish has lots of
those, too, and it abounds in terse put-downs like "shtik fleysh mit
oygn." Applied to a stupid person, it means "a piece of meat with
eyes." More often, though, Yiddish speakers, like the Elizabethans,
like to exploit the full resources of the language when the occasion
requires.
Yiddish is rich in curses that, at their best, leave just enough to the
imagination to keep the recipient tossing and turning at night, poring
over possible implications. "It isn't a matter of yelling out bad
words; the trick is to put good ones together in the most damaging
possible way," Mr. Wex explains.
A simple, American-style "drop dead" might be rendered as "a dismal
animal death on you" ("a viste pgire af dir"), which, Mr. Wex, notes,
carries the suggestion that "you should spend the rest of your tiny
life in a Colorado feedlot, then be herded off to some nonunion
slaughterhouse to be turned, painfully, into fast-food burgers for one
of the less prominent chains."
Yiddish is not a "have a nice day" language. "How are you?," a
perfectly innocent question in English, is a provocation in Yiddish,
which does not lend itself to happy talk. "How should I be?" is a
fairly neutral answer to the question. Theoretically it is possible to
say "gants gut" ("real good"), but this is a phrase that the author
says he has never heard in his life. "As a response to a Yiddish
question, it marks you as someone who knows some Yiddish words but
doesn't really understand the language," he writes.
It probably helps to know a little Yiddish to extract maximum enjoyment
from "Born to Kvetch," but even readers with minimal "bacon Yiddish"
("schlep," "schmear," "maven" and the like) can appreciate vocabulary
words like "kishke-gelt" (literally "gut money," earned by
self-deprivation so extreme that it's ripped from the intestines) and
expressions like "lakhn mit yashtsherkes," which means "laugh with the
lizards" and refers to a bitter kind of jollity, the kind of laughter
that keeps you from crying.
Mr. Wex has perfect pitch. He always finds the precise word, the most
vivid metaphor, for his juicy Yiddishisms, and he enjoys teasing out
complexities. His tour through the vocabulary of traditional
punishments meted out to schoolchildren, collectively known as the
"matnas yad," or "gift of the hand," may be his finest riff, a subtly
differentiated taxonomy of pain that starts with the "knip" ("pinch")
and proceeds to the "shnel" ("flick"), the "patsh" ("slap") the "zets"
("hard slap") and the "flem" ("resounding smack").
At the far end lies the "khmal" or "khmalye," "the all-out murder-one
wallop that makes its victims 'zen kroke mit lemberik.' " It's so hard,
in other words, that the student sees Krakow as his head snaps forward
and Lemberg (present-day Lviv in Ukraine) on the return trip.
That hurts. But it's funny, too. All you can do is laugh with the
lizards.
Next Article in Books (6 of 40) >Special Offer: Home Delivery of The
Times from $2.90/week.
Bret Cahill
That often happens even with otherwise open minded people.
For example, a liberal Jewish visitor was complaining to me about how
the rightards at his JCC were telling the Russian immigrant Jews to
vote for Bush even though they didn't even speak English. I related
this to a liberal gentile acquaintence mostly because he was always
complaining to me in the exact same way about his fundy relatives
supporting Bush.
The normal logical expectation is anyone would see that there are nice
liberal Jews and there are rightard Jews -- just like every other group
in the U. S.
It didn't work. For him it was just proof that Jews were corrupt. He
somehow ignored altogether the fact that I heard it from a Jew.
It requires a certain amount of pluralism to criticize yourself, your
family or any group you happen to belong. Just make sure you are
around pluralistic openminded people when you do it.
Bret Cahill
Topaz
It doesn't take long to figure out what groups can be insulted and
what groups for which this is taboo. They made a movie called "Legally
Blonde", which of course I did not see. It's well known that you can
joke about blondes anywhere and it is accepted and you don't get
fired. If you joke about Blacks you do get fired. Blondes are fair
game because they are White and probably not Jews. Jews control the
media and the entire culture. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Women can only be insulted if they are blonde. It's actually White
men that the Jews really hate. In their show "Simpsons" they regularly
show all the men as stupid and all the women as smart. This is also
the Jewish show that said the French were "Cheese eating surrender
monkeys", for not going along with the Jews agenda. What if there was
a show calling Jews "money grubbing culture corrupters"? Of course
that would never be on TV. "Beavis and Butthead" are of course White
men.
The Jews also hate Arabs. They want to steal Arab land of course.
But they also hate people who are against the homosexual perverts and
the feminists. Look at any film of the Jews country and see how many
female policemen they have. Arabs are the opposite of Jews. Maybe they
are too extreme on the opposite direction. But they have traditional
values that the USA and other liberal, Jewish controlled countries
don't have. The spokesmen for the so-called "right" in America are
Rush Limbaugh, who is probably a Jew, (He once said on his show he
and his Jewish rabbi--Rush used the words, "My rabbi"- had traveled to
Israel and met there privately with former Israeli Prime Minister
Shimon Peres.) and other Jewish neo-cons. The TV can then truthfully
declare that they are unbiased and they appear neutral and fair
between the Republicans and the Democrats, since they are both firmly
in the Jewish play pen and are not likely to wonder out.
This quote explains what is going on in the Middle East:
Der Stürmer, #23/1944, What is Americanism
"The family ties between hundreds of thousands of German families and
their American relatives led many to think that America would never
join a second war against Germany. Now that that has happened, many
Germans still believe that America will never allow Bolshevism to
conquer and destroy Germany. Recent events have proven how false and
dangerous this idea is. One has to be foolish or irredeemably stupid
to believe that anything good can come to Europe from the land of
presumed opportunity. That that did not happen after the First World
War, and will not happen after the second. The Jews have made America
what it is today: a nation raped by the Jews , a nation whose
130,000,000 people of many colors and races have been forced into
helping the Jews achieve world domination!"
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Immortalist
BOZO CAMPS
(1) A group of bozos on a city street agree to join an social
experiment.
(2) Subjects (bozos) are divided into groups on basis of trivial
criteria like flipping a coin to deterimine if one is in Group X or
Group Y.
(3) Subjects do not interact, either within or between groups.
(4) Members of own group and other group remain anonymous.
(5) Subjects are then asked to allot money to two other subjects,
designated only by code number and group membership (X or Y). Subjects
own outcomes will not be affected by their allocation decisions.
(6) Despite minimal nature of these groups, subjects allocations
consistently favored other members of their own arbitrarily designated
groups, at the expense of members of the recently typed "outgroups".
[Tajfel] argues that the reason for this allocation strategy is to
create a differentiation between the groups which permits their group
membership to enhance their social identity.
Unreflected Ingroup Favoritism - and the bozo effect.
One who reflects does not discriminate?: On the role of unreflected
cognitive processes for the occurrence of ingroup favoritism between
artificial groups; A categorization of individuals in two groups based
on completely trivial criteria like flipping a coin to determine which
group one is assigned (Group X or Group Y), can be sufficient to cause
mutual preferences for one's own group.
Social identity theory assumes a fundamental striving towards a
positive distinction of one's own group from other groups. The tendency
to a preference for one's own group is clearly reduced in a situation
involving intergroup judgments on negative comparison dimensions or
distribution decisions on negative stimuli (burdens, aversive stimuli),
in comparison to those in the positive realm.
These basic judgment processes may be the fundamental determining
factors of and conditions for social discrimination. Of some influence
may be the role which evaluations of oneself play for the positive
evaluation of minimal social groups. It is assumed that an unreflected
cognitive process is critical for this, in the course of which, as a
rule, the positive self-image is transferred to the new ingroup. Due to
the lesser degree of similarity to oneself, an outgroup cannot benefit
from such a generalization process.
Correspondingly, a positive distinctiveness of one's own group can
result solely from the self-ingroup relation, independent of an
ingroup-outgroup comparison. There is a generalized positive attitude
to the ingroup, and demonstrating the role of a low degree of
reflection for the occurrence of favoritism in minimal intergroup
situations and considerations of outgroups.
The randomly assigned individuals generally act as if those who share
their meaningless label are their good friends or close kin. Subjects
indicate that they like those who share their label. They rate others
who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality and
to have produced better output than outgroup members. Most strikingly,
subjects allocate more money and rewards to those who share their
labels.
In other related social experiments at political rallies it has been
noted that researchers faking injuries, were helped more or less
depending on whether their protest sign, and slogans supported or went
against those around them who could help.
In tribal societies there is an us/them mentality supreme with some
tribes claiming other tribes are not even human. Ingroup/Outgroup
pressures can't be removed without losing something here. It would be
well to note one of the modern appearances of these trends in the
Kingships of western and central Europe. Religious interests, royal or
imperial interest from the old empire side, the common people, princes
and many various interests, can be matched one to one with all the
current fluctuating interests in our modern politic.
It seems to me that on a level of societal morality these interest
group tension can't be removed from the consideration of morality.
Loyal/Opposition?
http://tinyurl.com/9mha
http://tinyurl.com/9mhe
ON CAMPING:
Appeal to Rugged Individualism
Classification: A deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in
the major premiss, in the Ad Veridundiam family.
Description: The argument attempts to support a position by appealing
to the opinion of a small (but opinionated) group of people, or even of
a single person. The presumed authority of this person or group comes
from their willingness to stand alone against majority opinion.
Examples:
"Be original. Drink Dr. Pepper."
"The few. The proud. The Marines."
If it is a bad idea to accept a position merely because it is popular,
it is an even worse idea to accept a position merely because it is
unpopular. Yet Americans (at least) are strongly attracted to this
pattern of reasoning, and advertisers are happy to exploit our
attraction. Psychologically, the fallacy plays upon the desire to be
above the crowd, better than others, a leader rather than a follower.
People who pride themselves on being rational are much more likely to
fall into this fallacy than they are to fall into its opposite, the
Appeal to Popularity. The reason is not just that people who try to be
rational have a stronger desire to be individualists (although this may
be true). The reason is, rather, that being "rational" requires
thinking arguments through for oneself. Thinking things through for
yourself may lead you to unique insights. It may give you things to say
about a subject other than what everyone else is saying. Hence it is
often a good indication that someone has thought a position through
when he take a view that is not just like the mainstream view.
However, because it is true that people who take unusual positions have
often thought deeply about the matter, a person who has not thought a
position through may appear to be more thoughtful merely by holding
positions that are unusual and eccentric. That is, holding unusual
positions may create the illusion that you have thought things through,
even if you have not.
The fallacy of Appeal to Rugged Individualism is always ironically
self-limiting. We attempt to persuade in order to get others to agree
with our opinions. Imagine everyone adopting a certain position on the
grounds that it was unpopular - only to discover that everyone else has
also adopted the view for the same reason! Fortunately, thinking things
through for yourself does not mean holding unpopular beliefs; it means
holding whatever beliefs reason leads you to, whether they are popular
or not.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-west.htm
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/ruggedsupp.html
http://diglib.lsu.edu/tahil/depression/unemployed.htm
http://fto.int8.com/articles/ruggedindividualism/
> Is humour above such reflections?
Humour tickles human natures.
Robert Cohen
Jews:
10. Legally blonde (bimbos)
9. (Homer, Ned Flanders, Rev Lovejoy, Principal Skinner)
8. Cheese eating surrender monkeys
7-1. Beavis 'n Butthead, (Hank Hill, Arlin, Texas)
0. (Family Guy wasn't mentioned, but there's a case there)
Bret Cahill
because people with blonde hair are dumber but because they tend to be
younger.
A lot of blond kids get darker hair as they get older -- and smarter.
Bret Cahill
Sleepyhead
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
The Jew? There was only one of them?
Robert Cohen
I've been meaning to post something about Freemasonry phenomena.
This post is not about The daVinci Code, the best-selling book and
coming movie which is controversial in Catholic-Protestant relations
while Christians generally seem to be fascinated with the conspiracy
hypotheses/contents/mongering phenomena.
In the southeastern USA, and elsewhere in the USA, the Masons &
Shriners are seemingly not generally considered as bogeypersons
(devilish), as may still be the case in Russia & other precincts of
Europe.
Most everybody here is a member, has a relative or neighbor in it,
and/or has an involved friend.
The MEIN KEMP liturgy's "Freemasonry"-thing I infer as an archaic
import.
Here it's also not so simple to describe, but I shall subjectively post
this observation nevertheless:
Masons have been alleged to wear KKK sheets here too, while Jews have
been accepted as members of some temples, and black people apparently
have had separate Masonry institutions: If that's not complex &
absurdist stuff too, then what is?
Sleepyhead
hysterical White-Power ranting)!
Here are some thoughts I've had ...
1) It depends on whether the people who are the butt of the joke find
it amusing.
2) There are some caveats to (1) though ...
a) Some people will take offence at anything. People like this should
just be ignored;
b) If you've been inculculated into hating your own race then it's a
moot point whether or not you're able to objectively assess the
offensive nature of a racial joke (this is, partly, Topaz's point);
3) Just because a joke contains a racial element doesn't mean it's a
racist joke - it's only racist if it:
a) encourages the belief that race accounts for differences in human
character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others,
or
b) encourages discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Of course the purpose of humour is sometimes to poke fun at our
prejudices, and one can only effectively do that by airing them ...
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/theory.html
"Lenny Bruce counted on the intellectual basis of comedy when, in one
of his routines, he identified all the races and ethnic groups in his
audience with insulting labels: "I see we have three niggers in the
audience. And over there I see two wogs, and five spics, and four
kikes," etc.. As he started the routine there were gasps of incredulity
and even anger: the audience couldn't believe that Bruce would be so
insulting and insensitive. But as Bruce continued and the list grew
longer, and it became clear that he was listing everything he could
think of, the words lost their connotative, emotional meaning as
insulting terms and turned into just noises. In other words, they lost
their emotive content and became an intellectual exercise in how words
lose their meanings outside of context. At this point, the audience,
all of whom had been appalled and angry at exactly the same words,
started laughing at them: the audience was reacting intellectually, not
emotionally."
In which case the significant question would seem to be "What's the
point of this joke" instead of "Who's the butt of this joke?", but
that's only because in the example just mentioned the butt of the joke
was /everyone/. If he'd just stopped at the first sentence he would've
been just like Topaz - another idiotic pink-coloured monkey hurling
excrement at the brown-coloured monkeys in the next tree.?
> Is humour above such reflections?
No, but such reflections tend to destroy the humour!
Topaz
Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique
Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:
"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."
Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."
This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.
Sleepyhead
At least you've stopped talking about "The Jew" now. Strange how you
haven't decided to pick holes in any of the other ethnic minorities
that make up the USA. Puerto-Ricans, Mexicans, Afro-Carribeans,
English, Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, Morroccans,
Italians, Scicilians, Cubans, Native-American Indians. Strange how the
more races one adds to this list, the more your arguments about a pure
race seem to disappear into the smoke and mirrors they truly are. Pure
race? In what sense 'pure'? 'Pure' in comparison with what?
Bret Cahill
> this observation nevertheless:
>
> Masons have been alleged to wear KKK sheets here too, while Jews have
> been accepted as members of some temples, and black people apparently
> have had separate Masonry institutions: If that's not complex &
> absurdist stuff too, then what is?
Someone needs to put up a web site with all the different groups on the
planet, their prejudices, the historical background, etc. It would be
a massive undertaking even if you restricted yourself to the bigger
issues and groups.
Bret Cahill
Topaz
wrote:
The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
mixing Whites with other races. Because of this it will get harder
and harder to find White neigborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live in.
We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.
Our opponents say it is impossible to have White homeland because
they say we can not determine who is White and who is not. Even though
they can determine this easily enough when they want affirmitive
action, they say that we can not.
It is the same as if they said we can not determine red cars from
cars that are not red. They would say that it is impossible to call a
car red until we have an exact definition of what is red. It would be
reasonable if they pointed out that some cars are borderline and it
would be hard to say if they are red or not. But that is not what they
are saying. They are saying that we can not in any case tell if a car
is red or not.
If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if
people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
Roger Johansson
Topaz wrote:
The best and most important positive achievement of
the 20th century is that we solved the problem with racism.
There may be a few small pockets of resistance left but most
of the people in the world now accept that we are one race,
the human race, no matter what color we are.
> The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
> mixing Whites with other races. Because of this it will get harder
> and harder to find White neigborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live in.
> We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.
Get lost, racist.
--
Roger Johansson.
Topaz
nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot
of Black people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage.
Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to
preserve the White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
the blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded
a superior type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and Negroid all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined
by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only
by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing
this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer
insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no
more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquility, so that
everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high
mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity
which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
Sleepyhead
Have you actually read any history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal
> A 1910 revolution deposed the Portuguese monarchy starting the First Republic. Political chaos, strikes, harsh relations with the Church, and considerable economic problems aggravated by a disastrous military intervention in the First World War led to a military coup d'état in 1926, installing the Second Republic that would later become the Estado Novo in 1933, led by António de Oliveira Salazar, an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship, which later evolved into a type of single party corporate regime. Later, Portugal became a founding member of NATO and EFTA, as well as OECD. India invaded and liberated Portuguese occupied parts of India in 1961. Independence movements also became active in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea, and a series of colonial wars started.
So the reasons Portugal's in the shit and only just starting to recover
were:
Political chaos (obviously motivated by pink-skins)
Strikes (also obviously motivated by non pink-skins)
Harsh relations with the church (again - it's so obvious - non-pink
skins were involved)
Economic problems (must be those darned non-pink skins again)
Disastrous military intervention (goaded on by the non-pink skins)
A military coup d'état (probably led by non-pink skins)
An authoritarian right-wing dictatorship (ah! those cunning non-pink
skins - see how they love authoritarian right-wing dictatorship)
Oh, but Wikipedia won't tell you what /really/ happened will they,
Topaz? Because they've got a vested interest in lying to people about
the /real/ truth that White men once ruled a Utopian world, where
dinosaurs roamed the earth, magic fairies cast magnificent spells,
wizards flew down from above and, hand-in-hand with the angels, all the
choirs of heaven, and coloured people of all kinds worshipped at the
feet of our forefathers, crying "Save us! Save us! Save us from
ourselves! We are poor children who don't know what the fuck is going
on! Superman! Uberman! Come to our aid!".
So ...
When did you develop this definitional problem with the concept 'real'?
Wanna talk about your childhood any?
Robert Cohen
Spain, prior to the so-called Spanish Inquisition, was considered
relatively politically-economically strong.
I'm not as cognizant about Portugal's status as what I've gathered
about Spain's status.
Jews (and Moslems?) were apparently fairly decently treated in Spain,
and its pluralistic civilization apparently flourished.
However, upon the awful Spanish Inquisition (circa 1492), the Sephardi
Jews (& the Moslems?) were either forcibly converted, or killed, or
fled.
Some Spanish Jews went to Portugal, Marranos (secret believers)
blending-in, and apparently the population of Portugal to this very
day is guess-timated as approximately of twenty percent Jewish descent.
There is a (possibly apocraphyl) story about a very isolated man who
said he was a Jew, circa mid 20th century Portugal, whom had not heard
about the Holocaust nor WW II.
.
National Alliance Terrorism
cloak their hatred in a thin veneer of academic "scholarship". They are
intelligent enough to realize that if they come right out and espouse
the murder and persecution of minority groups that people will reject
them out of hand, so they quietly work to undermine tollerance and
build hatred. They lay the foundation for later attrocities.
Kevin Macdonald writes for the Occidental Quarterly which calls for the
purification of the "White" race, the banning of all culture in America
except for "Classical, Christian, and Germanic" and the restriction of
US citizenship and immigration to
"...selected people of European ancestry."
He advocates in his books for systematic discrimination against Jews in
college admission and employment and heavy taxation of Jews "to counter
the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth."
Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting "basic
principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology" and failing "basic
tests of scientific credibility.
MacDonald blew whatever minute credibility he might have had when he
enthusiastically testified for (Holocaust denier) David Irving,
claiming that "he isn't an anti-Semite". Birds of a feather flock
together. And flying halfway around the world to claim that a Holocaust
denier "is not an anti-semite" is hardly the action of an objective
scholar.
Just like David Duke, Macdonald claims he has no bias or hatred against
Jews. People who have researched the claims and references in his books
have illustrated otherwise (see below). Although his simple-minded
Neo-Nazi supporters endlessly scream that he dares to tell the truth
about Jews, the crafting of Nazi propoganda is a complex art. Mcdonald
uses misrepresentation, distortion and selective reporting of facts to
promote his racist agenda and his threatening and evil conclusions
about Jews.
-----
Subtle Inflections and Selective Silences: MacDonald on Jews in the
Secret Police
Although MacDonald repeatedly assures his readers that the communist
government in Poland was "Jewish-dominated" in the years immediately
after the Second World War, he devotes comparatively little space to
discussing Jewish participation in actual government operations. The
only government function he treats at any level of detail is the secret
police force. I suspect this is because he rightly believes that their
participation in such an abhorrent organization may be the most
devastating charge that can be leveled against Jewish communists in
Poland; it would certainly appeal to any reader predisposed to accept
indications of inherent Jewish malevolence. Taking MacDonald's word for
it, the secret police would appear to have been a fundamentally Jewish
institution:
Quote:
Jewish ethnic background was particularly important in recruiting for
the internal security service: The generation of Jewish communists
realized that their power derived entirely from the Soviet Union and
that they would have to resort to coercion in order to control a
fundamentally hostile noncommunist society ([Schatz 1991,] p. 262). The
core members of the security service came from the Jewish communists
who had been communists before the establishment of the Polish
communist government, but these were joined by other Jews sympathetic
to the government and alienated from the wider society. This in turn
reinforced the popular image of Jews as servants of foreign interests
and enemies of ethnic Poles (Schatz 1991, 225).[MacDonald, Culture of
Critique, p. 66; emphasis added]
Compare the foregoing with what Schatz actually says on page 225. The
following would appear to be the text upon which MacDonald bases the
assertion I have emphasized above:
Quote:
To begin with, there was the basic fact of the general society's
hostility toward the regime and the latter's need for trusted cadres.
Old Communists, among them members of the generation [i.e., Jewish
communists], had to be relied on as their core. [Schatz, The
Generation, p. 225; emphasis added]
Schatz is quite clear: Jews numbered among those Old Communists who
initially filled the ranks of the internal security service.
MacDonald's paraphrase would have it that these positions were filled
exclusively by Jews, a claim for which he has no evidence. The effect
is to exaggerate ethnic hostility or rivalry as a motivational factor
for the secret policemen while at the same time encouraging a reaction
of real ethnic hostility on the part of his non-Jewish readers.
Moreover, MacDonald utterly ignores this passage, also appearing on
page 225:
Quote:
How many Jews, in general, and how many prewar Communists, in
particular, served in the security service is impossible to say. Their
number and role must have been much smaller than the propaganda
campaign, undertaken by Soviet intelligence and aimed at putting all
blame for "errors and distortions" on Jewish officials, had it. In
addition, it must be stressed that contrary to the popular stereotype
of a Jewish secret police official and his non-Jewish victim, 40
percent of those affected by secret police officials are reported to
have been of Jewish descent. However, the number of Jewish secret
police officials and, most important, their visibility must have been
significant enough to justify the hopes of the initiators of the
campaign and its relative success. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 225]
MacDonald's desciption of an exclusively (or even predominantly) Jewish
secret police force in Communist Poland appears, then, to perpetuate a
myth Schatz explicitly attributes to Soviet propaganda. Schatz's
conclusions may or may not be correct on this score, but insofar as
MacDonald cites no source to contradict Schatz, he can offer no grounds
for a) misrepresenting the "core" ethnic makeup of the secret police as
reported by Schatz, or b) ignoring Schatz's contention that Soviet
propaganda exaggerated Jewish participation in the secret police -- no
grounds other than preconceptions driven by the theory of Jewish group
behavior he is ostensibly proving by reference to Schatz.
MacDonald chooses not to alert his readers to the existence of branches
of the security service that had nothing whatsoever to do with
advancing Jewish interests. Instead, he subtly conflates the whole of
the security service with its internal branch (i.e., on page 66 of The
Culture of Critique he claims that Jews were "the core members of the
security service"), ignoring sections in which Jews either did not play
a significant role, or in which Jews themselves -- both in and out of
power -- were placed under surveillance. He ignores, for instance, the
role of the Informacja:
Quote:
Until the thaw [i.e., the mid 1950's], the Polish security apparatus
was totally controlled by the Soviet secret police. Seen as a whole, it
had a double function; it served as an instrument of Soviet control
over Poland and its regime while, at the same time, securing the Polish
Communist party's monopoly of power. This apparatus consisted of the
military counterintelligence called the Informacja, the civilian
security service known in common parlance as the Bezpieka, and the
so-called Department Ten, whose task was to supervise the loyalty of
the highest strata of party and state leadership ...
The Informacja was created in November 1944 as a Polish version of the
Soviet counterintelligence agency, Smersh. It was formally placed under
the Polish Ministry of Defense but was in fact the most important
instrument of Soviet domination in Poland. ...
The first Polish officers in the Informacja were recruited from among
the so-called Spaniards (the Polish veterans of the Spanish civil war),
the Communist armed underground during the German occupation, and the
repatriated Polish members of the French Communist party. The bulk of
the Polish Informacja officers, however, were recruited from among
young peasants and workers with little formal education and no
political experience. The role of the members of the generation [i.e.,
Jewish communists] was negligible. Forming a segment of the initially
recruited small group of prewar Polish Communists, those few who left
the army to join its service were gradually eliminated. [Schatz, The
Generation, pp. 222-23]
Poles' willingness to serve in the Informacja, which Schatz calls "the
most important instrument of Soviet domination in Poland," undermines
MacDonald's contention that Polish participation in the communist
government was a deceptive sham, an attempt "to place a Polish face on
what was in reality a Jewish-dominated government," [MacDonald, The
Culture of Critique, p. 67] and it explicitly contradicts his assertion
that the "Jewish-dominated government" was "the agent of Soviet
domination in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critque, pp. 68-69].
He chooses, therefore, to ignore the Informacja entirely.
He deals similarly with the problems raised by Department Ten, also
mentioned in the passage quoted above. Created in 1948 (i.e., at the
presumable height of Jewish domination of the Polish government),
Department 10 appears to have been preparing the way for a systematic
campaign against "Polish-Jewish Communists [with] accusations of
cosmopolitanism and Zionist conspiracy" almost from the moment of its
inception [Schatz, The Generation, p. 224]. MacDonald's hypnotically
frequent references to "the Jewish-dominated government"
notwithstanding, a fuller consideration of Schatz's description of the
security appartus suggests that Jewish communists in Poland hardly had
an exclusive or even pre-eminent hold on power at any point in the
post-war period. Instead, they appear to have been pitted, perhaps
deliberately, against a variety of other blocs, hardly a situation one
could fairly define as "domination."
Even MacDonald's exemplar institution of Jewish domination, the
internal security service, raises problematic issues as a model for
Jews in positions of power serving Jewish interests at the expense of
ethnic Poles. As MacDonald again fails to mention to his readers,
Quote:
[a] Jewish section [of the civilian security service] was organized
within the frame of the political department of the ministry of public
security. In this period, it was manned almost solely by functionaries
of Jewish descent and carried out an intensive surveillance of all
institutions within the Jewish sector, their activities, employees, and
clientele.[Schatz, The Generation, p. 223]
Noting that "Jews were very prominent in the domestic security forces
in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 80] without also
calling attention to the fact that some number of them were tasked with
the surveillance of other Jews amounts to a fairly significant
distortion of the record. One would expect a responsible social
scientist to wonder what proportion of Jews in the secret police were
assigned this duty, and whether this would have accounted in some
measure for "Jewish prominence" in the internal security service. It
might also occur to a social scientist to wonder what the perceived
need for a "Jewish section" of the civilian security service would
imply about the government's relationship with the Jewish community; at
the very least, and in spite of MacDonald's assertions to the contrary,
the government's perceived need to create a special office to track the
activities of "the Jewish sector" suggests that the loyalty of the
Jewish community could not be taken for granted. Given the behavior
Schatz attributes to the majority of Jews in Poland during the
immediate post-War years, the communist government's mistrust of the
Jewish community may indeed have been well-founded -- I will address
this behavior in more detail in the next section of this article.
The pattern of omissions that characterizes MacDonald's discussion of
the security service as an institution also extends to his discussion
of Jewish secret policemen as individuals, particularly with respect to
their motives for joining the security service. Here, a side-by-side
comparison of MacDonald and Schatz may be helpful:
Quote:
MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66
Jewish members of the internal security force often appear to have been
motivated by personal rage and a desire for revenge related to their
Jewish identity:
Quote:
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. (Schatz, 1991, 226)
Quote:
Schatz, The Generation, pp. 226-227
The picture of their motives for joining the security service is mixed.
For some, the primary motive appears to be an overwhelming sense of
identification with the new order and a sense of personal
responsibility for defending it against its enemies. Others, initially
hesitant to join the service, had to be persuaded by appeals to their
Communist responsibility or with orders to take it on as their party
duty. Although they might have preferred to work in other sectors, a
disciplined Communist could not resist this kind of argument. However,
there were also other motives. For some of the policemen, equal to or
more important than their sense of personal duty was a desire for
revenge and a personal rage.
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. Another, often closely related,
motive was the pure desire for power and might. Thus achieved, power
could be intoxicating. Those policemen for whom this was the primary
motive could "hear the houses tremble" when walking the streets -- and
loved it. Still another motive was a general desire to find some
position within the system, quite independently of what sector or the
system that happened to be. Had such people been proposed for or found
themselves in other positions, they would have taken them gladly. Thus,
their initial involvement in the security apparatus was quite
coincidental.
The only motive of relevance for MacDonald is that dealing explicitly
with Jewish identity; he ignores others, preferring instead to offer a
skewed rendition of Schatz as a demonstration of his thesis. Note that
the point is not that the other explanations are at all exculpatory;
they are inconvenient for MacDonald because they do not provide direct
evidence of Jews acting in the interest or in the name of the group,
rather than in the interest of the Communist Party or in their own
individual interests. Even his indicator of indeterminate number is
unsupported in the source: where Schatz is only willing to say that
"some" Jewish secret policemen acted out of a sense of "personal rage,"
MacDonald intensifies the point by claiming that this was "often" the
case. How often is "often"? One would, again, expect a social scientist
to ask such a question before resorting to a loaded adverb suggestive
of a widespread phenomenon, perhaps even a typical pattern. A casual
reader could well be forgiven for concluding that a significant
percentage -- if not the majority -- of Jewish secret policmen were
motivated by a desire for vengeance in the name of the group.
Of course, MacDonald himself does not know how often "often" is because
his source does not say -- in fact, his source quite explicitly states
that reliable statistical data that might show how often "often" is
does not exist. The absence of such data does not discourage MacDonald
from making a broad and, given the range of alternative explanations he
omits, quite unwarranted generalization. Such practices -- and this is
far from an isolated example -- make it difficult to believe that he is
not actively enouraging his readers to adopt precisely the sort of
vague impressions of widespread Jewish malevolence that effectively
validate antisemitism. And it is precisely such rhetorical strategies
that undercut MacDonald's contention that he bears no personal
responsibility for his popularity with right-wing extremists.
MacDonald's discussion of Jews in the secret police, illuminating as it
is as a demonstration of his cavalier and opportunistic use of
secondary sources, is to some extent itself a secondary matter. His
treatment of Schatz is characterized throughout by a far more egregious
misrepresentation. This mispresentation forms the subject of the next
section of this article.
=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.
Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have missed it so completely
MacDonald would have had to adopt a perversely contorted reading
strategy.
=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.
Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have missed it so completely
MacDonald would have had to adopt a perversely contorted reading
strategy.
Sleepyhead
particularly intelligent one at that. He makes claims without providing
references, quotes from "Mein Kampf" (a thoroughly dull book clearly
written by a man used to berating rather than persuading) without
questioning the text, likes to invent hypothetical stories in order to
get his point across, but fails to take his line of questioning far
enough. He's not provided /one/ definition of what he considers 'White'
to mean ('Caucasian', 'Fair-Skinned', 'Young, impressionable and
stupid', etc.), and frankly I can hardly keep myself from laughing
while reading his posts on account of their excessive naivete.
In short - the man's a wanker.
Bret Cahill
-- despotism per se.
The nazi wants to be absolute dictator.
Bret Cahill
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Have you actually read any history?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal
>
> A 1910 revolution deposed the Portuguese monarchy starting the First Republic. Political chaos, >strikes, harsh relations with the Church, and considerable economic problems aggravated by a >Second Republic that would later become the Estado Novo in 1933, led by António de Oliveira alazar, >itarian right-wing dictatorship, which later evolved into a type of single party corporate regime. Later, >ortugal became a founding member of NATO and EFTA, as well as OECD. India invaded and liberated >ortuguese occupied parts of India in 1961. Independence movements also became active in Angola, >Mzambique and Portuguese Guinea, and a series of colonial wars started.
Race is the main factor:
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
>
>So the reasons Portugal's in the shit and only just starting to recover
>were:
>
>Political chaos (obviously motivated by pink-skins)
>Strikes (also obviously motivated by non pink-skins)
>Harsh relations with the church (again - it's so obvious - non-pink
>skins were involved)
>Economic problems (must be those darned non-pink skins again)
>Disastrous military intervention (goaded on by the non-pink skins)
>A military coup d'état (probably led by non-pink skins)
>An authoritarian right-wing dictatorship (ah! those cunning non-pink
>skins - see how they love authoritarian right-wing dictatorship)
That's the politically correct version. But race is the main thing:
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
>
>Oh, but Wikipedia won't tell you what /really/ happened will they,
>Topaz? Because they've got a vested interest in lying to people about
>the /real/ truth that White men once ruled a Utopian world, where
>dinosaurs roamed the earth, magic fairies cast magnificent spells,
>wizards flew down from above and, hand-in-hand with the angels, all the
>choirs of heaven, and coloured people of all kinds worshipped at the
>feet of our forefathers, crying "Save us! Save us! Save us from
>ourselves! We are poor children who don't know what the fuck is going
>on! Superman! Uberman! Come to our aid!".
"Light on the Dark Continent"
"Eye-opening observations of an American who has lived in Africa
for nearly 20 years."
Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit (Self-Published) - Gedahlia Braun, 1993,
Reviewed by Jared Taylor, September-October, 1993
Dr. Braun has lived in Africa with only brief interruptions since 1976
and in South Africa since 1988. This book, in the form of a
chronological journal, describes how contact with the dark continent
quickly dispelled his liberal views and led to startling but plausible
conclusions that most Americans--even readers of AR--are likely to
find surprising.
Two Theses
Dr. Braun draws on his years of intimacy with Africans to support two
main conclusions:
The first is that virtually all Africans take it for granted that
whites are smarter than blacks. They haven't the slightest illusion
that they could have invented computers or built airplanes, and they
recognize that blacks and whites differ in moral and psychological
characteristics as well.
What is more, Africans are not the least offended by these
realizations. Unlike whites, they do not see any inherent immorality
in acknowledging racial differences. Some clever, westernized Africans
have discovered--just as American blacks have--that whites are
terrified at the thought of racial differences, and have learned to
manipulate this terror to their own advantage. But they, too, Dr.
Braun finds, can almost always be persuaded to acknowledge the
inherent limitations of Africans.
Dr. Braun's second thesis follows from the first: The vast majority of
South African blacks do not want black rule. They know from their own
experiences with black policemen and black bureaucrats that when
Africans are in positions of power they are corrupt, despotic, and
oppressive. Many blacks mouth the slogans of "liberation" but have
unrealistic, often ludicrous notions of what "liberation" is likely to
mean. Some, when pressed, will even admit that although they know
black rule would be a catastrophe for South Africa they pretend to
support it because they know that is what whites expect them to do.
Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the
terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal
whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in
the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-
minded than their own.
Dr. Braun puts it this way:
(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society;
(2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not
for white liberals insisting otherwise;
(3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule
is in no one's interest, especially not blacks;
(4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black
rule.
On what does Dr. Braun base these heretical conclusions? After several
years in Africa, he began to realize that many blacks do not think the
way white liberals keep telling us they do. He then systematically
started asking Africans--even virtual strangers--what they thought
about racial differences and whether they were in favor of black rule.
Unlike most whites, who would be ashamed to ask such questions, Dr.
Braun is utterly uninhibited. He discovered that most blacks are eager
to talk frankly; most have never had an honest conversation with a
white about race and are charmed to find one who is not blinded by the
usual cliches. Just as interestingly, he quickly learned that even
whites who have lived all their lives in Africa--including journalists
and other liberals who claim to speak for Africans--have never had an
honest conversation with a black about race.
For the most part, blacks fear majority rule because they know they
are much more likely to be cheated, robbed or brutalized by other
blacks than by whites.
Many Africans believe, in so many words, that "Whites respect one
another but we don't."
Dr. Braun has concluded that blacks and whites differ as much morally
as they do mentally, and that these differences made economic
development impossible. He wonders whether one of the reasons large-
scale cooperative enterprise is nearly impossible throughout Africa is
that blacks do not trust each other and cannot be counted on to work
together for the benefit of all. He advances the provocative view that
Africans may not have an internalized moral sense but depend instead
on tribal authority to set rules of conduct:
Hence, when they were detribalized (by colonialism, etc.), these
external constraints disappeared; and since there never were any
internal constraints, we witness rampant lack of self-control amongst
detribalized blacks (crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc.). Where there has
been some substitute for tribal control--as in white-dominated South
Africa or the segregated American South--this behaviour was kept
within tolerable limits. But when such controls vanish (as in present-
day South Africa and in large U.S. cities), you get this phenomenon of
widespread unrestrained violence"
Dr. Braun has found that like American whites, most South African
whites are incapable of talking sensibly about race. Like American
whites, they now even take a perverse joy in applauding their own
dispossession. He describes the tempestuous enthusiasm of white
audiences for the anti-white South African movie "Cry Freedom," and
writes, "the positive joy with which they cheer their own demise is
quite amazing, isn't it?" He speculates that this joy stems from "a
fatal flaw in the white race: the capacity for self-flagellating,
exaggerated and unwarranted guilt and the self-hatred that seems to
underlie it."
This self-hatred is at the heart of the white man's increasing
insistence that he is a miserable racist who is to blame for the black
man's failures:
"Once blacks learn that whites think blacks have reason to hate them,
many will be happy to oblige, instinctively realizing their
psychological advantage as the injured party . . . . All in all a
tremendous con game, in which the white man is both instigator and
willing victim."
>
>So ...
>
>When did you develop this definitional problem with the concept 'real'?
>
>Wanna talk about your childhood any?
"WHITE PEOPLE in America are finding it difficult to escape the
current flood of multicultural and multiracial propaganda. Due to its
steady infusion into American society, egalitarianism has achieved a
religious status.
In fact, if you were to ask an average White man or woman about
multiculturalism they would probably tell you how great it is for our
country, or what a joyous experience it is for our children to grow up
learning to love people of different races and cultures. What they
won't tell you is that the United States was founded on European
genius, creativity, and hard work. Her laws and system of government
were created specifically for Europeans and their posterity. This is
the reason America blossomed into the world's greatest superpower. And
until a half century ago, she was a country still loyal to those
founding peoples.
Whites were proud of their heritage back then. They did not experience
the guilt imposed on today's White population by the controlled
mass-media. Instead, they lived their lives in the way that came most
natural to them, without any foreign influence. Our ancestors did not
let the so-called "television reality" become their reality like so
many people of today. Our ancestors' culture, perspectives, and
beliefs came from their own real-world experiences.
Their reality was based on logic, facts and observations, and not on
blind and illogical emotionalism like so many of the current "TV
generation". Show these emotion-based people a film that tugs at their
heart-strings, and you have an open door to impose any belief system
on them, whether rational or not.
The belief system that has found its way into the hearts and minds of
so many European-Americans is that of miscegenation, multiculturalism,
feminism, and an overall anti-White agenda. The reasons for this can
be discussed at length, but for now I will acknowledge that this is in
fact the case.
Before there was a television in every household, which imposes
minority viewpoints onto the majority, people had only one reality --
the world they lived in and interacted with everyday. Today's average
person now spends most of their time in front of their television
sets. So much time, in fact, that they are merging reality with
fantasy. Fictional TV characters have become as real as their own
family members and friends.
If you pound an idea or image into somebody's head long enough they
will eventually believe it or accept it, no matter how absurd, and
that is what television is doing to our society -- along with
government establishments and our academic institutions. Even private
enterprise has joined the coalition pushing an anti-White agenda.
The reason this anti-White agenda is so important is because it shows
what type of power our opponents have over public opinion. From news
programs to movies, comedies to documentaries, programs can be
manipulated to portray anything. This fact has impeded our mission
more than anything else as the media vilifies everyone standing up for
the rights of Whites as crude and violent imbeciles that are "out of
touch". By turning some Whites against us, it makes our task of
creating a mainstream voice more important. The more mainstream we
become, the less fear the average citizen will have of listening to
our logic-based ideology, and the easier it will be for them to see
through the nonsense that has been fed to them for most of their
lives.
Fortunately, there are some individuals who have seen through this
egalitarian illusion, and understand what is really happening to our
country. The Internet has helped tremendously in creating a positive
voice for these truth-tellers, but it won't be long before free speech
is regulated on-line as well. So, we in the White Nationalist movement
can serve our people best by organizing our efforts. Alone we are
merely complainers with no political muscle, but together we will
eventually be a force that the anti-White establishment must deal
with.
However, a possibly greater threat than the barrage of political
correctness and its ever present anti-White agenda is our own people.
If decent men and women sit back and do nothing while our genes are
slowly eliminated, then there is no hope for our nation, or a future
for our children.
Biological Differences
Many people today have grown up believing that the different races are
the same except for the color of our skin. They are told this
repeatedly -- enough times that they do not even question it; they
just accept it. Even most biologists and geneticists are too afraid to
state the obvious, and the few that do are either harshly condemned or
their voices are silenced. There are literally thousands of studies
showing the intellectual, biological, and behavioral differences of
the races. Most of them are peer-reviewed studies that have received
acceptance in the scientific community, but many people are still
oblivious to their existence.
For example, scientific research has shown that genetics is a
considerable factor in behavior and intelligence. Recent studies
indicate that identical twins separated at birth have a correlation of
.7 or greater in IQ even though they were raised in separate
environments. A correlated score of 1 would indicate that the twins
were exactly the same. The near exactness of the IQ scores of
genetically similar children shows that environment plays only a minor
role in intelligence.
IQ has been shown to better predict a person's success in life than
does an individual's socio-economic status, meaning that economic
disadvantages are merely obstacles and not deterrents of success. Of
course there are other factors that affect success as well, such as
motivation and personal choice.
In light of this, genes still play a large role in everyday behavior,
and in how we live our lives. In other words, genetics lay the
foundation for an individual's tendencies. People do not always act on
these genetic tendencies in every situation, but their reactions and
habits are influenced by them.
It is clear that genetic studies show differences between the races,
and in my opinion, no person can claim to have an educated opinion on
race until the existing scientific evidence is reviewed.
For the purpose of this speech I will not merely restate all of the
scientific evidence that can be found in many other writings. I will,
however, state my opinion on how this evidence lays the groundwork for
our cause. The fact is that having light skin is not the only thing
that makes you White.
A person's European identity is evident in every gene in their body,
affecting everything from intelligence and behavior, to appearance and
personality. To assume that thousands of years of geographic
separation between the races only produced genetic differences in skin
color is completely absurd.
When a species evolves through environmental adaptation, it evolves in
many different aspects. For example, the examination of human brains
has shown that the Negro brain is significantly less developed in the
frontal lobe than the brain of Whites. Biologists and psychologists
have defined this region as the area responsible for abstract thought,
problem solving, planning, and delayed gratification. Many scientists
attribute this to the more demanding environment of the North where
Whites evolved. The beneficial characteristics of enlarged frontal
lobes would have been a necessity for survival.
Such examples of evolution are seen in nature time and again. One good
example is the various breeds of dogs. Humans deliberately bred dogs
for different features and personality traits until an entirely new
breed was created. They are still the same species (meaning they can
still mate with other breeds), but they have different traits. Some
dogs are more intelligent, physically stronger, or show higher signs
of aggression than others.
The evolutionary processes that have created different species among
animals, is a process that affects all of Nature's organisms -- even
humans. Unlike dogs, however, selective breeding among human races
occurred through natural geographic isolation and not deliberate
manipulation.
Even when two subspecies are very close genetically, with only a few
visible physical differences, they still can be vastly different. They
both, however, will possess survival skills to ensure their species
survival. But, even if their geographic isolation was relatively
short, adaptive differences can still be documented.
Each of these closely related subspecies chooses different habitats
that are more suited for them, thus producing behavioral shifts for
better environmental adaptability. One interesting thing to point out
is that no matter how closely related two subspecies are they will
almost never inter-breed if a mate of their own species exists. This
natural phenomenon is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
Nature has created a variety of organisms to serve a specific
evolutionary and environmental purpose. Organisms naturally oppose
inter-breeding because to succumb to it would subvert Nature's Laws
and lead to the disintegration of their unique population -- a
population that has been specially formed over thousands of years. To
interfere would defy the Laws of Nature and the natural order that it
was created. For humans to assume that the Laws of Nature and
evolution have not affected them is ignorant to say the least.
The quality of a civilization is also directly related to the
population's gene-pool. Before the colonization of Africa by
Europeans, no Black society had produced anything more than simple
mud-hut housing, and spears for hunting. The bow, wheel, bridge, or
any written language had never existed in any African society -- not
to mention the architectural and cultural marvels that have become the
norm in White societies.
Why it Matters
One may argue that worrying about a decaying civilization is
unwarranted because America is still predominantly White.
Unfortunately, proponents of this idea fail to realize America
diminished from 90% White to 70% White in the course of a few decades,
and the international statistics are even worse as Whites comprise
only 8% of the world's population. Our numbers are fading fast.
Within the next few decades Whites will be a minority in the U.S.
Non-Whites will be able to out-vote us, and who will look out for the
interests of our people? Mestizos have already proved that as a racial
group their numbers are strong enough to sway U.S. politicians. This
was evident in the last presidential election where neither candidate
would take a stand for what most Americans wanted -- a secure
U.S.-Mexican border. Whatever power we have remaining will not be lost
overnight, but why wait until it's too late to start doing something
about it? Why let our country and her institutions continue to decay
when we can change things before they get too bad?
The idea of genetic racial differences is the key concept that we need
to disseminate to White-Americans. We are not advocating White
supremacism, but we do acknowledge that genetic and biological
differences exist, which science has proved on numerous occasions.
Indeed, genetic differences have evolved over time based on the need
for environmental adaptation. Different environmental conditions have
produced different genetic traits, which evolution created as a result
of voluntary and involuntary segregationist breeding over long periods
of time.
The media has long accused Whites who stand up for their racial
integrity as "haters" -- nothing is farther from the truth. We have a
healthy innate pride, a purpose, a common goal, and a common love.
Although we feel angry when we see what our country is becoming, we do
not at all "hate" for the sake of hating.
In fact it isn't about hate at all. We simply understand genetic
racial differences. The best alternative to the current madness of
multiculturalism is racial separation, whereas each race can pursue
its own interests and its own goals. Every race should be able to live
in accordance with their genetic potential. But, when races live
together the consequences are damaging to each race.
We have a much broader scope than what the media is always suggesting.
Many think our passion stems from the differences in such things as
crime or culture, but in fact, it goes far beyond that. By preserving
the White race we are preserving a unique species of humankind that
has taken thousands of years to develop. By allowing ourselves to
racially mix, or to allow our numbers to diminish, we are destroying
what Nature has created. When this happens there is no going back. It
is permanent. The genetic makeup of the people that has created the
greatest societies and innovations of human history will be forever
lost.
By having a negative attitude of "how does it affect me" or "there is
nothing we can do," will assist our civilization to slowly devolve.
The truth is that it affects all of us because by allowing the influx
of non-Whites into our country, America's unique genetic inheritance
is being eliminated - replacing an advanced civilization with one from
the Third World.
Hopefully, I have shed a little more light on what we in the National
Alliance are trying to accomplish. We are not motivated by hate, but
by science and facts. I believe that everyone needs to start
questioning the controlled media's version of multiracialism, and to
not be ashamed if their findings are in stark contrast to "popular
opinion". The truths of our beliefs are found in science and history,
and not television or biased news coverage. I urge all of you to
question the norms that have been created for us by an alien minority
and enshrined in the society we live in, and see if they are in accord
with Nature."
Kevin Johnson
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Spain, prior to the so-called Spanish Inquisition, was considered
>relatively politically-economically strong.
>
>I'm not as cognizant about Portugal's status as what I've gathered
>about Spain's status.
>
>Jews (and Moslems?) were apparently fairly decently treated in Spain,
>and its pluralistic civilization apparently flourished.
Castile, Spain was in a pitiful state during that summer of
1467. Robberies, burnings and murders were daily
occurrences. A church in which three hundred and fifth men,
women, children and tenants of the Count of Benavente, had
taken refuge, was burned by the Count's enemies and all
within perished. IN TOLEDO THERE WAS A STATE OF WARFARE
BETWEEN THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS (Conversos, or Marranos, as
they were called) AND THE "OLD" CHRISTIANS. THE CANONS OF
THE CATHEDRAL THERE, SOME OF WHOM WERE CONVERSOS, CONTROLLED
THE REVENUES OF THE NEIGHBORING TOWN OF MAQUEDA, INCLUDING A
TAX ON BREAD. THIS PRIVILEGE, SO HATEFUL TO THE
HALF-STARVING POOR, THEY SOLD AT AUCTION TO CERTAIN JEWS.
A CATHOLIC MAGISTRATE, OR ALCALDE, BEAT THE JEWS AND DROVE
THEM OUT OF THE CITY. The canons had the alcalde arrested,
but while they were deliberating as to his punishment,
FERNANDO DE LA TORRE, A RICH LEADER OF THE "CONVERTED" JEWS,
DECIDED TO TAKE THE LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS. A RASH AND
VIOLENT MAN, HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AND HIS FRIENDS HAD
SECRETLY ASSEMBLED FOUR THOUSAND WELL ARMED MEN, SIX TIMES
AS MANY AS THE OLD CHRISTIANS COULD MUSTER. ON JULY 21 HE
LED HIS FORCES TO ATTACK THE CATHEDRAL. THE CRYPTO JEWS
BURST THROUGH THE GREAT DOORS OF THE CHURCH, CRYING "KILL
THEM! KILL THEM! THIS IS NO CHURCH, BUT ONLY A CONGREGATION
OF EVIL AND VILE MEN!" THE CATHOLICS IN THE CHURCH DREW
SWORDS AND DEFENDED THEMSELVES A BLOODY BATTLE WAS FOUGHT
BEFORE THE HIGH ALTAR.
REINFORCEMENTS OF CHRISTIANS NOW CAME GALLOPING FROM NEARBY
TOWNS AND LAUNCHED A COUNTER ATTACK ON THE LUXURIOUS SECTION
WHERE MOST OF THE CONVERSOS LIVED. THEY BURNED THE HOUSES ON
EIGHT STREETS. THEY HANGED FERNANDO DE LA TORRE AND HIS
BROTHER, THEN MASSACRED THE CONVERSOS INDISCRIMINATELY.
In Córdoba however, they found a powerful champion, Don
Alonzo de Aguilar, who had married a woman of Jewish
descent, a daughter of the Marqués of Villena. He and his
brother, Gonsalvo de Cordoba, who was later to win fame in
Italy as "the Great Captain," defended the Conversos. The
Old Christians (bona fide Christians) led by the Count of
Cabra, besieged them in the Alcazar. The result was a state
of war which lasted for nearly four years. Unhappily too,
the periodical frenzy against the "New Christians" or Jewish
converts (also Marranos), flamed up in a dozen other places.
One of the most brutal of the massacres occurred at Segovia
on May 16, 1474. THE MAN MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR IT WAS THE
MARQUÉS OF VILLENA, HIMSELF OF JEWISH DESCENT.
HATRED BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS HAD ALWAYS BEEN INTENSE
IN SEGOVIA. IN 1405 A PHYSICIAN NAMED MAYR ALQUADES AND
OTHER PROMINENT JEWS HAD BEEN ACCUSED OF STEALING A
CONSECRATED HOST FROM THE CATHEDRAL AND HAD BEEN EXECUTED,
WHILE OTHER JEWS, SAID TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THE BISHOP
POISONED IN REVENGE, WERE DRAWN AND QUARTERED. WHEN ISABEL
WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD SIXTEEN JEWS, INCLUDING A RABBI, WERE
ACCUSED OF HAVING STOLEN A CHRISTIAN BOY DURING HOLY WEEK
AND OF HAVING CRUCIFIED HIM AS AN INSULT TO THE MEMORY OF
JESUS.
In 1468. Sepulveda, Segovia, Spain: The Jews sacrificed a
Christian child on a cross. The Bishop of Segovia
investigated the crime, and ordered the culprits to Segovia,
where they were executed. It is important to know that this
Bishop was himself a son of a converted Jew; Jean d'Avila
was his name. Colmenares's History of Segovia records the
facts of the case, which was juridically decided by a man of
Jewish blood. That may be the reason that one finds no
mention of it in Strack's book in defense of the Jews, The
Jew and Human Sacrifice.
>
>However, upon the awful Spanish Inquisition (circa 1492), the Sephardi
>Jews (& the Moslems?) were either forcibly converted, or killed, or
>fled.
>
>Some Spanish Jews went to Portugal, Marranos (secret believers)
>blending-in, and apparently the population of Portugal to this very
>day is guess-timated as approximately of twenty percent Jewish descent.
>
>There is a (possibly apocraphyl) story about a very isolated man who
>said he was a Jew, circa mid 20th century Portugal, whom had not heard
>about the Holocaust nor WW II.
>
"Holocaust revisionism, ie, the examination of the supposed
genociding of Jews in the Third Reich. The generally-accepted version
of this event -- or, more properly, this NON-event -- is what I call
the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust, or OJV for short, which
holds in its present version that the nazis killed 'six million' Jews
in 'gas chambers'. As it happens, however, there are numerous problems
with the OJV. The following is a list of the major ones.
* The 'evidence' for the OJV consists primarily of the records of the
court proceedings of the Nuremberg trials. As it happens, however,
vengeful Jews were largely in charge of these trials. (According to
Louis Marshalko in his book The World Conquerers, of the 3000 persons
on the trial staff, 2400 were Jews.) Adding to the problem was the
fact that (1) there was no historical precedent for war crimes trials
in which only the vanquished were called to account for their actions;
and (2) these trials violated the fundamental principle of fairness
that no one is to be tried for violating a law that was instituted 'ex
post facto', ie, after the crime was committed.
* 'Confessions' used in the trial were highly dubious, since many were
extracted by torture or or other unethical means, such as threatening
the families of the accused (According to British scholar Vivian Bird,
more than one hundred German defendants had their testicles beaten to
a pulp by 'interrogators'.) Two confessions were particularly
egregious: That of Rudolf Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz, which was
(among other things) written in a language he did not even understand,
and which provided the major basis for the 'six million' figure; and
that of Kurt Gerstein, the dubiousness of which was the subject of a
French doctoral dissertation.
* Many of the atrocities that were seriously alleged at the trials are
now rejected by even establishment historians as false, the most
prominent of which are the stories that Jewish bodies were made into
soap and their skin was made into lampshades. Evidently such stories
were created as war propaganda, just as were similar stories in WW1
about 'Huns' who were 'bayonetting babies'.
* The defendants in the trials had no opportunity to gather evidence
in their defense, and in addition were often given poor food,
subjected to freezing weather without proper clothing, deprived of
sleep, and -- as stated earlier -- often brutally beaten. Furthermore,
those who were condemned to death had their sentences postponed until
they could be carried out on the Jewish High Holy Days in a sort of
'blood libel' celebration.
* The printed trial transcripts often do not match the trial
recordings, and were evidently deliberately changed to cover up
embarrassing facts brought out by defendants in their trials.
* Auschwitz was not a 'death camp', as alleged at the trials, but a
large industrial complex in Poland, and the inmates were forced
laborers. The nazis were desperate for labor, so it would have been
irrational for them to have 'gassed' anyone, and equally irrational
for them to have mistreated inmates or underfed them. In fact, there
was a special court, under SS Judge Konrad Morgen, to try complaints
against camp personnel for abusing inmates. Beyond this, Heinrich
Himmler, who held principal authority over the camps, sent a memo to
all camp commandants stating that inmate deaths must be reduced 'at
all costs' -- hardly something one would expect to find in a 'death
camp'. And while it was alleged at the trials that 4 million Jews were
'gassed' at Auschwitz, the German camp records were not admitted into
evidence, and would probably have vindicated many of the defendants if
they had been. In particular, the Auschwitz death books, which were
released by the Russian government about a decade ago, show that only
about 74,000 people died at Auschwitz in all the years of its
operation, most from typhus, with only about 30,000 of them being
Jews. Furthermore, the crematoria were intended not for the 'killing
of Jews', but rather for the sanitary disposal of the bodies of those
who died from typhus.
* While there were Allied spies in most camps reporting on camp
conditions by radio, none of these spies ever made a report about mass
killings or 'gas chambers'. The idea of 'gas chambers' evidently arose
from the fact that all the clothes of arriving inmates were
disinfected in a kind of gas chamber in which Zyklon B was used to
kill lice which were feared as disease vectors (Lousy Jews?). These
delousing chambers, it should be noted, were far too small for killing
people, particularly in the numbers posited by the OJV. It should also
be noted that Zyklon B, the form of cyanide supposedly used to kill
Jews, was in fact a special form of slow- release cyanide which was
appropriate for de-lousing clothing, but inappropriate for the
instantaneous killing that was supposedly done in the "gas chambers".
(The irony of Germans being accused of killing Jews by an instrument
which they (Germans) used for preserving Jewish lives should not go
unnoticed.) In addition, as revisionists have noted, such killings
would have been impossible on the scale claimed by the OJV because
cyanide is so dangerous that the bodies would have had to lie for
hours before they could be safely removed, even by those wearing
protective clothing and gas masks. Beyond this, cyanide gas is
explosive, so that any little spark, as from the friction of shoes on
the floor, or any flame, as from a cigaret, would have caused any 'gas
chamber' to be transported to the place where it was supposedly
sending Jews.
* Revisionists have proved that the rooms alleged to be 'gas chambers'
could not possibly have served this purpose. The first investigation
of this problem was done not for the Nuremberg trials, but rather many
years later by Fred Leuchter, an American engineer and execution
expert, who took samples from the walls of supposed 'gas chambers' at
several camps and found that there was essentially no cyanide residue
-- an impossibility if the rooms had been used as alleged. (Altho
Leuchter's work was flawed, his conclusions have been confirmed
independently by two other experts, Walter Luftl and Germar Rudolf.)
Other problems posed for the OJV by the alleged 'gas chambers' involve
such things as no air circulatory system for dispersing or ventilating
the gas, no means for heating the Zyklon B discs for proper dispersal,
the fact that the doors of the 'gas chambers' opened from the INSIDE,
and that Allied aerial photographs of Auschwitz during the war showed
no holes in the roof of the supposed 'gas chambers' which would have
allowed the introduction of Zyklon B -- a point made by Holocaust
revisionists in their oft-repeated challenge, "No holes; no
Holocaust!"
* There is no good evidence that nazi references to the 'final
solution to the Jewish question' referred to anything other than
removal of Jews from the area of the Third Reich, the (false)
allegations about the Wansee Conference notwithstanding. In
particular, no 'Hitler order' (or order from anyone else) has ever
been discovered, in spite of the known German propensity for extensive
record-keeping, altho there is an internal memo of a phone
conversation with Hitler signed by Hans Lemmerer of the Ministry of
the Interior showing that Hitler wanted the solution of the Jewish
problem SHELVED until the end of the war. Beyond this, the nazis
actually cooperated with the Zionists under the so-called Transfer
Agreement ("Ha'avara") to train Jews for settlement in Palestine, and
the training camps for Zionists were the only places in nazi Germany
in which the flag of the Zionist state was allowed to fly.
* Jewish population numbers published in standard reference works both
before and after the war do not show a decrease of Jewish numbers, but
rather an INCREASE. These reference works also demonstrate that THERE
WERE NOT EVEN SIX MILLION JEWS IN NAZI-OCCUPIED EUROPE
DURING THE PERIOD.
* The 'six million' is a mystical number derived from Jewish
scripture, and in particular is the number of Jews who are said to be
required to die before Israel can be re-established. This accounts for
why "New York governor Martin Glynn, in a major Albany speech in
October 1919 [that's TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THE START OF
WORLD WAR TWO, for all you who are a tad weak on dates], reported at
length on the 'holocaust [of] six million Jewish men and women' who
were dying due to the 'awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for
Jewish blood' during the 'Great War'" (Irena Zdiarska, "Holocaust Is
Undeniable -- But Should Be Debated", Barnes Review Oct 94: 27)). It
also accounts for the fact that, in spite of the formal reduction from
4 to 1.1 million of the number of Jews claimed to have been killed at
Auschwitz (see pix of Auschwitz plaques below), the 'six million'
number has never changed, and thus that in the Orwellian Kabbalistic
mathematics on which it is based, six minus three still equals six.
* The OJV has changed significantly over the years. We have already
mentioned that the 'soap' and 'lampshade' allegations are now rejected
by even establishment historians, altho this does not keep Jews from
continuing to hold burial ceremonies for newly-discovered bars of old
Reich soap (we don't know whether they have also done the same for
lampshades.) Another feature of the original OJV that has now changed
was the allegation that Jews were exterminated at the camps in Germany
as well as Poland -- an allegation which has been abandoned for some
time. Yet another abandoned allegation is that mass killings were
carried out by means of steam, electricity, gas vans (using the
exhaust), and burning in pits; and in fact, the Holocaust received its
name from the latter allegation -- yet another irony of this congeries
of lies.
* The one thing which has done most to convince people that the
allegations of German atrocities are true is the film clips we have
all seen of the liberation of the concentration camps, in which bodies
are shown piled high, and surviving inmates are seen to be little more
than walking skeletons. But in fact these admittedly-shocking films do
not make a case for German atrocities, and in fact actually refute the
notion of "gas chambers": If Germans were gassing Jews by the
millions, as the OJV alleges, then Jews simply would not be around
long enuf to starve, as the "walking skeletons" and emaciated bodies
of the dead obviously were doing. The starvation, it should be noted,
was simply a reflection of the fact that, toward the end of the war,
the German supply lines had broken down, and food was not getting to
the camps. And above all, one should not think that there is anything
unique to Germany about "walking skeletons" in "concentration camps":
Exactly the same thing happened at the Andersonville prison during the
American Civil War, and the nearby photo is a picture of one of those
inmates.
* If there is any one thing which is a clinching argument to the
matter of the OJV, it is the fact that it is illegal to openly express
doubt about this story in most countries of the Western world,
including Germany (of course!), Israel (of course!), Austria (of
course!), Spain, France, Australia, and Canada; and in those few
countries in which it is not illegal, the laws forbidding 'race hate'
are increasingly being interpreted as forbidding such expression. The
point here is that fact does not require the support of legislation --
only falsehood does. And of course it does not take a rocket scientist
to figure who is behind this illegalization; nor does it take a rocket
scientist to figure why cases of 'Holocaust denial' are so vigorously
prosecuted: Jews, and particularly Israel, have profited in numerous
ways and by billions of dollars in playing this scam, including an
unending number of Holocaust movies (more than 400 at last count,
according to scholar Michael Hoffman), Holocaust museums (popping up
everywhere), Holocaust books (Elie 'The Weasel' Wiesel has written
more than 30; The Diary of Anne Frank is a perennial best- seller,
etc, etc, etc), TV dramas (the airing of "Holocaust' in 1970 is when
the scam really took off), 'survivors' by the millions -- all
pensioned by the German government, shakedowns of companies which
supposedly profited from 'slave labor' or were otherwise tinged by
Third- Reich-related activities (eg, IBM, Swiss banks), and of course
the billions in 'reparations', 'foreign aid' and other 'guilt money'
showered on Israel by Germany and the US. It has gotten so bad that
Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein calls it "The Holocaust Industry"
in
his book by the same name, where he quotes his mother as asking, "If
Hitler killed so many Jews, then where did all the 'survivors' come
from?" No need to explain, then, why there is a saying among Jews that
"There's no business like Shoah (Holocaust) business."
* The only facts that come within even a country mile of supporting
the contention of nazi extermination of Jews are reports of the
shootings on the Eastern front of communist partisans, many of whom
were Jews. The following is what Lawrence Nevers has had to say on the
subject:
continued"
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-HoloRev.html
Topaz
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
Americans had a revolution when they were ruled by the British. If
the British accused
them of being "anti-British" would the Americans throw down their guns
and apologize?
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.
The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."
Topaz
wrote:
>Unfortunately Topaz writes like a 5-year-old child, and not a
>particularly intelligent one at that. He makes claims without providing
>references, quotes from "Mein Kampf" (a thoroughly dull book clearly
>written by a man used to berating rather than persuading)
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of
the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it
or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existance.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true
in regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definate rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual man, the person."
"Therfore not only does the organization possess no right to
prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the
contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that
ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the
principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of
creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This
common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should
rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in
different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
the persistant Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sence, the
wreckers of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
endeaver to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the
expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that
which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
of dominant importance and influence in the community."
>without
>questioning the text, likes to invent hypothetical stories in order to
>get his point across, but fails to take his line of questioning far
>enough. He's not provided /one/ definition of what he considers 'White'
>to mean ('Caucasian', 'Fair-Skinned',
The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
mixing Whites with other races. Because of this it will get harder
and harder to find White neigborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live in.
We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.
Our opponents say it is impossible to have White homeland because
they say we can not determine who is White and who is not. Even though
they can determine this easily enough when they want affirmitive
action, they say that we can not.
It is the same as if they said we can not determine red cars from
cars that are not red. They would say that it is impossible to call a
car red until we have an exact definition of what is red. It would be
reasonable if they pointed out that some cars are borderline and it
would be hard to say if they are red or not. But that is not what they
are saying. They are saying that we can not in any case tell if a car
is red or not.
If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if
people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
>'Young, impressionable and
>stupid', etc.), and frankly I can hardly keep myself from laughing
>while reading his posts on account of their excessive naivete.
>
>In short - the man's a wanker.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Bret Cahill
<>to mean ('Caucasian', 'Fair-Skinned',
< The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
< mixing Whites with other races.
Sounds like you need to move to another country. See if Iceland is
interested in nazis.
Bret Cahill
Robert Cohen
Spanish Inquisition
You may believe what you are re-posting as being factual, truthful and
w/o deliberate distortion.
The propagandist is implicitly justifying/mitigating the Inquisition in
the posting.
When you post & do not utilize a qualifier, such as "seemingly,"
"allegedly," "purportedly," then my b.s. detector reflexively
signals, "PROBABLY DISTORTED."
A website in itself is usually not considered a worthy or scholarly
reference, especially one that openly labels itself as "Holocaust
Revision."
When I re-post something or make a subjective comment, then I often
make it as plain as I can that it's an author's pov, and I don't know
if such really happens the way the book/article/propaganda specifies.
It's important to me to know an editor's/author's/source's political
bias, academic background, and/or motivation: I would suppose it is for
you too.
As a kind of neutral example to illustrate what I mean: There is an
alleged genocide on-going in The Sudan/Darfur, which is nevertheless
denied by some authors/editors/publishers who seem to me to be in
denial of reality.
I have posted something about Darfur disputation/denial today at
<alt.history>.
Bret Cahill
< bias, academic background, and/or motivation: I would suppose it is
for
< you too.
I wouldn't. He's as disreputable as any libertarian or Jezoid.
Our nazi is on record as believing he ALONE has arbitrary power to
decide who is "white."
Bret Cahill
Robert Cohen
I will exclude/forego the nurture//culture-ias refutation for the
purpose of semi-brilliant arguementation plus forego the "what is
intelligence but ability to adapt" quibble.
Take the Chinese/Orientals:
They apparently
test at an average of 15 points more than Caucasians/whites
Therefore, the claim of racial superiority by IQ also indicates:
Bye bye occidental pie
Sleepyhead
But we don't look fucking white! Look at some white paint. Now look at
a caucasian. If you painted your walls the same colour as the caucasian
when someone had asked you to paint them white you'd get a clip round
the ear'ole.
You've just latched onto the word 'White' because it has connotations
with purity in the Neo-Platonic Christian world-of-meaning.
Robert Cohen
interests, despite their overly-powerful zionist media propaganda,
and:
Taiwan not in the U.S. interest, despite the ubiquitous dragon 'n sea
with rice restaurants
South Korea not in the U.S. interest, despite that semi-magnificent
1998 Daewoo Nubira 4-door sedan (my trans-axle incapacitated)
Anti-Castro Cuba not in the U.S. interest, despite terrific flamingos
at Hialeah
Britain (WW I & WW II) not in the U.S. interest, despite the fancy
language affectation
p.s. Our good friends France 'n Germany: Well, at least they don't have
wars against each other, nor hand-over their Jews who wouldn't deserve
to exist anyway..
Bret Cahill
< They apparently test at an average of 15 points more than
Caucasians/whites
The nazi will claim that, along with the fact the Chinese are the
richest ethnic group in San Francisco, is just another Jewish
conspiracy to keep the white man down.
The white man cannot jump and the white man cannot do quantum
mechanics.
The white man cannot compete because he is just all around inferior.
Bret Cahill
Topaz
wrote:
>re slant: The evil, exploitative Jews got what they deserved in the
>Spanish Inquisition
>
>You may believe what you are re-posting as being factual, truthful and
>w/o deliberate distortion.
>
>The propagandist is implicitly justifying/mitigating the Inquisition in
>the posting.
You are a Jew.
Jews control the media and all of it is Jew propaganda.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
>
>When you post & do not utilize a qualifier, such as "seemingly,"
>"allegedly," "purportedly," then my b.s. detector reflexively
>signals, "PROBABLY DISTORTED."
>
>A website in itself is usually not considered a worthy or scholarly
>reference, especially one that openly labels itself as "Holocaust
>Revision."
>
>When I re-post something or make a subjective comment, then I often
>make it as plain as I can that it's an author's pov, and I don't know
>if such really happens the way the book/article/propaganda specifies.
>
>It's important to me to know an editor's/author's/source's political
>bias, academic background, and/or motivation: I would suppose it is for
>you too.
>
>As a kind of neutral example to illustrate what I mean: There is an
>alleged genocide on-going in The Sudan/Darfur, which is nevertheless
>denied by some authors/editors/publishers who seem to me to be in
>denial of reality.
>
>I have posted something about Darfur disputation/denial today at
><alt.history>.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
wrote:
>re: "IQ/intelligence" as a variable of race
The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is
small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large.
Whites also invented everything. I believe that most of the IQ tests
are taken in the former White nations and the Asians who moved to
these countries are a cut above most of the Asians who were not as
ambitious. Anyway it doesn't matter. I am also for preserving the
Japanese and the Chinese races. They should have their own nations
just as we Whites should have ours. Liberals don't see any problem
with the Japanese and Chinese having their own nations. They only see
a problem when Whites have this. Then they endlessly promote
multi-culture and pluralism.
Topaz
wrote:
"One does not ask for ones rights, one fights for them."
Adolf Hitler
Topaz
wrote:
>< Take the Chinese/Orientals:
It's a Wonderful Race
by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all. One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his
father. The argument began when the young student tried to explain to
his father that as White people, they should be held accountable for
all the evils that they had inflicted upon non-Whites througout
history. George explained: "Because of European racism, we stole the
Indians' land, we held blacks in slavery, we persecuted the Jews, and
we plundered the environment. We've been oppressive racists for
thousands of years so it's only fair that we pay economic reparations
for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm pleased to see that we
are ending our political and economic domination of the oppressed
peoples."
George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college professors teach you that?" the father asked.
To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor, Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr.
Silverstein is a well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just
don't understand because you were raised in a White supremacist racist
society. That's why I've come to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as
the greatest man in American history. He stood up to the racists of
your generation. Because of him, my generation of White kids is
completely colorblind."
The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I
haven't 'oppressed' anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong
with being proud of one's own people, including the European race of
people. Your race is in your blood. It's like an extension of your
biological family and you ought to be proud of your European heritage
and identity, just like every other racial group in America is proud
of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong sense of racial
identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"
The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited years ago. There's only one race and that's the human
race. Diversity is our greatest strength. Differences in so-called
"race" are as insignificant as differences in belly buttons. And
besides, UN statistics now show that low White birth rates, along with
the fact that we live in an multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture will have died out by the end of the century," young George
said.
Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking cliché
you know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young
George replied; "I think it's great! It will mean the end of racism
and the end of hate. The oppressed peoples of the world would have
been better off if us racist Europeans had never existed to begin
with."
Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone
and lost in a cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared
to him and said "Well George, you've got your wish."
George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"
The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or
Whites, had never existed. You now live in a world where Europeans
never existed."
"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able
to tell my professor and my friends how great this non-racist world
was. Say, I'm freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest
motel?"
"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where you can find shelter."
"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."
"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them. Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would
you like to go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay
in a tent."
"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second,
are these Indians friendly or hostile?"
"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it
doesn't mean they all were" said the angel sarcastically.
"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if
they turn out to be violent."
"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we
could make a spear with those twigs over there."
"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to ask if it's OK."
"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed.
No Europeans remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep
in the damn cave."
Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence.
"There are no lighters here, and no matches. Those are European
gadgets and evil Europeans never existed remember? If you want to get
warm, you need to do like the locals do and start rubbing twigs
together."
"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together for fire?"
"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the
angel sarcastically.
"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to
the great Incan civilization I learned about at college. Since
European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the
Incans will still be there.
... I need a car"
"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were
never born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This
is a world without evil Europeans remember?"
"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."
"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses
of coal, oil and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow
you to cheat just a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly
south."
George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was
grateful for the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to
complain about the heat and humidity.
"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here. Get me an air-conditioner please."
"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here. Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by
evil White men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002
these people still haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or
their food cool? a frustrated George asked.
"No George, they haven't. And they never will."
"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't live like like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars!
Dammit I'll walk. let's go."
After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that
he could see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil
White man too...and he was never born. There are some branches over
there if you want to make a torch."
"Never mind that!" George shouted back.
By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody
has got to stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone
stop them?"
The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact,
it was the oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the
Spanish armed forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who
would rid them of the oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them
a better life."
"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.
'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.
George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest
airport?"
"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"
"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic
Ocean. The great Viking sailors and European navigators never existed.
No Phoenicians, no Leif Erikson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus,
no Magellan, no Hudson and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build
your own ship, there would be no compass for you to navigate with and
no sextant either. I'm afraid you're stuck here George."
"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.
"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to Africa."
When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by
other Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?"
George asked Clarence.
"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long before the whites arrived." Clarence said. "In fact, most
of the slaves who were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave
traders by African tribal leaders."
"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his White assassin never existed, this great man should still be
alive. He's probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an
advanced civilization. He will free these slaves from their African
masters. Take me to him Clarence."
Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men
were out on a hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to
the dingy little hut of the tribal witchdocter and spiritual leader.
There he saw a wild-looking man with a necklace of teeth around his
neck and a huge ring pierced through his nose. "What the hell is that?
George asked.
"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities
or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create
such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He
specilaizes in casting evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"
The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George
and tied him to a nearby tree.
"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.
"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out
while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to
his tribe," laughed Clarence.
"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!
"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your hero Reverend King."
George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now. Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established
great civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."
Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart, George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the
banks of the river Nile in Egypt.
"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I learned during Black History Month about many talented
black inventors and scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington
Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson,
the preeminent brain surgeon in all of America. Where are these men?"
Clarense replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them.
Civilization as you had known it had only been introduced to these
people just a few centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no
universities, no hospitals, no means of transportation other than
animals, no science, no medicine, no machines. In fact, the wheel
hasn't even been discovered in Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their full human potential because Europeans weren't around to
introduce higher civilization and learning to them. There are no
George Washington Carvers in this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons,
no Booker T. Washingtons, no Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans,
no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill Cosbys, no..."
"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of the world .....built by non-Whites"
They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets
or urinals in this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans.
The people in this non-White world still relieve themselves in open
fields."
Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet paper." George said.
"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."
"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag then".
Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.
"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to
be able to see them from miles away," said George.
"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this, but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies
confirmed this fact. There are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And
the Carthaginians were White too."
George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's in Europe?" he asked.
"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North
America. A nomadic existence based on hunting and food gathering. No
great cities, no science, no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just
a hard daily struggle against life and the elements of nature. In a
Europe without evil Whites, the Roman Empire never existed nor did the
Greeks. There was no Renaisance either."
"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India, China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the
Taj Mahal please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know
that the ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by
ancient Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the
ones who civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"
George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be. In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were
not White!"
Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities
who populated the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and
less evil White people until they faded out completely, along with the
advanced civilization they had built. You will notice that there are
still a few white-skinned and fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis
around today -- in the world you came from that is.
George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan.
"Japan! I'll show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese
can make TVs and cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization
that I can live in."
Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but
it seemed as if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman,
or a soldier. There were no cars, no skyscapers, no lights, no
stereos, no sciences, no technologies, no universities. It was a
stagnant agricultural society that seemed to have reached its high
water mark and was incapable of moving forward. George knew he could
not live here either.
Clarence explained to George: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern
Asia that you had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it
did before Commodore Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in
the 1850s. There's no industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony,
no Hitachi, no Panasonic, no Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none
of the trappings or comforts of modern life. These things don't exist
in Japan or anywhere else because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"
George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left
him physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness. I must have some anti-biotics."
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"
"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was
right. You really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish
mistake it is to be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to
let them die out? This is what the world would be like without the
creative spark of Edison and Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great
scientists, or mathematicians, or inventors or fine artists. No
Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates, no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no
Dickens, no Twain, no Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no
Michelangelo, no Galileo, no Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no
Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no Berlin, no St. Petersburg, no
Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no London, no New York, no
Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing,
no houses, no steel, no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no
trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
- there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of
this world to build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence.
A brutal planet where the few people who aren't mired in eternal
ignorance and darkness have reached their peak of civilization and are
advancing no further."
Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven days straight. He covered everything. History, science,
economics, philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture,
medicine, politics, agriculture, religion, and all the creations and
contributions that the European peoples had made in every conceivable
field of human endeavor. George listened closely to every word. He
felt like a man who had been
reborn.
After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have
learned an important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the
departing angel.
George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I
understand now what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back
to the world that I came from. A world where Europeans not only
existed, but blessed the rest of humanity world with their unique
creative ability. I want to live in a civilized world. Please
God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh God....please."
Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes off!.
"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.
George's floormates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.
"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different
languages. He sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English,
Gloire Immortelle in French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also
Belgian, Spanish and French ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy
began to stream down his cheeks. The degenerate music of Hip-Hop and
Rap lost all of its appeal to young George.
After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal
Marsala. With his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish
olives and Russian dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine,
followed by a German pastry for dessert. He finished his meal off with
a hot cup of English tea and a Cuban cigar.
George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"
George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South
Africa who were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up
control of those once-European nations. He thought of the many
thousands of qualified Whites who were passed up for good jobs and
college entrance because of racial quotas that discriminate against
Europeans. He thought about the declining birthrates among all the
European nations of the world. He remembered that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He
recalled the O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in
America cheered when that brutal double murderer was set free by a
black jury after he stabbed two Whites to death. He remembered the Los
Angeles riots of 1992, where dozens of Whites were dragged out of
their vehicles and killed like dogs in the streets by packs of
White-hating monsters who were never even punished! He remembered the
time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford University: "Hey Hey
Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker. George now understood that that his people were on a collision
course with worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this
great people must not perish from the face of the earth.
George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was
lecturing on and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable
White schoolmates, with their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and
backwards baseball caps, were swallowing Silverstein's poison pills
hook, line and sinker. After letting Silverstein spew his cultural
poison for about 15 minutes or so, George raised his hand so that he
could give the professor a piece of his newly educated mind.
"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that
shirt and tie, and without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my
course so much that you signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to
meet George. He was one of my brightest students last semester. He
truly has a thorough grasp of the ideas presented in this course.
George, would you be so kind as to tell my class about that brilliant
term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"
That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.
"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We
Europeans have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and
everything to be proud of. And most of all, we don't owe anybody
jack-shit - not one thin dime! To the contrary, it is the rest of
humanity that owes us a debt which can never be repaid! We are the
rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural heritage. You vile
manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just
contribute to civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I declare that I
will no longer tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear
our people down. Never again will we walk on eggshells when we speak,
always fearing that we might be called "racist." I no longer care what
people think. All that matters is the truth which you have sought to
pervert!"
"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games
of divide and conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to
learn anymore about Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or
Black History Month. They would not have amounted to anything without
the institutions of high civilization created by the European peoples.
I'm going to set this class straight about who the truly great men of
history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history that you and your ilk have erased from our collective
memories. You speak of a world liberated from European influence?
Permit me tell your students about such a world, Silverstein, because
I can speak from personal experience, you wretched little conspiring
monster!"
Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shellshocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods. Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an
eloquence he never thought he could muster, George broke out into a
60-minute monologue on history, science, philosophy, culture, and all
the other attributes that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of
his tirade, George's reawakened classmates were thundering their
approval of his speech. The class gave George a standing ovation and
they thanked him for helping them rediscover and reclaim their own
sense of pride and lost identity. The unstoppable power of truth had
melted away years of Marxist guilt tripping, self hate, wimpishness
and cultural brainwashing in just one unforgettable hour. The inspired
students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earrings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a
conquering hero. With a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards
the sky, winked and said "Thank you, Clarence."
Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear
was that more of these proud European youths would one day reawaken
and take their country and civilization back from the Silversteins of
the world.
Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and
unique creative abilties. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the
music industry, the colleges, and the public schools are all
controlled by "liberals" like Dr. Silverstein. With the power of
political correctness in their hands, they can continue to tear down
our European ancestors, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push
"hip-hop" music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak,
confused and morally degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these
facts, Silverstein smiled a devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A
few of these European sheep may wake up to what's being done to them,
but the majority of these idiots never will." And he smiled
again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's too late."
Or will they?
Topaz
wrote:
>According to the nazi HE gets to decide who is "white" [and has rights]
>-- despotism per se.
>
>The nazi wants to be absolute dictator.
>
>
Here is the post without the spin:
The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
mixing Whites with other races. Because of this it will get harder
and harder to find White neigborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live in.
We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.
Our opponents say it is impossible to have White homeland because
they say we can not determine who is White and who is not. Even though
they can determine this easily enough when they want affirmitive
action, they say that we can not.
It is the same as if they said we can not determine red cars from
cars that are not red. They would say that it is impossible to call a
car red until we have an exact definition of what is red. It would be
reasonable if they pointed out that some cars are borderline and it
would be hard to say if they are red or not. But that is not what they
are saying. They are saying that we can not in any case tell if a car
is red or not.
If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if
people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
wrote:
>> If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
>
>But we don't look fucking white!
Words often have more than one meaning. For example - "right" as
opposed to left, and "right" as opposed to wrong.
You got the wrong meaning.
>Look at some white paint. Now look at
>a caucasian. If you painted your walls the same colour as the caucasian
>when someone had asked you to paint them white you'd get a clip round
>the ear'ole.
>
>You've just latched onto the word 'White' because it has connotations
>with purity in the Neo-Platonic Christian world-of-meaning.
I thought it was because it's what everyone else latched onto.
Bret Cahill
Of course, if all you do is hate then you aren't going to be very
influential.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
with me I won't turn her down.
I wouldn't want her to feel like an inferior white person.
Bret Cahill
sig...@binet.is
No, Iceland is not interested in Nazis, you can keep ´em yourself.
Sleepyhead
OK. I think you're wrong on at least 2 counts here.
1) Historically speaking, the "goal of America" was simply to get away
from the religious persecution of puritans in Britain.
2) Also historically speaking - but from the point of view of American
Independance - the "goal of America" was simply to stick two fingers
(or one finger?) up at the King and parliament of a country on the
other side of the world, who believed they could dictate policy, trade
agreements, and taxation to America in an age when it took at least 3
weeks to ship troops across the Atlantic ocean.
3) Unless you're talking about something like the Bill of Human Rights,
or the Declaration of Independence, there is /no main goal/ of the USA
- just as there is no main goal of the UK, France or Spain. We just
happen to live here and be governed by idiots similar to your idiots.
There's no mission statement to the USA (unless you mean the BoHR /
DoI), just as there's no mission statement for humans in general.
> Because of this it will get harder and harder to find White neigborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live in.
Equivocation - 'White' is not synonymous with 'Good'. In some cases
White is synonymous with 'Crappy'. There are several estates in where I
live - Firth Park and Manor Park to name but two), which are
predominantly white home-owner areas. They are areas where thefts of
vehicles (aka - "Taking Without Owner's Consent", or TWOC-ing) are
higher than anywhere else in the country, where the pavements
(sidewalks) are covered with shit (quite literally), where burglary is
rampant, and house prices are lower than anywhere else in the city. I
would never, ever consider living in any of these areas. And yes, I am
as a white as Adolf Hitler, although I prefer not to grease my hair and
have no moustache. Or beard, for that matter.
> We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.
I think your notion of 'race' belies a fundamental misunderstanding of
the use of the term. cf this
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race)
"The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of
view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of
the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial
classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color,
hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially
codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations
of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or
Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now
controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some
cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a
certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively
to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the
Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally
categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described
today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic
characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the
groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with
those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and
other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in
one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists
now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an
objective biological fact."
> If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
Then you must have great difficulty decorating your house.
I'd like some White paint please.
Sure thing.
Hey! That paint's not the same colour as my skin!
No - that's because your skin's pink, and this paint is white. You
colour-blind or something?
Sleepyhead
classification of racial characteristics) have now moved on, and you
haven't. Cf. my post concerning the definition of the word 'race'.
Sleepyhead
Indeed. Now - what are one's rights, and why do you think you deserve
them?
Sleepyhead
> The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large.
Reference to source of these facts, please.
> Whites also invented everything.
cf. http://www.users.fast.net/~blc/xlhome7.htm
Garret Morgan was brown-skinned
Thus Garrent Morgan was not pink-skinned.
Garret Morgan was of afro-carribean descent.
Thus Garret Morgan was not of Caucasian descent
If "White" = "Pink-skinned" the statement "Whites also invented
everything." is false because Garret Morgan invented the gas mask.
If "White" = "Caucasian" the statement "Whites also invented
everything." is false because Garret Morgan invented the gas mask.
In other words, without a definition of "White" this contention is
meaningless; given the two definitions of "White" you're likely to use,
your contention is just false.
> I believe that most of the IQ tests are taken in the former White nations and the Asians who moved to these countries are a cut above most of the Asians who were not as ambitious.
IQ tests are now a thoroughly discredited means of assessing
intelligence; the mainstream view these days is that they merely assess
your ability to do IQ tests.
cf: http://www.stephennewton.com/2004/10/iq-test-nonsense.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt
> Anyway it doesn't matter.
Oh but it does matter. If IQ tests are bullshit, then /all/ conclusions
based on IQ tests are bullshit. In which case /your/ conclusions based
on IQ tests are bullshit.
> I am also for preserving the Japanese and the Chinese races. They should have their own nations just as we Whites should have ours.
> Liberals don't see any problem with the Japanese and Chinese having their own nations. They only see a problem when Whites have this. Then they endlessly promote multi-culture and pluralism.
Hmm, /all/ Liberals think that do they - reference to sources, please.
But anyway, from an inbreeding point-of-view it's a very bad idea to
restrict the movement of the genes in the gene-pool; if you're talking
about 'preserving' race in terms of breeding, then I think you're
thinking of the kind of situation the British have with dogs. The
problem is that some British dog breeds are so inbred that they are
inherently unhealthy. A healthy human population is one that moves
freely from country to country.
Bret Cahill
cannot survive. The gene pool is too small. Instead they are bringing
in Texas cougars.
Bret Cahill
Robert Cohen
I am not re-posting it to argue whether it is true, or a
distortion/exaggeration.
His perception of flames from a "gas chamber" is probably of the
flames from the death factory's furnace: People were often (apparently)
gassed in "showers" and often their bodies were (apparently) cremated.
Whether people are murdered by gassing, shooting, burning alive, or
exactly how is not my issue; and I do not dwell in grusome detail.
I personally do not go to the Holocaust Museum, nor did I watch that
Speiberg dramatization.
The reason that I'm re-posting this article is...uh.... ya know the
damne barbers over-charge for haircuts nowadays: I recall when it was
75 cents for a neat flat-top.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/living/1005/05real.html
copyrighted by the atlanta journal constitution 2005
'I survive on miracles'
Evicted barber draws strength from past
By GRACIE BONDS STAPLES
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/05/05
The pharmacist and the doctors left the building more than a month ago,
taking the barber pole with them.
Maybe they thought Eli Sotto was gone, too. More than once in the past
month or so, signs posted on the door to the Trim Shop had announced
the barber was away at a doctor's appointment.
Signs track the whereabouts of the owner of the Trim Shop in Midtown.
Eli Sotto, 82, trims the hair of Bob Vance. Sotto, a native of Greece,
came to Atlanta after World War II. 'This is my life,' he says.
But it was never long before Eli was back, in his white smock, behind
his red leather chair.
At 82, the barber could simply call it quits, pack up like the rest of
the tenants, and make way for the wrecking ball. But there's a reason
that Eli is the last man standing.
As he says, "This is my life."
And it's a life hard won.
For decades now, he has cut hair here on the ground floor of the
two-story Peachtree Medical Building, less than a mile from the Fox
Theatre. He arrived in 1953, a Holocaust survivor who'd gone through
hell — sometimes walking, sometimes running.
"It was a terrible day," he says.
The barber is thinking back now, to a day in October 1940, when the
Italians declared war against his native Greece.
He was 16, one of thousands of Jews ordered to the town square, then
put to work building an airfield. Eventually, he was taken to
Auschwitz, where his parents and two sisters were sent to their deaths
in the gas chamber.
"You could see flames at nighttime go way up to the sky.'' He raises
his hands to the ceiling.
Eli and his brothers, Charles and Isaac, were all that remained of his
family. He and Charles were packed like animals onto cargo trains and
transported to Buna (a subcamp).
Death put on hold
Eli Sotto was about to experience what he calls his first miracle.
While washing barrels one day behind the barracks, word came that the
prisoners had been ordered to the square. As he ran there, an officer
grabbed him to put him on a truck headed to the gas chamber in
Birkenau.
The truck was already full. Eli Sotto's death was put on hold. The next
day, he was ordered back to work. Three more days passed before it was
time to make the selection for the gas chamber once again.
"They lined us up in front of the barracks naked," he remembers.
Eli was in the third row, watching as the officers played Russian
roulette with the prisoners' lives. As they counted off prisoners in
the second row, Eli moved up into a space vacated by someone chosen to
die. He was left among the survivors, marched off to work, and he says
115303 was etched into his left forearm "like a VIN number on a car."
Two days later, he was transferred to Warsaw to clean up after the
ghetto uprising. As the Russian and American Allies began arriving to
liberate them, Eli and the other prisoners were marched five days to
Landsberg, Germany. There, they boarded cargo trains to Dachau and
eventually Czechoslovakia.
"After four or five months there," Eli says, "they took us somewhere
else."
But en route, Eli spotted nuns and Red Cross workers, jumped from the
train and, feigning illness, landed in a Catholic hospital in Prague.
It was spring 1945. Two weeks later, the European phase of World War II
ended.
Eli and the other prisoners were issued clothes and put in a shelter
before finally arriving back home in Thessaloniki. His brother Charles
had died in the camp. Isaac had survived.
One day, while Eli was at the farmers market, a stranger introduced him
to another Holocaust survivor, Lucy Levy. They were married three
months later and in 1948 applied to come to the United States.
Skyline in transition
Eli had heard about Atlanta, and so he and Lucy asked the American
consul in New York if they could go there instead. They arrived with
only the barber skills Eli's father had taught him.
He landed his first job at a five-chair shop downtown on Georgia Avenue
run by Chris Perez. When Perez lost his lease in 1953, Eli scanned the
newspaper and found an ad for a space at 849 Peachtree St.
Over the years, the building changed hands four times and four times
managed to survive. Each time his lease was renewed and his rent
increased.
And so, there he was the other day, comb in one hand, a pair of
scissors in the other, cutting hair under the buzz of a city block in
transition. Photos tacked along the upper edge of a mirror capture
another time, when Eli had a full shock of black hair and his clientele
included the likes of former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson, former
Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes and television host Bert Parks. Those were good
years, but today is good, too, as customers dart in and out.
In June, he and the building's nine other tenants were given notice it
was time to go, to make way for progress. The Novare Group planned more
residential tower construction like the building it recently completed
across the street. They had less than 30 days to move.
"It was bad," he says of the news.
Eli lost his wife a decade ago. He couldn't bear losing his shop. "I
come here to see people," he says.
The other tenants packed up and left, and one day the new owner stopped
by.
How long you been here? he asked Eli.
"I say over 50 years," he recalls in his thick Greek accent.
Then he did what survivors do — he thought on his feet. Could he stay a
little longer, he asked the man. Just until he can find another
location?
Conor McNally, developer for Novare, had heard of Eli, knew he'd
survived the Holocaust, that he was a "part of the fabric" that made
Midtown Midtown.
"Because of this," he said, "we wanted to give him special
consideration."
He gave Eli until Nov. 30.
Now Eli is looking for another place to land, a spot to carry on —
maybe someplace close, like West Peachtree Street.
"I survive on miracles," he says with a glint in his eyes. "Thank God
miracles work out."
Topaz
by Joseph Sobran
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so
large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western
exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the
world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western
power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have
disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel
not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they
don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white
man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't
conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying
white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of
designated victims we call 'minorities.'
From Sobran's Newsletter, April 1997
Topaz
wrote:
>> Whites also invented everything.
>
>> The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large.
>
>Reference to source of these facts, please.
"The Bell Curve" It's well known.
>Garret Morgan was brown-skinned
>Thus Garrent Morgan was not pink-skinned.
>
>Garret Morgan was of afro-carribean descent.
>Thus Garret Morgan was not of Caucasian descent
>
>If "White" = "Pink-skinned" the statement "Whites also invented
>everything." is false because Garret Morgan invented the gas mask.
>
>If "White" = "Caucasian" the statement "Whites also invented
>everything." is false because Garret Morgan invented the gas mask.
Garret Morgan looks only slightly Black. The pure Blacks in the
congo didn't invent very much and:
Inventions that aid and protect the ability to breath where gas,
smoke or other poisonous fumes exist, occurred before 1915 and the
first use of modern chemical weapons. Modern chemical warfare began in
Ypres, France; when German soldiers first used chlorine gas on April
22, 1915, to attack the French. Long before that date, miners,
firemen, and underwater divers all had a need for helmets that could
provide breathable air, and the early prototypes for gas masks were
developed to meet those needs.
In 1823, brothers, John and Charles Deane patented a smoke protecting
apparatus for firemen that was later modified for underwater divers.
Augustus Siebe marketed an early diving suit in 1819. Siebe's suit
included a helmet to which air was pumped via a tube to the helmet and
spent air escaped from another tube. The inventor founded Siebe,
Gorman and Co., a company that developed and manufactured respirators
for a variety of purposes that was later instrumental in developing
defense respirators.
In 1849, Lewis P. Haslett patented an "Inhaler or Lung Protector," the
first U.S. patent (#6529) issued for an air purifying respirator.
Haslett's device filtered dust from the air. In 1854, Scottish chemist
John Stenhouse invented a simple mask that used charcoal to filter
noxious gases.
In 1860, Frenchmen, Benoit Rouquayrol and Auguste Denayrouse invented
the Résevoir-Régulateur, intended for use in rescuing miners in
flooded mines, the Résevoir-Régulateur could be used underwater. The
device was made up of a nose clip, and a mouthpiece attached to an air
tank that the rescue worker carried on his back.
In 1871, British physicist John Tyndall invented a fireman's
respirator that filtered air against smoke and gas. In 1874, British
inventor, Samuel Barton patented a device that "permitted respiration
in places where the atmosphere is charged with noxious gases, or
vapors, smoke, or other impurities" according to U.S. patent #148868.
American, Garrett Morgan patented the Morgan safety hood and smoke
protector in 1914. Two years later, Garrett Morgan made national news
when his gas mask was used to rescue 32 men trapped during an
explosion in an underground tunnel 250 feet beneath Lake Erie. The
publicity sold the safety hood to firehouses across the United States.
Some historians site the Morgan design as the basis for early U.S.
army gas masks used during WW1, others do not.
Early air filters include simple devices such as a soaked handkerchief
held over the nose and mouth. Those devices evolved into various hoods
worn over the head and soaked with protective chemicals, goggles for
the eyes and later filters drums were added.
The British built a carbon monoxide respirator for use during WW1 in
February 1915, before the first use of chemical gas weapons. It was
discovered that unexploded enemy shells gave off high enough levels of
carbon monoxide to kill soldiers in the trenches, foxholes, and other
contained environments. Similar, to the dangers of the exhaust from a
car with its engine turned on in an enclosed garage.
Canadian, Cluny Macpherson designed a fabric 'smoke helmet' with a
single exhaling tube, impregnated with chemical sorbents to defeat the
airborne chlorine used in the gas attacks. Macpherson's designs were
used and modified by allied forces and are considered the first to be
used to protect against chemical weapons.
In 1916, the Germans added larger air filter drums to their
respirators containing gas neutralize chemicals. The allies soon added
filter drums to their respirators as well. One of the most notable gas
masks used during WW1 was the British Small Box Respirator or SBR
designed in 1916. The SBR was probably the most reliable and heavily
used gas masks used during WW1.
>
>In other words, without a definition of "White" this contention is
>meaningless; given the two definitions of "White" you're likely to use,
>your contention is just false.
Some anti-Whites say there is no White race because there could be
some small amount of non-White in people who appear to be White.
There is not much point in answering the twisted reasoning of those
who deep down hate the White race. But just in case anyone actually
believes their arguments here is an analogy, comparing race to air:
Near the surface of the earth there is air but in outer space there is
no air. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher up. They are
saying that if one cannot pinpoint the exact altitude where air ends
and no air begins then air must not exist. If you can't define exactly
how many molecules of air must be in a cubic foot of space to call it
air, then they say there is no air you can't have balloons or
windmills or anything based on air.
>
>IQ tests are now a thoroughly discredited
thoroughly policitally incorrect
> means of assessing
>intelligence; the mainstream view these days is that they merely assess
>your ability to do IQ tests.
>
>Oh but it does matter. If IQ tests are bullshit, then /all/ conclusions
>based on IQ tests are bullshit. In which case /your/ conclusions based
>on IQ tests are bullshit.
An intelligent person would score higher on any reasonable IQ test
than an imbecile.
>
>> Liberals don't see any problem with the Japanese and Chinese having their own nations. They only see a problem when Whites have this. Then they endlessly promote multi-culture and pluralism.
>
>Hmm, /all/ Liberals think that do they - reference to sources, please.
Is there a well known liberal not like that?
>But anyway, from an inbreeding point-of-view it's a very bad idea to
>restrict the movement of the genes in the gene-pool; if you're talking
>about 'preserving' race in terms of breeding, then I think you're
>thinking of the kind of situation the British have with dogs. The
>problem is that some British dog breeds are so inbred that they are
>inherently unhealthy. A healthy human population is one that moves
>freely from country to country.
The pure breds are worth big money while the mogrels are almost
given away free.
Topaz
wrote:
>> The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by mixing Whites with other races.
>
>OK. I think you're wrong on at least 2 counts here.
>
>1) Historically speaking, the "goal of America" was simply to get away
>from the religious persecution of puritans in Britain.
That was then, this is now.
>2) Also historically speaking - but from the point of view of American
>Independance - the "goal of America" was simply to stick two fingers
>(or one finger?) up at the King and parliament of a country on the
>other side of the world, who believed they could dictate policy, trade
>agreements, and taxation to America in an age when it took at least 3
>weeks to ship troops across the Atlantic ocean.
That was a long time ago.
>
>3) Unless you're talking about something like the Bill of Human Rights,
>or the Declaration of Independence, there is /no main goal/ of the USA
No, the goal is to promote multi-culture and pluralism for Whites
while giving Jews billions of dollars to have their own country.
>- just as there is no main goal of the UK, France or Spain. We just
>happen to live here and be governed by idiots similar to your idiots.
>There's no mission statement to the USA (unless you mean the BoHR /
>DoI), just as there's no mission statement for humans in general.
It's obvious what the mission statement is and the result would be
the death of the White race.
>Equivocation - 'White' is not synonymous with 'Good'.
Agreed
> In some cases
>White is synonymous with 'Crappy'. There are several estates in where I
>live - Firth Park and Manor Park to name but two), which are
>predominantly white home-owner areas. They are areas where thefts of
>vehicles (aka - "Taking Without Owner's Consent", or TWOC-ing) are
>higher than anywhere else in the country, where the pavements
>(sidewalks) are covered with shit (quite literally), where burglary is
>rampant, and house prices are lower than anywhere else in the city. I
>would never, ever consider living in any of these areas. And yes, I am
>as a white as Adolf Hitler, although I prefer not to grease my hair and
>have no moustache. Or beard, for that matter.
Safest / Most Dangerous Cities and Percentage of Blacks
Safest Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/
1. Amherst, N.Y 3.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=91
2. Newton, Mass. 2.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html
3. Mission Viejo, Calif. 1.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Mission-Viejo-California.html
4. Cary, N.C. 6.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Cary-North-Carolina.html
5. Brick Township, N.J. (Less than 1% as computed by dividing 75,325
population into 751 blacks)
http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/planning/databook/09RACE2000.htm
6. Simi Valley, Calif. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Simi-Valley-California.html
7. Sunnyvale, Calif. 2.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sunnyvale-California.html
8. Colonie, N.Y. 3.5%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Colonie-New-York.html
9. Sterling Heights, Mich. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sterling-Heights-Michigan.html
10. Clarkstown, N.Y 7.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=409
____________________
Most Dangerous Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/
1. Detroit 81.6%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html
2. Atlanta 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Atlanta-Georgia.html
3. St. Louis 51.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html
4. Baltimore 64.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Baltimore-Maryland.html
5. Gary, Ind. 84.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Gary-Indiana.html
6. Camden, N.J. 53.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Camden-New-Jersey.html
7. Tampa 26.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Tampa-Florida.html
8. West Palm Beach, Fla. 32.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/West-Palm-Beach-Florida.html
9. Compton, Calif. 40.3% (White non-Hispanic 1.0%)
http://www.city-data.com/city/Compton-California.html
10. Memphis, Tenn. 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Memphis-Tennessee.html
BroJack
>I think your notion of 'race' belies a fundamental misunderstanding of
>the use of the term. cf this
>(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race)
>
>"The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of
>view as it is from a social one.
Politically correct propaganda.
Some anti-Whites say there is no White race because there could be
some small amount of non-White in people who appear to be White.
There is not much point in answering the twisted reasoning of those
who deep down hate the White race. But just in case anyone actually
believes their arguments here is an analogy, comparing race to air:
Near the surface of the earth there is air but in outer space there is
no air. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher up. They are
saying that if one cannot pinpoint the exact altitude where air ends
and no air begins then air must not exist. If you can't define exactly
how many molecules of air must be in a cubic foot of space to call it
air, then they say there is no air you can't have balloons or
windmills or anything based on air.
> European physical anthropologists of
>the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial
>classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color,
>hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially
>codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations
>of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or
>Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now
>controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some
>cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a
>certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively
>to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the
>Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally
>categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described
>today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic
>characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the
>groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with
>those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and
>other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in
>one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists
>now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an
>objective biological fact."
>
>> If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if people look White enough to me then I will call them White.
>
>Then you must have great difficulty decorating your house.
Why?
>
>I'd like some White paint please.
>Sure thing.
>Hey! That paint's not the same colour as my skin!
>No - that's because your skin's pink, and this paint is white. You
>colour-blind or something?
Words can have different meanings, such as "right" and left, and
"right" and wrong. You used the wrong meaning for "White".
Sleepyhead
discussion you brush it aside as irrelevant; "That was then - this is
now". Fair enough. In which case Mein Kampf is no longer subject matter
for our discussion. As you have observed yourself - that was then -
this is now.
> No, the goal is to promote multi-culture and pluralism for Whites while giving Jews billions of dollars to have their own country.
...
> It's obvious what the mission statement is and the result would be the death of the White race.
OK ... well just saying "It's obvious" doesn't make it obvious. First
you have to provide proof, evidence, references to articles dealing
with "The Goal of America", not just references to statistics which
could prove this, could prove that ... could prove anything.
> Politically correct propaganda.
So you say. But then I offer the same challenge to you - your writing
is racist propaganda. Furthermore I contend that there's no rational
basis for your hate: you have yet to tell me /why/ you think as you do
- what drove you to these conclusions - simply saying "It's obvious" is
not enough when doing philosophy.
> Some anti-Whites say there is no White race because there could be some small amount of non-White in people who appear to be White. There is not much point in answering the twisted reasoning of those who deep down hate the White race. But just in case anyone actually believes their arguments here is an analogy, comparing race to air: Near the surface of the earth there is air but in outer space there is no air. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher up. They are saying that if one cannot pinpoint the exact altitude where air ends and no air begins then air must not exist. If you can't define exactly how many molecules of air must be in a cubic foot of space to call it air, then they say there is no air you can't have balloons or windmills or anything based on air.
Well some caucasians may hate themselves, true. But the problem with
race is a widespread problem amonst those who might be professionally
interested in defining such a term. The problem with defining racial
characteristics is that they are subject to a great deal of
fluctuation. It's like trying to define each and every wave on the sea.
Oh sure you could do it - but what would that achieve. Oh if you wanted
for a certain purpose you could define big waves and little waves, just
like you might define caucasian and afro-carribean.
Which brings me to my main point. The /purpose/ of your posts.
Generally speaking, racially-motivated propaganda such as the kind
you've been posting is not aimed at scientific investigation, or a
thorough and methodical look at all aspects of the data, but
antagonisation. You'd rather live in a world where everything was the
same, where White was right (no doubt you'll argue back "White /is/
right", and if you do then you and I and the rest of the world will
both know that you argue like a child), where we eat McDonalds (the
place where "Everyone had the same") 'til we keel over from coronary
heart disease, where the corporate dollar is welcomed, and where
pig-ignorant fools can sit on their behinds, drink beer, and ponder the
meaning of the existence they've carved out for themselves. And if
that's all you can conceive of as your destiny then buddy you're
welcome to it. Personally I'd rather chug along with everyone else so
we can all get there together. Of course if you want to isolate
yourself in a white-trash shit-hole then I'm not going to stop you - go
right ahead. Be my guest. We'll all be over here - having a nice time.
Anyway - for your rhetoric I offer some of my own. Or rather, not my
own. See if you can guess who wrote this.
"As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We
cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil
rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long
as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police
brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with
the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the
highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as
long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York
believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not
satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like
waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Of course that was then, this is now.
Sleepyhead
that: The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is
small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large?
References to authoritative studies, please.
> Is there a well known liberal not like that?
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean /all/ liberals think like that. Not
unless you think that all liberals are well-known.
> Garret Morgan looks only slightly Black.
I don't care how black his skin is because 1) it's a dodgy photo taken
a good few years ago and 2) he's afro-carribean. Are you saying you'd
welcome albino afro-carribeans with open arms?
> The pure Blacks in the congo didn't invent very much
And neither did bronze-age cavemen.
> thoroughly policitally incorrect
No, scientifically discredited. There's a difference. One relies purely
on opinion but science relies on proof.
> An intelligent person would score higher on any reasonable IQ test than an imbecile.
What do you mean by 'reasonable' in that sentence? One that gives the
results you'd like to see? Or one that admits of rationality?
> The pure breds are worth big money while the mogrels are almost given away free.
But you're not talking about selling people. Or are you?
Anyway, from an evolutionary point of view mongrels are the ones who
have hybrid vigour and are more likely to survive.
Topaz
wrote:
>> One does not ask for ones rights, one fights for them.
>
>Indeed. Now - what are one's rights,
We should have a nation for White people.
>and why do you think you deserve
>them?
We should preserve the White race. People go to a lot of trouble to
save the whales. The White race should be saved too.
Topaz
wrote:
>True, but 'everyone else' (i.e. the biologists interested in
>classification of racial characteristics) have now moved on, and you
These politically correct "experts" would be out of a job if they
didn't toe the PC line. There was a war about this called World War II
and the White race lost. But the bad side won that war.
>haven't. Cf. my post concerning the definition of the word 'race'.
Some anti-Whites say there is no White race because there could be
some small amount of non-White in people who appear to be White.
There is not much point in answering the twisted reasoning of those
who deep down hate the White race. But just in case anyone actually
believes their arguments here is an analogy, comparing race to air:
Near the surface of the earth there is air but in outer space there is
no air. Air gets thinner and thinner as you go higher up. They are
saying that if one cannot pinpoint the exact altitude where air ends
and no air begins then air must not exist. If you can't define exactly
how many molecules of air must be in a cubic foot of space to call it
air, then they say there is no air you can't have balloons or
windmills or anything based on air.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
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 book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Dutch
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Safest / Most Dangerous Cities and Percentage of Blacks
Surely this is a cultural, not a racial phenomenon, and as such surely the
white majority in America still has the ball for causing (and fixing) the
cultural environment and oppressive attitudes that black Americans face.
Pointing fingers is not very constructive, but I guess if makes you feel
good it's not without value...
Dutch
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On 5 Oct 2005 05:08:04 -0700, "Sleepyhead" <simonh...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> One does not ask for ones rights, one fights for them.
>>
>>Indeed. Now - what are one's rights,
>
> We should have a nation for White people.
Shoulda thought of that before y'all went and captured all those slaves.
Oops, too late now. Well, there's always Greenland...
Bret Cahill
a white sheet and burn some crosses at night.
His hatred of blacks is the real problem.
Bret Cahill
National Alliance Terrorism
Kevin MacDonald is just one of a long line of anti-Semites who try to
cloak their hatred in a thin veneer of academic "scholarship". They are
intelligent enough to realize that if they come right out and espouse
the murder and persecution of minority groups that people will reject
them out of hand, so they quietly work to undermine tollerance and
build hatred. They lay the foundation for later attrocities.
Kevin Macdonald writes for the Occidental Quarterly which calls for the
purification of the "White" race, the banning of all culture in America
except for "Classical, Christian, and Germanic" and the restriction of
US citizenship and immigration to
"...selected people of European ancestry."
He advocates in his books for systematic discrimination against Jews in
college admission and employment and heavy taxation of Jews "to counter
the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth."
"the European-derived peoples of the United States will become
increasingly unified", and that they will "develop a united front and a
collectivist political orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups.
Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be
created, and Western societies will undergo another period of
medievalism."
Leading scholars have rejected MacDonald's work as contradicting "basic
principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology" and failing "basic
tests of scientific credibility.
MacDonald blew whatever minute credibility he might have had when he
enthusiastically testified for (Holocaust denier) David Irving,
claiming that "he isn't an anti-Semite". Birds of a feather flock
together. And flying halfway around the world to claim that a Holocaust
denier "is not an anti-semite" is hardly the action of an objective
scholar.
Just like David Duke, Macdonald claims he has no bias or hatred against
Jews. People who have researched the claims and references in his books
have illustrated otherwise (see below). Although his simple-minded
Neo-Nazi supporters endlessly scream that he dares to tell the truth
about Jews, the crafting of Nazi propoganda is a complex art. Macdonald
uses misrepresentation, distortion and selective reporting of facts to
promote his racist agenda and his threatening and evil conclusions
about Jews.
-----
Subtle Inflections and Selective Silences: MacDonald on Jews in the
Secret Police
Although MacDonald repeatedly assures his readers that the communist
government in Poland was "Jewish-dominated" in the years immediately
after the Second World War, he devotes comparatively little space to
discussing Jewish participation in actual government operations. The
only government function he treats at any level of detail is the secret
police force. I suspect this is because he rightly believes that their
participation in such an abhorrent organization may be the most
devastating charge that can be leveled against Jewish communists in
Poland; it would certainly appeal to any reader predisposed to accept
indications of inherent Jewish malevolence. Taking MacDonald's word for
it, the secret police would appear to have been a fundamentally Jewish
institution:
Quote:
Jewish ethnic background was particularly important in recruiting for
the internal security service: The generation of Jewish communists
realized that their power derived entirely from the Soviet Union and
that they would have to resort to coercion in order to control a
fundamentally hostile noncommunist society ([Schatz 1991,] p. 262). The
core members of the security service came from the Jewish communists
who had been communists before the establishment of the Polish
communist government, but these were joined by other Jews sympathetic
to the government and alienated from the wider society. This in turn
reinforced the popular image of Jews as servants of foreign interests
and enemies of ethnic Poles (Schatz 1991, 225).[MacDonald, Culture of
Critique, p. 66; emphasis added]
Compare the foregoing with what Schatz actually says on page 225. The
following would appear to be the text upon which MacDonald bases the
assertion I have emphasized above:
Quote:
To begin with, there was the basic fact of the general society's
hostility toward the regime and the latter's need for trusted cadres.
Old Communists, among them members of the generation [i.e., Jewish
communists], had to be relied on as their core. [Schatz, The
Generation, p. 225; emphasis added]
Schatz is quite clear: Jews numbered among those Old Communists who
initially filled the ranks of the internal security service.
MacDonald's paraphrase would have it that these positions were filled
exclusively by Jews, a claim for which he has no evidence. The effect
is to exaggerate ethnic hostility or rivalry as a motivational factor
for the secret policemen while at the same time encouraging a reaction
of real ethnic hostility on the part of his non-Jewish readers.
Moreover, MacDonald utterly ignores this passage, also appearing on
page 225:
Quote:
How many Jews, in general, and how many prewar Communists, in
particular, served in the security service is impossible to say. Their
number and role must have been much smaller than the propaganda
campaign, undertaken by Soviet intelligence and aimed at putting all
blame for "errors and distortions" on Jewish officials, had it. In
addition, it must be stressed that contrary to the popular stereotype
of a Jewish secret police official and his non-Jewish victim, 40
percent of those affected by secret police officials are reported to
have been of Jewish descent. However, the number of Jewish secret
police officials and, most important, their visibility must have been
significant enough to justify the hopes of the initiators of the
campaign and its relative success. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 225]
MacDonald's desciption of an exclusively (or even predominantly) Jewish
secret police force in Communist Poland appears, then, to perpetuate a
myth Schatz explicitly attributes to Soviet propaganda. Schatz's
conclusions may or may not be correct on this score, but insofar as
MacDonald cites no source to contradict Schatz, he can offer no grounds
for a) misrepresenting the "core" ethnic makeup of the secret police as
reported by Schatz, or b) ignoring Schatz's contention that Soviet
propaganda exaggerated Jewish participation in the secret police -- no
grounds other than preconceptions driven by the theory of Jewish group
behavior he is ostensibly proving by reference to Schatz.
MacDonald chooses not to alert his readers to the existence of branches
of the security service that had nothing whatsoever to do with
advancing Jewish interests. Instead, he subtly conflates the whole of
the security service with its internal branch (i.e., on page 66 of The
Culture of Critique he claims that Jews were "the core members of the
security service"), ignoring sections in which Jews either did not play
a significant role, or in which Jews themselves -- both in and out of
power -- were placed under surveillance. He ignores, for instance, the
role of the Informacja:
Quote:
Until the thaw [i.e., the mid 1950's], the Polish security apparatus
was totally controlled by the Soviet secret police. Seen as a whole, it
had a double function; it served as an instrument of Soviet control
over Poland and its regime while, at the same time, securing the Polish
Communist party's monopoly of power. This apparatus consisted of the
military counterintelligence called the Informacja, the civilian
security service known in common parlance as the Bezpieka, and the
so-called Department Ten, whose task was to supervise the loyalty of
the highest strata of party and state leadership ...
The Informacja was created in November 1944 as a Polish version of the
Soviet counterintelligence agency, Smersh. It was formally placed under
the Polish Ministry of Defense but was in fact the most important
instrument of Soviet domination in Poland. ...
The first Polish officers in the Informacja were recruited from among
the so-called Spaniards (the Polish veterans of the Spanish civil war),
the Communist armed underground during the German occupation, and the
repatriated Polish members of the French Communist party. The bulk of
the Polish Informacja officers, however, were recruited from among
young peasants and workers with little formal education and no
political experience. The role of the members of the generation [i.e.,
Jewish communists] was negligible. Forming a segment of the initially
recruited small group of prewar Polish Communists, those few who left
the army to join its service were gradually eliminated. [Schatz, The
Generation, pp. 222-23]
Poles' willingness to serve in the Informacja, which Schatz calls "the
most important instrument of Soviet domination in Poland," undermines
MacDonald's contention that Polish participation in the communist
government was a deceptive sham, an attempt "to place a Polish face on
what was in reality a Jewish-dominated government," [MacDonald, The
Culture of Critique, p. 67] and it explicitly contradicts his assertion
that the "Jewish-dominated government" was "the agent of Soviet
domination in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critque, pp. 68-69].
He chooses, therefore, to ignore the Informacja entirely.
He deals similarly with the problems raised by Department Ten, also
mentioned in the passage quoted above. Created in 1948 (i.e., at the
presumable height of Jewish domination of the Polish government),
Department 10 appears to have been preparing the way for a systematic
campaign against "Polish-Jewish Communists [with] accusations of
cosmopolitanism and Zionist conspiracy" almost from the moment of its
inception [Schatz, The Generation, p. 224]. MacDonald's hypnotically
frequent references to "the Jewish-dominated government"
notwithstanding, a fuller consideration of Schatz's description of the
security appartus suggests that Jewish communists in Poland hardly had
an exclusive or even pre-eminent hold on power at any point in the
post-war period. Instead, they appear to have been pitted, perhaps
deliberately, against a variety of other blocs, hardly a situation one
could fairly define as "domination."
Even MacDonald's exemplar institution of Jewish domination, the
internal security service, raises problematic issues as a model for
Jews in positions of power serving Jewish interests at the expense of
ethnic Poles. As MacDonald again fails to mention to his readers,
Quote:
[a] Jewish section [of the civilian security service] was organized
within the frame of the political department of the ministry of public
security. In this period, it was manned almost solely by functionaries
of Jewish descent and carried out an intensive surveillance of all
institutions within the Jewish sector, their activities, employees, and
clientele.[Schatz, The Generation, p. 223]
Noting that "Jews were very prominent in the domestic security forces
in Poland" [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 80] without also
calling attention to the fact that some number of them were tasked with
the surveillance of other Jews amounts to a fairly significant
distortion of the record. One would expect a responsible social
scientist to wonder what proportion of Jews in the secret police were
assigned this duty, and whether this would have accounted in some
measure for "Jewish prominence" in the internal security service. It
might also occur to a social scientist to wonder what the perceived
need for a "Jewish section" of the civilian security service would
imply about the government's relationship with the Jewish community; at
the very least, and in spite of MacDonald's assertions to the contrary,
the government's perceived need to create a special office to track the
activities of "the Jewish sector" suggests that the loyalty of the
Jewish community could not be taken for granted. Given the behavior
Schatz attributes to the majority of Jews in Poland during the
immediate post-War years, the communist government's mistrust of the
Jewish community may indeed have been well-founded -- I will address
this behavior in more detail in the next section of this article.
The pattern of omissions that characterizes MacDonald's discussion of
the security service as an institution also extends to his discussion
of Jewish secret policemen as individuals, particularly with respect to
their motives for joining the security service. Here, a side-by-side
comparison of MacDonald and Schatz may be helpful:
Quote:
MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66
Jewish members of the internal security force often appear to have been
motivated by personal rage and a desire for revenge related to their
Jewish identity:
Quote:
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. (Schatz, 1991, 226)
Quote:
Schatz, The Generation, pp. 226-227
The picture of their motives for joining the security service is mixed.
For some, the primary motive appears to be an overwhelming sense of
identification with the new order and a sense of personal
responsibility for defending it against its enemies. Others, initially
hesitant to join the service, had to be persuaded by appeals to their
Communist responsibility or with orders to take it on as their party
duty. Although they might have preferred to work in other sectors, a
disciplined Communist could not resist this kind of argument. However,
there were also other motives. For some of the policemen, equal to or
more important than their sense of personal duty was a desire for
revenge and a personal rage.
Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground
was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same
anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had
collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with
almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both
Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their
eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be
punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary
before a better world could be built. Another, often closely related,
motive was the pure desire for power and might. Thus achieved, power
could be intoxicating. Those policemen for whom this was the primary
motive could "hear the houses tremble" when walking the streets -- and
loved it. Still another motive was a general desire to find some
position within the system, quite independently of what sector or the
system that happened to be. Had such people been proposed for or found
themselves in other positions, they would have taken them gladly. Thus,
their initial involvement in the security apparatus was quite
coincidental.
The only motive of relevance for MacDonald is that dealing explicitly
with Jewish identity; he ignores others, preferring instead to offer a
skewed rendition of Schatz as a demonstration of his thesis. Note that
the point is not that the other explanations are at all exculpatory;
they are inconvenient for MacDonald because they do not provide direct
evidence of Jews acting in the interest or in the name of the group,
rather than in the interest of the Communist Party or in their own
individual interests. Even his indicator of indeterminate number is
unsupported in the source: where Schatz is only willing to say that
"some" Jewish secret policemen acted out of a sense of "personal rage,"
MacDonald intensifies the point by claiming that this was "often" the
case. How often is "often"? One would, again, expect a social scientist
to ask such a question before resorting to a loaded adverb suggestive
of a widespread phenomenon, perhaps even a typical pattern. A casual
reader could well be forgiven for concluding that a significant
percentage -- if not the majority -- of Jewish secret policmen were
motivated by a desire for vengeance in the name of the group.
Of course, MacDonald himself does not know how often "often" is because
his source does not say -- in fact, his source quite explicitly states
that reliable statistical data that might show how often "often" is
does not exist. The absence of such data does not discourage MacDonald
from making a broad and, given the range of alternative explanations he
omits, quite unwarranted generalization. Such practices -- and this is
far from an isolated example -- make it difficult to believe that he is
not actively enouraging his readers to adopt precisely the sort of
vague impressions of widespread Jewish malevolence that effectively
validate antisemitism. And it is precisely such rhetorical strategies
that undercut MacDonald's contention that he bears no personal
responsibility for his popularity with right-wing extremists.
MacDonald's discussion of Jews in the secret police, illuminating as it
is as a demonstration of his cavalier and opportunistic use of
secondary sources, is to some extent itself a secondary matter. His
treatment of Schatz is characterized throughout by a far more egregious
misrepresentation. This mispresentation forms the subject of the next
section of this article.
=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.
Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have missed it so completely
MacDonald would have had to adopt a perversely contorted reading
strategy.
=====
MacDonald's "Great Majority" Libel
Although in the introductory chapter of The Culture of Critique
MacDonald claims that "[t]here is no implication here of a unified
Jewish 'conspiracy' to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the
notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion," [MacDonald, The Culture of
Critique, p. 1] he appears particularly anxious to convince his readers
that there was indeed substantial agreement and mutual cooperation
between Jewish communists in power and the wider Jewish population of
post-war Poland. The following excerpts from his discussion tend to
contradict his own assertions a) that "[s]ince the Enlightenment,
Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement," and b) that he
is more concerned with the Jewish agendas of the individuals who
dominated the intellectual and political movements he discusses than
with attributing anti-gentile behavior to Jews as a group. [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, pp. 1-2] At least as far as post-war Poland is
concerned, MacDonald would apparently very much like his readers to
believe that Judaism was a unified, monolithic movement, exhibiting
anti-Gentile behaviors that were generally consistent within the group.
Quote:
It will be apparent in the following that the Jews, including Jewish
communists at the highest levels of government, continued as a
cohesive, identifiable group. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.
63]
[T]he general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist
government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic
underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the
Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority
of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties (Schatz 1991,
204-205). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 65]
Moreover, the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish
population, many of whom had not previously been communists, as "a
reservoir that could be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild
the country. Although not old, 'tested' comrades, they were outsiders
with regard to its historically shaped traditions, without connections
to the Catholic Church, and hated by those who hated the regime. Thus
they could be depended on and used to fill required positions" (Schatz
1991, 212-213). [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
... Poland became polarized between a predominantly Jewish ruling and
administrative class supported by the rest of the Jewish population and
by Soviet military power, arrayed against the great majority of the
native gentile population. [MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. 66]
The problem with these assertions of general Jewish solidarity with the
Communist government is that they are, quite simply, false. Indeed, the
evidence that contradicts MacDonald on this is readily available and
clearly laid out in Jaff Schatz's The Generation, the principal source
informing MacDonald's discussion. The vast majority of surviving Jews
who remained in or returned to Poland immediately after the Second
World War signaled their lack of faith in what MacDonald calls the
"Jewish-dominated" Communist government in the clearest language
possible: they left.
Quote:
The first wave of returnees reached its peak in April, May, and June
1946, when 213,000 Polish refugees returned from the USSR. Of these
64.1 percent, that is, 136,550 persons, were Jews. At least 20,000
Jewish refugees came back on their own, before the organized groups of
repatriates reached Poland. In 1946, the CKZP [i.e., the Central
Committee of Jews in Poland] registered 157,240 Jewish repatriates from
the USSR. ... Together with approximately 60,000 to 70,000 survivors of
concentration camps and soldiers, there were at least 245,000 Jews in
Poland in July 1946. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 203]
Despite the strong condemnation of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish
violence by Polish intellectuals, such violence was widespread.
Individual Jews were killed on returning to small cities and villages
and were victims of the underground's raids on towns, settlements,
railroads and buses. Several organized pogroms, which always seemed to
begin with blood-libel accusations, also took place. Altogether, by
summer 1947, approximately 1,500 Jews were killed in assaults that took
place in 155 localities. This was bound to speed up the emigration that
was already in motion. Despite the appeals of Jewish Communists,
Bundists, and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, and the promise
that the regime would suppress anti-Semitism, by the end of 1947, only
100,000 Jews remained in Poland. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 207;
emphasis added]
Most of the Jewish returnees left Poland during the two first postwar
years. After this, emigration quietly continued. Thus, 38,000
applications for emigration to Israel were filed between September 1949
and December 1950. Two-thirds of these were approved. ... This wave of
emigration was cut off when Poland closed its borders to all
emigration. It has been estimated that by the middle of 1949, there
were only 70,000 to 80,000 Jews left in Poland. ... As emigration
continuously decreased the number of Jews in Poland, in relative terms,
the PZPR [i.e., Polish United Workers' Party] members formed an
increasing proportion of those Jews who remained in Poland. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 208; emphasis added]
In other words, at the presumed height of "Jewish domination" of the
Communist government in Poland (a somewhat indeterminate period,
insofar as MacDonald offers only imprecise dates for this Jewish reign
of terror), a steady flow of emigration decreased the total Jewish
population by more than sixty-six percent; far from offering their
allegiance to the Communist government, the "great majority of the
Jewish population" got out of Communist Poland as soon as they could.
There can be no question that MacDonald would have seen this
information in his research: it comes from the very pages he cites (one
of them incorrectly, as it happens) in The Culture of Critique on page
65, where he is happy to quote Schatz's statistics on how many Jews had
been killed by Poles expressing their opposition to "the
Jewish-dominated Polish communist goverment."
Moreover, returning MacDonald's citations from Schatz to their original
context further weakens his position. For example, see pages 204 and
205 of The Generation, where MacDonald, as quoted above, finds the
government forging allegiances with "the Jewish population" [MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique, p. 65]:
Quote:
As the underground was strongly anti-Semitic, identifying Jews with the
Communist system, the struggle against it became yet another factor
that bound those Jews who were planning to rebuild their lives in
Poland on the side of the regime. [Schatz, The Generation, p. 204;
emphasis added.]
Here, as elsewhere, MacDonald's repeated formulation "the great
majority of the Jewish population" flagrantly disregards Schatz's
distinction between "those Jews who were planning to rebuild their
lives in Poland" and those who constituted the actual "great majority,"
those who were not planning to stay and, as Schatz makes quite clear,
did not. MacDonald's assertion [The Culture of Critique, p. 66] that
"the Jewish-dominated government regarded the Jewish population, many
of whom had not previously been communists, as 'a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country'"
similarly evades distinctions informed by Schatz's discussion of the
ongoing Jewish exodus from Poland. The full citation is as follows:
Quote:
The opportunity for upward mobility [within the government structure]
even applied to many of the generation's previously non-Communist
peers, especially the former sympathizers, who out of idealistic or
opportunistic motives now enrolled with the new government. Against the
background of their prewar experience and the Holocaust, the postwar
political configurations resulted in their perception of the new regime
as their only ally against anti-Semitism. For them, the new regime was
very attractive: it was antinationalist, fought anti-Semitism and
bigotry, carried the flavor of universalism, and promised a secular
society based on humanism and social justice. Most of all, it needed
their services, offering them possibilities to work and prospects of
social promotion that previously had been closed to Jews. From the
point of view of the new regime, these Jews were a reservoir that could
be trusted and enlisted in its efforts to rebuild the country. [Schatz,
The Generation, p. 212; emphasis added.]
Schatz makes clear that it was not, in fact, the whole of the Jewish
population whom the goverment regarded as a trustworthy reservoir, but
a) those Jews, a minority of the total Jewish population, who were
self-selected by virtue of their decision not to emigrate, and b)
particularly those who, though not party members before the war, had
been party sympathizers. Throughout his discussion MacDonald displays a
resolute and, for a social scientist, utterly irresponsible neglect of
Jewish emigration as a factor affecting the government's relationship
to the Jewish population. Yet this pattern of emigration provides the
context for all of the passages in Schatz quoted above, and in fact,
for all of the passages in Schatz MacDonald quotes or paraphrases in
his own discussion. Indeed, as the pattern of citations offered here
indicates, Schatz's discussion of Jewish emigration from Poland is so
tightly interwoven with his discussion of the government's relationship
with the Jewish population (and with his discussion of Jewish
participation in the government) that to have
Sleepyhead
> We should have a nation for White people.
Still haven't answered my question.
What are one's rights?
> We should preserve the White race.
I disagree. In evolutionary terms it makes no sense whatsoever to
suggest 'preserving' a species - we're evolving whether we like it or
not.
> People go to a lot of trouble to save the whales. The White race should be saved too.
Some species of whale are nearly extinct. Are you making the same claim
for caucasians?
Sleepyhead
Ah, poor lil' fella. Being made to walk through the snow like that.
Wonder why the arresting seargent got so cross with him?
Sleepyhead
problem. And that, in its turn is probably a symptom of some underlying
cause ... stupidity perhaps, or just plain ol' brainwashing.
Sleepyhead
Putting the word 'experts' in inverted commas doesn't invalidate their
expertise. They're experts whether you like it or not. They'd be out of
a job if they didn't do their job correctly, just like you or I. And
has it ever occurred to you that maybe they just hold different views
to you - probably on account of their expertise. If you're such an
expert how come you're not involved in psychological research related
to intelligence?
> There was a war about this called World War II and the White race lost. But the bad side won that war.
The German nation lost the second world war - not the white race. The
good side won that war - and I know that because good countries don't
go around annexing other countries just because they happen to think
it's theirs. (You should be familiar with that kind of rationale - it's
the same reason we got really, really cross with Iraq)
As I said before - you can try and define race for a particular purpose
- and your purpose would appear to be antagonistic. And defining the
point at which one nebulous thing turns into another nebulous thing is
not the same as defining a nebulous thing for a particular purpose.
Topaz
wrote:
>> The Bell Curve" It's well known.
>I know what the bell-curve is; where's your proof for your supposition
>that: The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is
>small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large?
>References to authoritative studies, please.
Where is your proof that it isn't?
>Maybe not, but that doesn't mean /all/ liberals think like that. Not
>unless you think that all liberals are well-known.
>
>I don't care how black his skin is because 1) it's a dodgy photo taken
>a good few years ago and 2) he's afro-carribean. Are you saying you'd
>welcome albino afro-carribeans with open arms?
You are comparing races and it doesn't matter to you if the Black
person in question is really two thirds White.
>
>> The pure Blacks in the congo didn't invent very much
>And neither did bronze-age cavemen.
>
>> thoroughly policitally incorrect
>No, scientifically discredited. There's a difference. One relies purely
>on opinion but science relies on proof.
When the government and the media are liberal and politically
correct one can't always trust the scientists who depend on the system
for their jobs.
>
>> An intelligent person would score higher on any reasonable IQ test than an imbecile.
>What do you mean by 'reasonable' in that sentence? One that gives the
>results you'd like to see? Or one that admits of rationality?
Any IQ test made by fairly competent people.
>
>> The pure breds are worth big money while the mogrels are almost given away free.
>But you're not talking about selling people. Or are you?
>Anyway, from an evolutionary point of view mongrels are the ones who
>have hybrid vigour and are more likely to survive.
PC propaganda
Topaz
wrote:
>He's just mad at the Jews because they made it difficult for him put on
>a white sheet and burn some crosses at night.
>
>His hatred of blacks is the real problem.
>
Why They Hate Us
by Joseph Sobran
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so
large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western
exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the
world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western
power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have
disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel
not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they
don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white
man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't
conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying
white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of
designated victims we call 'minorities.'
From Sobran's Newsletter, April 1997
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
Blacks should have their own country. Then they could not blame
their problems on Whites.
Topaz
wrote:
>I notice as soon as I inject any historical evidence into our
>discussion you brush it aside as irrelevant; "That was then - this is
>now". Fair enough. In which case Mein Kampf is no longer subject matter
>for our discussion. As you have observed yourself - that was then -
>this is now.
Mein Kampf is a book of truth. What does that have to do with
something that changed over time such as the goal of America?
>OK ... well just saying "It's obvious" doesn't make it obvious.
Anyone living in America must have noticed "Black" history month and
so on. America wants to mix the races. On USA government calendars
there is a statement in favor of women and minorities on every page
(month).
> First
>you have to provide proof, evidence, references to articles dealing
>with "The Goal of America", not just references to statistics which
>could prove this, could prove that ... could prove anything.
>
>
>So you say. But then I offer the same challenge to you - your writing
>is racist propaganda. Furthermore I contend that there's no rational
>basis for your hate:
Why They Hate Us
by Joseph Sobran
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so
large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western
exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the
world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western
power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have
disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel
not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they
don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white
man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't
conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying
white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of
designated victims we call 'minorities.'
From Sobran's Newsletter, April 1997
> you have yet to tell me /why/ you think as you do
>- what drove you to these conclusions - simply saying "It's obvious" is
>not enough when doing philosophy.
>
>
>Well some caucasians may hate themselves, true. But the problem with
>race is a widespread problem amonst those who might be professionally
>interested in defining such a term. The problem with defining racial
>characteristics is that they are subject to a great deal of
>fluctuation. It's like trying to define each and every wave on the sea.
>Oh sure you could do it - but what would that achieve. Oh if you wanted
>for a certain purpose you could define big waves and little waves, just
>like you might define caucasian and afro-carribean.
>
>Which brings me to my main point. The /purpose/ of your posts.
>Generally speaking, racially-motivated propaganda such as the kind
>you've been posting is not aimed at scientific investigation, or a
>thorough and methodical look at all aspects of the data, but
>antagonisation. You'd rather live in a world where everything was the
>same, where White was right (no doubt you'll argue back "White /is/
>right", and if you do then you and I and the rest of the world will
We should preserve the White race.
>both know that you argue like a child), where we eat McDonalds (the
>place where "Everyone had the same") 'til we keel over from coronary
>heart disease, where the corporate dollar is welcomed, and where
>pig-ignorant fools can sit on their behinds, drink beer, and ponder the
>meaning of the existence they've carved out for themselves. And if
>that's all you can conceive of as your destiny then buddy you're
>welcome to it. Personally I'd rather chug along with everyone else so
>we can all get there together. Of course if you want to isolate
>yourself in a white-trash shit-hole then I'm not going to stop you - go
>right ahead. Be my guest. We'll all be over here - having a nice time.
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
>
>
>Anyway - for your rhetoric I offer some of my own. Or rather, not my
>own. See if you can guess who wrote this.
>
>"As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We
>cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil
>rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long
>as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police
>brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with
>the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the
Blacks should have their own country. Then they could not blame
their problems on Whites.
>highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as
>long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York
>believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not
>satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like
>waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
>
>Of course that was then, this is now.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
Blacks and Jews Newspage
http://www.blacksandjews.com/
The following Jews were known dealers, owners, shippers or supporters
of
the slave trade and of the enslavement of Black African citizens in
early New York history.
Issack Asher
Jacob Barsimson
Joseph Bueno
Solomon Myers Cohen
Jacob Fonseca
Aberham Franckfort
Jacob Franks
Daniel Gomez
David Gomez
Isaac Gomez
Lewis Gomez
Mordecai Gomez
Rebekah Gomez
Ephraim Hart
Judah Hays
Harmon Hendricks
Uriah Hendricks
Uriah Hyam
Abraham Isaacs
Joshua Isaacs
Samuel Jacobs
Benjamin S. Judah
Cary Judah
Elizabeth Judah
Arthur Levy
Eleazar Levy
Hayman Levy
Isaac H. Levy
Jacob Levy
Joseph Israel Levy
Joshua Levy
Moses Levy
Uriah Phillips Levy
Isaac R. Marques
Moses Michaels
(E)Manuel Myers
Seixas Nathan
Simon Nathan
Rodrigo Pacheco
David Pardo
Isaac Pinheiro
Rachel Pinto
Morris Jacob Raphall
Abraham Sarzedas
Moses Seixas
Solomon Simpson
Nathan Simson
Simja De Torres
Benjamin Wolf
Alexander Zuntz
Jewish Role in Slavery: Quotes from Jewish historians
Moshe Kahan stated bluntly that in 1653-1658, "Jewish-Marrano
merchants were in control of the Spanish and Portuguese [slave] trade,
were almost in control of the Levantine trade...were interested in the
Dutch East and West Indian companies, were heavily involved in
shipping; and, most important, had at their disposal large amounts of
capital."
Lee M. Friedman, a one-time president of the American Jewish
Historical Society, wrote that in Brazil, where most of the Africans
actually went, "the bulk of the slave trade was in the hands of Jewish
settlers."
Herbert I. Bloom wrote that "the slave trade was one of the most
important Jewish activities here (in Surinam) as elsewhere in the
colonies." He even published a 1707 list of Jewish buyers by name with
the number of Black humans they purchased.
Cecil Roth, writer of 30 books and hundreds of articles on Jewish
history, wrote that the slave revolts in parts of South America "were
largely directed against [Jews] as being the greatest slave-holders of
the region."
Seymour B. Liebman in his New World Jewry, made it clear that "[t]he
ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and
sailed under the command of Jewish captains."
In Brazil, where most black slaves were sent, Jewish scholar Arnold
Wiznitzer is most explicit about Jewish involvement:
"Besides their important position in the sugar industry and in tax
farming, [Jews] dominated the slave trade. From 1636 to 1645 a total
of 23,163 Negro slaves arrived from Africa and were sold for 6,714,423
florins. The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves
from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It
happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who
appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this
lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other
hand, there also was no competition in the selling of the slaves to
the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on
credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent
of the purchase value were often realized with high interest
rates....If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a
Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on
Friday, October 21, 1644."
Topaz
wrote:
>>> Indeed. Now - what are one's rights,
>> We should have a nation for White people.
>
>Still haven't answered my question.
>
>What are one's rights?
A race has a right to have it's own nation.
>
>> We should preserve the White race.
>
>I disagree. In evolutionary terms it makes no sense whatsoever to
>suggest 'preserving' a species - we're evolving whether we like it or
>not.
We are not evolving forward. The most intelligent women are more
interested in careers than in children. And the White race should be
preserved:
It's a Wonderful Race
by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all. One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his
father. The argument began when the young student tried to explain to
his father that as White people, they should be held accountable for
all the evils that they had inflicted upon non-Whites througout
history. George explained: "Because of European racism, we stole the
Indians' land, we held blacks in slavery, we persecuted the Jews, and
we plundered the environment. We've been oppressive racists for
thousands of years so it's only fair that we pay economic reparations
for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm pleased to see that we
are ending our political and economic domination of the oppressed
peoples."
George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college professors teach you that?" the father asked.
To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor, Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr.
Silverstein is a well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just
don't understand because you were raised in a White supremacist racist
society. That's why I've come to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as
the greatest man in American history. He stood up to the racists of
your generation. Because of him, my generation of White kids is
completely colorblind."
The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I
haven't 'oppressed' anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong
with being proud of one's own people, including the European race of
people. Your race is in your blood. It's like an extension of your
biological family and you ought to be proud of your European heritage
and identity, just like every other racial group in America is proud
of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong sense of racial
identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"
The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited years ago. There's only one race and that's the human
race. Diversity is our greatest strength. Differences in so-called
"race" are as insignificant as differences in belly buttons. And
besides, UN statistics now show that low White birth rates, along with
the fact that we live in an multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture will have died out by the end of the century," young George
said.
Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking cliché
you know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young
George replied; "I think it's great! It will mean the end of racism
and the end of hate. The oppressed peoples of the world would have
been better off if us racist Europeans had never existed to begin
with."
Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone
and lost in a cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared
to him and said "Well George, you've got your wish."
George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"
The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or
Whites, had never existed. You now live in a world where Europeans
never existed."
"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able
to tell my professor and my friends how great this non-racist world
was. Say, I'm freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest
motel?"
"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where you can find shelter."
"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."
"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them. Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would
you like to go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay
in a tent."
"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second,
are these Indians friendly or hostile?"
"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it
doesn't mean they all were" said the angel sarcastically.
"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if
they turn out to be violent."
"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we
could make a spear with those twigs over there."
"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to ask if it's OK."
"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed.
No Europeans remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep
in the damn cave."
Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence.
"There are no lighters here, and no matches. Those are European
gadgets and evil Europeans never existed remember? If you want to get
warm, you need to do like the locals do and start rubbing twigs
together."
"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together for fire?"
"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the
angel sarcastically.
"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to
the great Incan civilization I learned about at college. Since
European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the
Incans will still be there.
... I need a car"
"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were
never born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This
is a world without evil Europeans remember?"
"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."
"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses
of coal, oil and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow
you to cheat just a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly
south."
George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was
grateful for the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to
complain about the heat and humidity.
"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here. Get me an air-conditioner please."
"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here. Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by
evil White men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002
these people still haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or
their food cool? a frustrated George asked.
"No George, they haven't. And they never will."
"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't live like like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars!
Dammit I'll walk. let's go."
After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that
he could see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil
White man too...and he was never born. There are some branches over
there if you want to make a torch."
"Never mind that!" George shouted back.
By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody
has got to stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone
stop them?"
The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact,
it was the oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the
Spanish armed forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who
would rid them of the oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them
a better life."
"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.
'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.
George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest
airport?"
"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"
"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic
Ocean. The great Viking sailors and European navigators never existed.
No Phoenicians, no Leif Erikson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus,
no Magellan, no Hudson and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build
your own ship, there would be no compass for you to navigate with and
no sextant either. I'm afraid you're stuck here George."
"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.
"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to Africa."
When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by
other Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?"
George asked Clarence.
"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long before the whites arrived." Clarence said. "In fact, most
of the slaves who were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave
traders by African tribal leaders."
"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his White assassin never existed, this great man should still be
alive. He's probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an
advanced civilization. He will free these slaves from their African
masters. Take me to him Clarence."
Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men
were out on a hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to
the dingy little hut of the tribal witchdocter and spiritual leader.
There he saw a wild-looking man with a necklace of teeth around his
neck and a huge ring pierced through his nose. "What the hell is that?
George asked.
"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities
or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create
such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He
specilaizes in casting evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"
The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George
and tied him to a nearby tree.
"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.
"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out
while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to
his tribe," laughed Clarence.
"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!
"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your hero Reverend King."
George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now. Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established
great civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."
Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart, George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the
banks of the river Nile in Egypt.
"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I learned during Black History Month about many talented
black inventors and scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington
Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson,
the preeminent brain surgeon in all of America. Where are these men?"
Clarense replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them.
Civilization as you had known it had only been introduced to these
people just a few centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no
universities, no hospitals, no means of transportation other than
animals, no science, no medicine, no machines. In fact, the wheel
hasn't even been discovered in Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their full human potential because Europeans weren't around to
introduce higher civilization and learning to them. There are no
George Washington Carvers in this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons,
no Booker T. Washingtons, no Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans,
no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill Cosbys, no..."
"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of the world .....built by non-Whites"
They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets
or urinals in this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans.
The people in this non-White world still relieve themselves in open
fields."
Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet paper." George said.
"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."
"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag then".
Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.
"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to
be able to see them from miles away," said George.
"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this, but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies
confirmed this fact. There are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And
the Carthaginians were White too."
George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's in Europe?" he asked.
"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North
America. A nomadic existence based on hunting and food gathering. No
great cities, no science, no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just
a hard daily struggle against life and the elements of nature. In a
Europe without evil Whites, the Roman Empire never existed nor did the
Greeks. There was no Renaisance either."
"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India, China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the
Taj Mahal please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know
that the ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by
ancient Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the
ones who civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"
George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be. In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were
not White!"
Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities
who populated the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and
less evil White people until they faded out completely, along with the
advanced civilization they had built. You will notice that there are
still a few white-skinned and fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis
around today -- in the world you came from that is.
George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan.
"Japan! I'll show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese
can make TVs and cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization
that I can live in."
Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but
it seemed as if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman,
or a soldier. There were no cars, no skyscapers, no lights, no
stereos, no sciences, no technologies, no universities. It was a
stagnant agricultural society that seemed to have reached its high
water mark and was incapable of moving forward. George knew he could
not live here either.
Clarence explained to George: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern
Asia that you had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it
did before Commodore Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in
the 1850s. There's no industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony,
no Hitachi, no Panasonic, no Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none
of the trappings or comforts of modern life. These things don't exist
in Japan or anywhere else because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"
George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left
him physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness. I must have some anti-biotics."
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"
"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was
right. You really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish
mistake it is to be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to
let them die out? This is what the world would be like without the
creative spark of Edison and Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great
scientists, or mathematicians, or inventors or fine artists. No
Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates, no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no
Dickens, no Twain, no Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no
Michelangelo, no Galileo, no Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no
Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no Berlin, no St. Petersburg, no
Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no London, no New York, no
Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing,
no houses, no steel, no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no
trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
- there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of
this world to build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence.
A brutal planet where the few people who aren't mired in eternal
ignorance and darkness have reached their peak of civilization and are
advancing no further."
Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven days straight. He covered everything. History, science,
economics, philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture,
medicine, politics, agriculture, religion, and all the creations and
contributions that the European peoples had made in every conceivable
field of human endeavor. George listened closely to every word. He
felt like a man who had been
reborn.
After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have
learned an important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the
departing angel.
George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I
understand now what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back
to the world that I came from. A world where Europeans not only
existed, but blessed the rest of humanity world with their unique
creative ability. I want to live in a civilized world. Please
God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh God....please."
Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes off!.
"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.
George's floormates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.
"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different
languages. He sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English,
Gloire Immortelle in French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also
Belgian, Spanish and French ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy
began to stream down his cheeks. The degenerate music of Hip-Hop and
Rap lost all of its appeal to young George.
After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal
Marsala. With his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish
olives and Russian dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine,
followed by a German pastry for dessert. He finished his meal off with
a hot cup of English tea and a Cuban cigar.
George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"
George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South
Africa who were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up
control of those once-European nations. He thought of the many
thousands of qualified Whites who were passed up for good jobs and
college entrance because of racial quotas that discriminate against
Europeans. He thought about the declining birthrates among all the
European nations of the world. He remembered that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He
recalled the O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in
America cheered when that brutal double murderer was set free by a
black jury after he stabbed two Whites to death. He remembered the Los
Angeles riots of 1992, where dozens of Whites were dragged out of
their vehicles and killed like dogs in the streets by packs of
White-hating monsters who were never even punished! He remembered the
time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford University: "Hey Hey
Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker. George now understood that that his people were on a collision
course with worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this
great people must not perish from the face of the earth.
George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was
lecturing on and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable
White schoolmates, with their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and
backwards baseball caps, were swallowing Silverstein's poison pills
hook, line and sinker. After letting Silverstein spew his cultural
poison for about 15 minutes or so, George raised his hand so that he
could give the professor a piece of his newly educated mind.
"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that
shirt and tie, and without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my
course so much that you signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to
meet George. He was one of my brightest students last semester. He
truly has a thorough grasp of the ideas presented in this course.
George, would you be so kind as to tell my class about that brilliant
term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"
That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.
"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We
Europeans have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and
everything to be proud of. And most of all, we don't owe anybody
jack-shit - not one thin dime! To the contrary, it is the rest of
humanity that owes us a debt which can never be repaid! We are the
rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural heritage. You vile
manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just
contribute to civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I declare that I
will no longer tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear
our people down. Never again will we walk on eggshells when we speak,
always fearing that we might be called "racist." I no longer care what
people think. All that matters is the truth which you have sought to
pervert!"
"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games
of divide and conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to
learn anymore about Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or
Black History Month. They would not have amounted to anything without
the institutions of high civilization created by the European peoples.
I'm going to set this class straight about who the truly great men of
history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history that you and your ilk have erased from our collective
memories. You speak of a world liberated from European influence?
Permit me tell your students about such a world, Silverstein, because
I can speak from personal experience, you wretched little conspiring
monster!"
Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shellshocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods. Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an
eloquence he never thought he could muster, George broke out into a
60-minute monologue on history, science, philosophy, culture, and all
the other attributes that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of
his tirade, George's reawakened classmates were thundering their
approval of his speech. The class gave George a standing ovation and
they thanked him for helping them rediscover and reclaim their own
sense of pride and lost identity. The unstoppable power of truth had
melted away years of Marxist guilt tripping, self hate, wimpishness
and cultural brainwashing in just one unforgettable hour. The inspired
students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earrings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a
conquering hero. With a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards
the sky, winked and said "Thank you, Clarence."
Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear
was that more of these proud European youths would one day reawaken
and take their country and civilization back from the Silversteins of
the world.
Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and
unique creative abilties. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the
music industry, the colleges, and the public schools are all
controlled by "liberals" like Dr. Silverstein. With the power of
political correctness in their hands, they can continue to tear down
our European ancestors, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push
"hip-hop" music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak,
confused and morally degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these
facts, Silverstein smiled a devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A
few of these European sheep may wake up to what's being done to them,
but the majority of these idiots never will." And he smiled
again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's too late."
Or will they?
>
>> People go to a lot of trouble to save the whales. The White race should be saved too.
>
>Some species of whale are nearly extinct. Are you making the same claim
>for caucasians?
Depends on who soon you mean as "nearly" but yes we are dying:
Paul Craig Roberts
December 7, 2000
For whom the bells toll
There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
policy. Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century
the English people will be a minority in their homeland. The English
are not having enough children to reproduce themselves. In contrast,
the "people of color" who have flooded into England have a high
fertility rate. Non-whites will comprise a majority of the population
of London in just nine years.
It is amazing how fast it is happening. Half a century ago, there were
only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the entirety of Great
Britain. In another half century, there will be the beginnings of a
black government. What will be the fate of the white minority after
decades of being demonized as "white racists" by their own kind at
Oxford, Cambridge and the University of London?
The English may be finished as a people, but they still have twice as
long as American whites. Demographers predict that whites will
comprise a minority of the U.S. population by mid-century. It has
already happened in California and in many cities.
Like the English, American whites are failing to reproduce. More than
42 percent of American women of childbearing age are childless. The
figure is rising as gender quotas, and the breakdown of marriage and
family pull more white women onto career paths that don't lead to
children.
Examining the situation, the London Observer said that that this is
"the first time in history that a major indigenous population has
voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or
disease."
It is amazing that the two most important and powerful countries of
the past two centuries have legislated their own path to extinction.
But it is astounding that it is occurring in the same two countries
where intellectuals prattle on endlessly about the need for diversity.
There are many more non-white countries than white ones; yet, it is
the white ones that are slated to disappear.
What's wrong with having an England? What a colorful and unique place!
What character and genius! The cradle of the rule of law and
representative democracy! The font of the scientific and technological
revolutions! It is absurd to think these accomplishments are
happenstance unrelated to Englishness. Do we really need yet another
black country, another India, or a mixture of the two? Why can't we
keep England English for diversity's sake?
And the United States. What other country has such a strong sense of
right and wrong, and such determination to see justice done all over
the world? Who but the United States sends its treasure, not as
tribute to the powerful but as gifts to the poor? What other country
sends its troops to stop genocides and wars in foreign lands? Central
and South America are full of Hispanic populations. Do we really need
another one here?
What is it that compels the United States and England to destroy
themselves with an immigration policy designed to replace the
indigenous population with different racial stock? In these two lands,
agitators fight to preserve every wetlands weed, sand fly and snail
darter. What's wrong with preserving England and America?
People had better give this some thought, because the decision won't
be theirs to make for much longer.
The 21st century may bring the extinction of white populations.
Confined to a small area of the world, white populations are
everywhere in decline. Italy, once a fecund Catholic nation where a
large family was everything, has such a low birth rate that its
population is declining. Everywhere else in Europe birth rates have
fallen below replacement rates. European governments open the borders
to Third World immigrants in order to keep a tax base for the
expensive social welfare systems that have crowded children out of the
household budgets of the indigenous population. Canada, also, is well
on her way to becoming a Third World country.
Russia, too, has a declining population reeling from the environmental
and economic destruction after 75 years of communist rule. Pressed on
her eastern and southern borders by Asiatic populations, Russia is
slowly retreating from her empire.
In the far Pacific, two island nations, New Zealand and Australia,
hang on to an exported British culture. Perhaps they will be
preserved, like the Galapagos Islands, as a place where creatures
reside who have disappeared elsewhere.
Topaz
wrote:
>> These politically correct "experts" would be out of a job if they didn't toe the PC line.
>
>Putting the word 'experts' in inverted commas doesn't invalidate their
>expertise. They're experts whether you like it or not. They'd be out of
>a job if they didn't do their job correctly, just like you or I. And
>has it ever occurred to you that maybe they just hold different views
>to you - probably on account of their expertise. If you're such an
>expert how come you're not involved in psychological research related
>to intelligence?
"Light on the Dark Continent"
"Eye-opening observations of an American who has lived in Africa
for nearly 20 years."
Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit (Self-Published) - Gedahlia Braun, 1993,
Reviewed by Jared Taylor, September-October, 1993
Dr. Braun has lived in Africa with only brief interruptions since 1976
and in South Africa since 1988. This book, in the form of a
chronological journal, describes how contact with the dark continent
quickly dispelled his liberal views and led to startling but plausible
conclusions that most Americans--even readers of AR--are likely to
find surprising.
Two Theses
Dr. Braun draws on his years of intimacy with Africans to support two
main conclusions:
The first is that virtually all Africans take it for granted that
whites are smarter than blacks. They haven't the slightest illusion
that they could have invented computers or built airplanes, and they
recognize that blacks and whites differ in moral and psychological
characteristics as well.
What is more, Africans are not the least offended by these
realizations. Unlike whites, they do not see any inherent immorality
in acknowledging racial differences. Some clever, westernized Africans
have discovered--just as American blacks have--that whites are
terrified at the thought of racial differences, and have learned to
manipulate this terror to their own advantage. But they, too, Dr.
Braun finds, can almost always be persuaded to acknowledge the
inherent limitations of Africans.
Dr. Braun's second thesis follows from the first: The vast majority of
South African blacks do not want black rule. They know from their own
experiences with black policemen and black bureaucrats that when
Africans are in positions of power they are corrupt, despotic, and
oppressive. Many blacks mouth the slogans of "liberation" but have
unrealistic, often ludicrous notions of what "liberation" is likely to
mean. Some, when pressed, will even admit that although they know
black rule would be a catastrophe for South Africa they pretend to
support it because they know that is what whites expect them to do.
Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the
terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal
whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in
the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-
minded than their own.
Dr. Braun puts it this way:
(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society;
(2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not
for white liberals insisting otherwise;
(3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule
is in no one's interest, especially not blacks;
(4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black
rule.
On what does Dr. Braun base these heretical conclusions? After several
years in Africa, he began to realize that many blacks do not think the
way white liberals keep telling us they do. He then systematically
started asking Africans--even virtual strangers--what they thought
about racial differences and whether they were in favor of black rule.
Unlike most whites, who would be ashamed to ask such questions, Dr.
Braun is utterly uninhibited. He discovered that most blacks are eager
to talk frankly; most have never had an honest conversation with a
white about race and are charmed to find one who is not blinded by the
usual cliches. Just as interestingly, he quickly learned that even
whites who have lived all their lives in Africa--including journalists
and other liberals who claim to speak for Africans--have never had an
honest conversation with a black about race.
For the most part, blacks fear majority rule because they know they
are much more likely to be cheated, robbed or brutalized by other
blacks than by whites.
Many Africans believe, in so many words, that "Whites respect one
another but we don't."
Dr. Braun has concluded that blacks and whites differ as much morally
as they do mentally, and that these differences made economic
development impossible. He wonders whether one of the reasons large-
scale cooperative enterprise is nearly impossible throughout Africa is
that blacks do not trust each other and cannot be counted on to work
together for the benefit of all. He advances the provocative view that
Africans may not have an internalized moral sense but depend instead
on tribal authority to set rules of conduct:
Hence, when they were detribalized (by colonialism, etc.), these
external constraints disappeared; and since there never were any
internal constraints, we witness rampant lack of self-control amongst
detribalized blacks (crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc.). Where there has
been some substitute for tribal control--as in white-dominated South
Africa or the segregated American South--this behaviour was kept
within tolerable limits. But when such controls vanish (as in present-
day South Africa and in large U.S. cities), you get this phenomenon of
widespread unrestrained violence"
Dr. Braun has found that like American whites, most South African
whites are incapable of talking sensibly about race. Like American
whites, they now even take a perverse joy in applauding their own
dispossession. He describes the tempestuous enthusiasm of white
audiences for the anti-white South African movie "Cry Freedom," and
writes, "the positive joy with which they cheer their own demise is
quite amazing, isn't it?" He speculates that this joy stems from "a
fatal flaw in the white race: the capacity for self-flagellating,
exaggerated and unwarranted guilt and the self-hatred that seems to
underlie it."
This self-hatred is at the heart of the white man's increasing
insistence that he is a miserable racist who is to blame for the black
man's failures:
"Once blacks learn that whites think blacks have reason to hate them,
many will be happy to oblige, instinctively realizing their
psychological advantage as the injured party . . . . All in all a
tremendous con game, in which the white man is both instigator and
willing victim."
>
>The German nation lost the second world war - not the white race.
Both
>The
>good side won that war - and I know that because good countries don't
>go around annexing other countries just because they happen to think
>it's theirs. (You should be familiar with that kind of rationale - it's
>the same reason we got really, really cross with Iraq)
"After its war with Iran, Iraq suffered from a crushing debt because
of
necessary weapons purchases from the U.S. and several European
countries, and this was complicated by wartime damage to Iraq's
oil-production. Iraq's ability to repay its debts was sabotaged by the
fact that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were pumping much more
oil
than OPEC quotas allowed, driving down prices. Every one-dollar
decrease
in the price of a barrel of oil meant 1 billion dollars in lost
revenue
for Iraq, a huge loss for a country of only 15 million people. In
addition, the corrupt Sheikhdom of Kuwait was allowing British
Petroleum
in Kuwait to steal oil, estimated at a total value of 2.4 billion
dollars, by angle-drilling into Iraq. On July 17, 1990, Saddam Hussein
delivered a speech in which he accused Kuwait and the UAE of "stabbing
Iraq in the back with a poison dagger," at the behest of the United
States government. "Hussein does have some tacit support within OPEC,"
noted Business Week magazine. ["Is Iraq really ready to start a New
Gulf
War?" Business Week, Aug 6, 1990]
It has been a well known fact since the Gulf War of 1991 that the Bush
Administration's ambassador to Iraq was consulted by Saddam Hussein on
whether the United States would be opposed to his contemplated
invasion
of Kuwait, and that the U.S. ambassador, April Glaspie, told him that
the United States would not care. Once the Iraqi leader had acted on
these assurances, however, once he had solved his country's
debt-crisis
by re-annexing that wayward province of Iraq that had been called
Kuwait, then the trap was sprung.
In the fall of 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as
Nayirah,
gave a tearful testimony before a congressional caucus that swayed
opinions in the Congress and the American public. The girl told how
she,
as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, had witnessed an atrocity
committed by Iraqi troops, who allegedly stormed into the hospital,
stole the incubators, and dumped 312 babies "on the cold floor to
die."
Mind you, there were also other Kuwaitis who corroborated her story.
The
elder Bush thereafter referred to the story on five different
occasions.
During the Senatorial debate about whether to attack Iraq, seven
senators referred to the story, showing that they themselves had been
influenced by it, or at least considered it to be an important
consideration in the debate. If five of those seven senators had voted
against the motion, there would have been no Gulf War. This
15-year-old
"hospital volunteer," "Nayirah," turned out to be the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and her story is now well known to have
been completely false.
Here's another fraud from the 1991 Gulf War that is less well known.
It
is described in the Christian Science Monitor of September 6, 2002 as
follows:
When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf -
to
reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait - part of the
administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening
to
roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon
officials estimated in mid-September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops
and
1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil
supplier.
But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial
Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no
Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border - just empty
desert....
"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending
troops in there, and it just didn't exist," [St. Petersburg Times
journalist Jean] Heller says.
[<http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.htm> ]
In light of the fact that we and the government of Saudi Arabia were
deliberately deceived into war with fake photographs showing a
non-existent buildup of Iraqi troops in 1991, how can we possibly have
faith in the validity of any alleged evidence that the government
could
show us now? John MacArthur, the editor of Second Front: Censorship
and
Propaganda in the Gulf War, says: "These are all the same people who
were running it more than 10 years ago. They'll make up just about
anything ... to get their way." (Ibid. )
In light of the inflammatory falsehood told by the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador posing as "Nayirah"-with the aid of a few
collaborators who supported her lie-shouldn't we also be skeptical of
the claims of the malcontents aligned with the Iraqi National
Congress,
who have every reason to lie, because they expect to be installed as
the
new government of Iraq? These are the people who invented the story
that
the 9-11 hijackers had been trained at Salman Pak in Iraq, a story
that
has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed
people who find pleasure in believing it. Whenever you hear that some
claim is made by "an Iraqi defector," you should check whether said
defector is associated with the Iraqi National Congress. When the
so-called Iraqi National Congress first congealed in December of 1990,
the New York Times described them as "pro-Iranian Shiite
fundamentalists, pro-Soviet Communists, Arab nationalists, and Kurdish
separatists," noting that the banned Iraqi Communist Party "once had a
powerful popular base inside Iraq" [New York Times, Dec 30 1999:
10-L].
The Iraqi Communist Party had a powerful popular base before Saddam
Hussein, that is, and therefore they hate Saddam Hussein, just as the
Shi'ites hate him for preventing an Islamic Republic of Iraq. The
Iraqi
National Congress has told one lie after another so that even the CIA
has decided that these people have no credibility, but media-Jews and
political Jews are still retailing the INC's rubbish.
In light of all the claims made over the years by the anti-Saddam
lynch-mob, I really have to laugh when Donald Rumsfeld says that
Saddam
Hussein is a liar.
Post-War
Although the excuse for restricting Iraq's weaponry after 1991 was its
invasion of Kuwait, the restrictions were tailored not to protect
Kuwait
- but to protect Israel. Iraq was prohibited from having missiles with
a range greater than 93 miles; that is to say, Iraq was prohibited
from
having missiles that could reach Israel. Iraq was prohibited from
having
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; that is to say, Iraq was
prohibited from having the kinds of weapons that could deter the
nuclear
power Israel.
Iraq's desire in the past to retain a deterrent and a means to deliver
it is quite understandable when one considers that they are in the
same
neighborhood as the ruthless and nuclear-armed State of Israel. Forget
about finger-pointing at Iraq; how many heads-of-state has Israel had
lately who were not mass-murderers or assassins? Requiring Iraq to
abandon weapons of mass destruction and to make declarations about
what
they have is very much like requiring somebody who lives in a
crime-ridden area to post a sign reading, "Gun-Free Home." Of course
they were reluctant to do that. Now that they have done that, the
president of the United States, acting on behalf of a regional
thug-state, seems to think it is safe to move in for the kill. What
country will ever again agree to reduce its armaments for the sake of
a
temporary peace with the United States that will only be followed by a
trumped-up war? In the coming wars, resistance to the United States
will
be much harder fought, because it is never safe to surrender to an
enemy
who has neither honor nor mercy. The intransigence of North Korean
dictator Kim Jung-il is a completely logical reaction, given that
disarmament is seen to be not rewarded but exploited by the United
States.
* * *
America has been going down the wrong path in the Middle East for a
very
long time. We have been risking the life-blood of our economy by
needlessly antagonizing the oil-rich states through our support of
Israel. And while Jews in the United States and Europe promoted an
ideology of multiracialism and open borders in order to weaken the
West
and consolidate their control here, in Israel they brazenly erected a
Jewish racial state complete with torture, execution without trial,
concentration camps, curfews, summary murder by death squads, and the
development of genocidal weapons of mass destruction. By supporting
Israel's expansionist policies and Jewish supremacism, we have made
ourselves the target of the hatred of the oppressed and the poor, who
are our victims as surely as they are the victims of the Jews.
So now we Americans find ourselves beginning -- just beginning -- to
pay
the price for our support of the Jews. We are paying not only in
dollars
now, but in American blood.
And we are being remade in the image of the Israelis, and that image
is
the same as the Hollywood image of the "evil Nazi" -- except this time
the image is real. Little children are dying because of our support of
Israel. There are families who have lived entire lives inside of
refugee
camps. Hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed by American
firebombs and missiles.
Like Israel, America is becoming a "national security state," and our
freedom to speak and publish and broadcast is under attack.
The Jews have concluded that they cannot win their war against the
Palestinians without a big shakeup in the Middle East. They want to
dominate the entire region as they now dominate the United States.
Their
solution to the problems they themselves caused by their genocidal
practices is to increase their bullying and their killing by expanding
their local war into a world war. And they expect us to be their
cannon
fodder in that war.
We hope that this series has been useful to you in understanding why
the
Zionist Jews and their White puppets want this war. On next week's
program, Cannon Fodder part 3, we'll bring you up to the minute on the
war plans of our enemies, and we'll give you a glimpse of the world
that
is likely to result."
Today's program was written by Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom.
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
>
>As I said before - you can try and define race for a particular purpose
>- and your purpose would appear to be antagonistic. And defining the
>point at which one nebulous thing turns into another nebulous thing is
>not the same as defining a nebulous thing for a particular purpose.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
Americans had a revolution when they were ruled by the British. If
the British accused
them of being "anti-British" would the Americans throw down their guns
and apologize?
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.
The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."
Dutch
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:07:09 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> On 5 Oct 2005 05:08:04 -0700, "Sleepyhead" <simonh...@usa.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One does not ask for ones rights, one fights for them.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. Now - what are one's rights,
>>>
>>> We should have a nation for White people.
>>
>>Shoulda thought of that before y'all went and captured all those slaves.
>>
>>Oops, too late now. Well, there's always Greenland...
>>
>
> Blacks and Jews Newspage
> http://www.blacksandjews.com/
>
> The following Jews were known dealers, owners, shippers or supporters
> of
> the slave trade
Oh, and non-Jews weren't?
Sleepyhead
It does?
> We are not evolving forward. The most intelligent women are more interested in careers than in children. And the White race should be preserved:
"Evolution" in the sense you're using it just means "Change". Now -
would you care to explain to me how one "Changes forward"? What is the
goal towards which we are evolving?
> James Bronson ...
Jesus Christ! Not more crap about George.
Sleepyhead
is he?); your reference is one self-published book, which is over 10
years old, and a review published on the National Socialist website.
Hmm. Well that's not going to be biased then.
>>The German nation lost the second world war - not the white race.
> Both
Only if you believe the German nation /is/ the white race.
> After its war with Iran, Iraq suffered from a crushing debt because of necessary weapons purchases from the U.S ...
Oh I see - what a fool I've been! The weapons purchases were
'necessary'! They weren't just sold by cynical western governments
because, well, let's face it - we need the income.
Sleepyhead
>>I know what the bell-curve is; where's your proof for your supposition
>>that: The difference between Asians and Whites on the IQ tests is
>>small, while the difference between Whites and Blacks is large?
>>References to authoritative studies, please.
> Where is your proof that it isn't?
Well you were the one who mentioned it; surely you must have known what
you were talking about. If so, surely you can explain it. If you can't,
then you didn't know what you were talking about and I can just ignore
you.
>>I don't care how black his skin is because 1) it's a dodgy photo taken
>a good few years ago and 2) he's afro-carribean. Are you saying you'd
>welcome albino afro-carribeans with open arms?
> You are comparing races and it doesn't matter to you if the Black person in question is really two thirds White.
You're right - I don't give a good god damn what the colour of
someone's skin is, how big their lips are, how curly their hair is, the
way that they speak, and whether their nose is bigger or smaller than
mine. I'm quite happy to give up the notion of 'race' because I'm not
trying to argue that pink-skinned people are better than people with
other coloured skin.
> When the government and the media are liberal and politically correct one can't always trust the scientists who depend on the system for their jobs.
Well it's not the government who give scientists their jobs, it's other
scientists. But seeing as you seem ill-informed on the selection
procedure for lectureship, allow me to tell you how it works.
I do my undergrad course, I do an MA, then a PhD (all the time
specialising in one or two subjects). Finally I apply for a position as
a lecturer. I attend an interview, my works are assessed for their
cogency, my research put through the mill, that kind of thing.
Eventually a letter arrives on the doormat offering me the job because
I'm such a wonderful biologist.
Now I grant you that appointments like "Vice-Chancellor" are probably
partly political appointments, but that's simply because those kinds of
roles are more public-facing than yer bog standard lecturer in Chemical
Engineering.
>>> An intelligent person would score higher on any reasonable IQ test than an imbecile.
>>What do you mean by 'reasonable' in that sentence? One that gives the
>>results you'd like to see? Or one that admits of rationality?
>> Any IQ test made by fairly competent people.
There is no such thing - only incompetent idiots believe in the IQ test
as a fair method of assessing intelligence.
Topaz
wrote:
>Well I'd say if anyone's an "expert" it's Mr. Braun (not related to Eva
>is he?); your reference is one self-published book, which is over 10
>years old, and a review published on the National Socialist website.
>Hmm. Well that's not going to be biased then.
>
>>>The German nation lost the second world war - not the white race.
>> Both
>Only if you believe the German nation /is/ the white race.
"We face a common enemy, folks, doesn't matter whether we're
Boers in Sudafrika, South Americans, Australians, Germans or
Irish. That enemy is the Jew, and it is bent on the extinction
of our genes. Exactly the same policies are being pursued by
exactly the same lies and liars in every majority-White country
left in the world. We are all being herded down the Rhodesian
trail. It is time to destroy the power of the Jew who is
destroying us." - Vanguard News Network
>
>> After its war with Iran, Iraq suffered from a crushing debt because of necessary weapons purchases from the U.S ...
>
>Oh I see - what a fool I've been! The weapons purchases were
>'necessary'! They weren't just sold by cynical western governments
>because, well, let's face it - we need the income.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
wrote:
>> A race has a right to have it's own nation.
>
>It does?
If a race is to live it must have it's own nation. Otherwise it would
intermarry and be destroyed.
>
>> We are not evolving forward. The most intelligent women are more interested in careers than in children. And the White race should be preserved:
>
>"Evolution" in the sense you're using it just means "Change". Now -
>would you care to explain to me how one "Changes forward"? What is the
>goal towards which we are evolving?
More intelligent people, more advanced. There used to be
Neanderthals, but we advanced.
>
>> James Bronson ...
>
>Jesus Christ! Not more crap about George.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Well you were the one who mentioned it; surely you must have known what
>you were talking about. If so, surely you can explain it. If you can't,
>then you didn't know what you were talking about and I can just ignore
>you.
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
>
>> You are comparing races and it doesn't matter to you if the Black person in question is really two thirds White.
>
>You're right - I don't give a good god damn what the colour of
>someone's skin is, how big their lips are, how curly their hair is, the
>way that they speak, and whether their nose is bigger or smaller than
>mine. I'm quite happy to give up the notion of 'race' because I'm not
>trying to argue that pink-skinned people are better than people with
>other coloured skin.
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
>
>Well it's not the government who give scientists their jobs, it's other
>scientists. But seeing as you seem ill-informed on the selection
>procedure for lectureship, allow me to tell you how it works.
>
>I do my undergrad course, I do an MA, then a PhD (all the time
>specialising in one or two subjects). Finally I apply for a position as
>a lecturer. I attend an interview, my works are assessed for their
>cogency, my research put through the mill, that kind of thing.
>Eventually a letter arrives on the doormat offering me the job because
>I'm such a wonderful biologist.
No, you only get the job if you are politically correct.
>
>Now I grant you that appointments like "Vice-Chancellor" are probably
>partly political appointments, but that's simply because those kinds of
>roles are more public-facing than yer bog standard lecturer in Chemical
>Engineering.
>
>
>There is no such thing - only incompetent idiots believe in the IQ test
>as a fair method of assessing intelligence.
An intelligent person would score higher on an IQ test than in
imbecile.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
turtoni
> A race has a right to have it's own nation.
humans are a race.
turtoni - earthnation.
turtoni
> folks, doesn't matter who the enemy is, it is bent on the extinction
> of our genes.
turtoni - divide and conquer.
Day Brown
goons came thru, they kicked him out. Which is why he ended up in
Greenland.
and the funny thing is, it turns out there is a red form of melanin
as well as the more familiar black, but that it too raises the level
of adrenalin, and thus speeds reflexes while it raises impulsivity.
Jared Diamond, in "Collapse" mentions Haiti, but also the Dominican
Republic, and notes how when you fly over, you can see the dramatic
green forested line across from Haiti. Turns out Trujillo saw what
the clear cutting was doing, and used the same technique Tokugawa
used to stop logging in Japan 300 years earlier. He butchered the
lumberjacks.
Like Hitler, the Dominican Republic had a powerful tyrant in Trujillo
who saw what needed to be done that no democratic process would ever
be able to accomplish. But Trujillo never got strung out on crank. In
passing Diamond noted that whereas Haiti is 99% African blood, the
Dominican Republic is 15% Native European. And whereas the Dominican
republic has had tyrannical rule, it was not, as it has always been in
Haiti, totally exploitive of the nation, but actually acted with the
best long term interests in mind sometimes.
All this being said, we have the personality assessment tools and the
IQ & talent tests to identify personalities, *of any race* to empower
with responsibility. We can do this for individuals, but we cant expect
groups which have different proportions of self-controlled sane to the
pathological to elect responsible leadership rather than demagogues
nearly as often. which has been the problem of the former colonies.
Iceland didnt have the personality assessment tools. What it did have,
beginning in the 9th century, was Old Man Winter, who regularly killed
those who didnt plan ahead and store up enough food and fuel for months
of frigid conditions. Survival also required people to jam together in
small houses just to keep warm. Those who could not handle cabin fever
didnt make it to spring. That was not a problem in the tropics, and a
lot of personalities who'd never survive arctic conditions stayed in the
gene pools making trouble for everyone else.
But in any case, race is such a lousy predictor, and those groups which
will flourish in the global market will identify talent and self control
in no matter what skin color it comes in. Capitalism rewards those who
make the best use of the talents in their own gene pool at the same time
it punishes those who ascribe talent where it does not exist.
Day Brown
>>"Topaz"
>>A race has a right to have it's own nation.
> humans are a race.
and the relationship between DNA and the distribution of hormones
that affect behavior like adrenalin, seratonin, dopamine, protamine-
and of course- melanin. And it turns out that raising melanin tends
to raise the levels of some hormones, and lower others. So- it also
turns out that as the melanin level rises, you find more men after
puberty who are more violent. And in such cultures where there are
higher melanin levels you need draconian control to stop violence.
Note that there is a red form of melanin as well; which has a lot
to do with why redheads are notoriously challenging people. Nobody
calls me racist for pointing that out. Remember 'Eric the Red'?
Nobody rebuts the point either.
turtoni
>>> tOOlpaz spat:
>>> A race has a right to have it's own nation.
>> turtoni eeped:
>> humans are a race.
> brown day remarked:
> "Race" is an obsolete term now that we have the human genome
> and the relationship between DNA and the distribution of hormones
> that affect behavior like adrenalin, seratonin, dopamine, protamine-
> and of course- melanin. And it turns out that raising melanin tends
> to raise the levels of some hormones, and lower others. So- it also
> turns out that as the melanin level rises, you find more men after
> puberty who are more violent. And in such cultures where there are
> higher melanin levels you need draconian control to stop violence.
your point being?
little is known about *why* dopamine (for example) does what it does.
> Note that there is a red form of melanin as well; which has a lot
> to do with why redheads are notoriously challenging people. Nobody
> calls me racist for pointing that out. Remember 'Eric the Red'?
viking are cool. redheads have been noted to have higher pain thresholds.
i'd imagine there's lots of sight differences in our gentic makeups.
> Nobody rebuts the point either.
turtoni - wadda ya want, a medal?
Topaz
wrote:
Liberalism and Our Universities
By Shaun Walker.
Liberalism is a strange thing. On the one hand, purely on a
philosophical level, it has its attractions: just think how nice
everything would be if every person on earth were compatible with
each other; if everyone meant well; if everyone shared the same
values; if there were indeed no differences at all between people
that were even worth worrying about. Such a society would
actually be quite nice to live in.
Imagine a place where the educational system did not withhold
facts from you because the teaching authorities did not like
those facts. Imagine a place where it was safe to walk down any
street, anywhere, anytime. Imagine a society where everyone was
prosperous; where there was no exploitation of any sort. Imagine
a society where everyone shared the same good standard of living.
Imagine a society where everyone was always allowed to do their
best, where there were no conmen, no people with any ill intent
at all. Imagine that. Yes, that would be a nice society.
But as I said right at the beginning, liberalism is a strange
thing. It holds up a seemingly nice ideal, but it fails to take
into account the realities of the world. It is an illusion, built
on what some people would like the world to be, rather than what
is.
And this is why liberalism is all too often fatal -- deadly to
its believers and others unfortunate enough to be caught up in
the dream world which liberalism creates.
One of the foremost examples of this sort of insanity was the
case of Amy Biehl. Even though Dr. Pierce discussed her on a
previous American Dissident Voices broadcast in September 1998,
it is worthwhile to delve into the full details here again, as
they reveal much about this social cancer called liberalism. For
those listeners that don't remember, or who didn't hear that
broadcast, Amy Biehl was an American girl who graduated from
Stanford in 1989, and she received a Fulbright Scholarship to
study in South Africa.
Amy was, by all accounts, a bright girl, born to a typical upper
middle class American family. Blond, blue-eyed and pretty, she
could easily have been the typical "California Blond" (although
those are becoming rarer these days, but that's another topic).
Instead, apparently through her parents, Amy became infected with
the disease of liberalism. She became a member of the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
In Amy's world, there were no differences between the races; in
Amy's world, there were no horrible people, just people who had
been misled, and who, once shown the truth, would become good at
the drop of a hat. In Amy's world, everything was fine and good,
if only we worked at it hard enough. And so when she graduated
from Stanford, she caused a stir by writing in chalk "Free
Mandela" on the top of her graduation cap, bowing to the audience
at an appropriate moment during the ceremony.
Within a few years, her dedication to the anti-Apartheid cause
resulted in her move to South Africa, to start work helping the
ANC prepare for the first all race elections in 1994. In Amy's
world, there were no bad Black people, only a few bad White
people, and they too would likely change their opinion if they
could only see how good Black people were.
With those liberal beliefs, Amy began spending more and more time
in the Black townships of South Africa, hob-knobbing it with
leading ANC activists, helping to register voters, and generally
trying to be the all round nice person that she believed everyone
else was.
And, so it was that on the 25th of August, 1993, that the
26-year-old Amy was driving some of her wonderful Black friends
to their homes in a township outside Cape Town. It is important
for listeners to remember, that by this time Apartheid had been
dismantled, the ANC was a legitimate organization in South
Africa, and their so-called 'armed struggle' had been formally
stopped. There was, in other words, no reason for violence.
Amy's White face stood out in the township, and it was not long
before her car came under attack by a large mob of Blacks. Stones
were thrown which smashed the windscreen and side windows of her
car. One of the stones hit Amy on her head, causing her to bleed
profusely. Unable to drive any further, she stopped the car and
staggered out, dripping blood in the road, to a filling station,
perhaps there hoping to find help of some sort. None came; her
attackers pursued her and continued throwing stones at the White
woman, ignoring the Blacks in her car. They wanted to kill the
White woman, not because of what she had done, but because she
was White.
One of the attackers tripped Amy, causing her to fall. While
lying on the ground, the crowd continued to stone her. One of the
attackers drew a knife and plunged it into her heart, while she
was lying barely moving on the floor. The knife was withdrawn,
and then plunged further three times into her chest. By now her
head had been smashed open by repeated blows with a brick. In the
Negroes brains, the White woman had to die, and she did, begging
for mercy, begging not to be killed. It was a pathetic, lonely
and frightening death. Amy Biehl was murdered in a brutal fashion
because she was White, not for any other reason. Her death
symbolizes the reality check which always, always, destroys the
liberal myth.
Now, one would think, this would surely be more than enough for
most people. Surely, one would think, that this would be enough
to teach even the most well-meaning person that there was
something more in the world than the rosy tint which liberalism
puts on everything.
But no, this is where the disease of liberalism really becomes
gangrenous in nature. Amy's parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, then
flew to South Africa to meet her murderers, who had in the
interim been arrested. The famous meeting between the senior
Biehls and their daughter's murders took place in 1998 before
South Africa's infamous "Truth Commission," at which they were
all granted amnesty for the murder of Amy Biehl.
Biehl Sr. read a poem to the Black youths who had stabbed and
stoned his daughter to death, and then actually embraced these
murderous scum. They said this was Amy's "vision of forgiveness
and reconciliation that we have honored."
The parents then started a foundation in Amy's name: a foundation
-- you guessed it -- dedicated to helping Blacks in South Africa.
The disease spread, outliving its victim. Today, there is even a
school in New Mexico named after Amy, dedicated to what it calls
'social justice.'
Amy's parents have been paraded back-and-forth in America in a
hand-wringing liberal fest, all trying to outdo each other in
honoring the very misguided, liberal girl who was murdered
because she was White.
Those of us, who are not liberals, stand back aghast. We cannot
even contemplate forgiving the murders of one of our children,
much less embracing them and then spending the rest of our days
trying to help them. Hell no, most decent people would actually
want revenge!
And now the thought enters our minds: What is wrong with people
such as the Biehls? How could they have gone so far off the track
that not only have they raised their own child to be openly
anti-White, to be openly working against her very own interests,
but now that this evil delusion has seen her brutally murdered,
they carry on by pushing the same cause even further than before?
Is there hope for these people?
Sadly, the Biehls are not alone. How many times have we seen
liberals, when confronted with the obvious failure of racial
integration, in schools, residential suburbs, in the workplace
and elsewhere, dismiss these failures as being due to alleged
"White racism."
The problem, these seemingly insane people tell us, is not racial
integration, but rather that there is too little integration. We
need more for this problem to be solved, they tell us, and always
ignoring the fact that it might be the very 'medicine' which they
prescribe which is the cause of the problem in the first place.
But it was not always like this. Liberals are the end result of
60 or 70 years of academic 'reeducation,' as carried out by the
largely Jewish school of anthropology and sociology at our
institutions of higher learning.
A hundred years ago, liberal academics were almost unknown.
Academic study was based on academics, not on dreams of what the
world should ideally be like. Take for example, the famous
Encyclopedia Britannica's 11th edition, published in 1911, which
was the product of the finest minds at the University of
Cambridge in the UK. The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica is still today held up as the standard by which all
encyclopedias are measured.
I would like to read verbatim, extracts from the entry under
"Negro" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. (The encyclopedia
is, by the way, online at:
http://77.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NE/NEGRO.htm)
This is what the White race's finest academic minds had to say
about the Negro in 1911:
"NEGRO (from Lat. niger, black), in anthropology, the designation
of the distinctly dark-skinned, as opposed to the fair, yellow,
and brown variations of mankind. . . Mentally the negro is
inferior to the white. The remark of F. Manetta, made after a
long study of the negro in America, may be taken as generally
true of the whole race: 'the negro children were sharp,
intelligent and full of vivacity, but on approaching the adult
period a gradual change set in. The intellect seemed to become
clouded, animation giving place to a sort of lethargy, briskness
yielding to indolence.'
We must necessarily suppose that the development of the negro and
white proceeds on different lines. While with the latter the
volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in
the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by
the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure
of the frontal bone.
This explanation is reasonable and even probable as a
contributing cause; but evidence is lacking on the subject and
the arrest or even deterioration in mental development is no
doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual
matters take the first place in the negro's life and thoughts. At
the same time his environment has not been such as would tend to
produce in him the restless energy which has led to the progress
of the white race; and the easy conditions of tropical life and
the fertility of the soil have reduced the struggle for existence
to a minimum. But though the mental inferiority of the negro to
the white or yellow races is a fact, it has often been
exaggerated; the negro is largely the creature of his
environment, and it is not fair to judge of his mental capacity
by tests taken directly from the environment of the white man, as
for instance tests in mental arithmetic; skill in reckoning is
necessary to the white race, and it has cultivated this faculty;
but it is not necessary to the negro.
On the other hand negroes far surpass white men in acuteness of
vision, hearing, sense of direction and topography. A native who
has once visited a particular locality will rarely fail to
recognize it again. For the rest, the mental constitution of the
negro is very similar to that of a child, normally good-natured
and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion
during which he is capable of performing acts of singular
atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the
capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the
supreme test.
Given suitable training, the negro is capable of becoming a
craftsman of considerable skill, particularly in metal work,
carpentry and carving. The bronze castings by the tire perdue
process, and the cups and horns of ivory elaborately carved,
which were produced by the natives of Guinea after their
intercourse with the Portuguese of the i6th century, bear ample
witness to this. But the rapid decline and practical evanescence
of both industries, when that intercourse was interrupted, shows
that the native craftsman was raised for the moment above his
normal level by direct foreign inspiration, and was unable to
sustain the high quality of his work when that inspiration
failed.
Cannibalism is found in its simplest form in Africa. In that
continent the majority of cannibal tribes eat human flesh because
they like it, and not from any magical motive or from lack of
other animal food. In fact it is noticeable that the tribes most
addicted to this practice inhabit just those districts where game
is most plentiful. Among the true negroes it is confined mainly
to the Welle and Ubangi districts, though found sporadically (and
due to magical motives) on the west coast, and among the Bantu
negroids in the south-western part of Belgian Congo and-the
Gabon.
Pottery-making is almost universal, though nowhere has it reached
a very advanced stage; the wheel is unknown.
A characteristic feature of the western culture area, among both
negro and Bantu negroid tribes, is the belief that any form of
death except by violence must be due to evil magic exercised by,
or through the agency of, some human individual; to discover the
guilty party the poison ordeal is freely used. A similar form of
ordeal is found in British Central Africa, to discover magicians,
and the wholesale 'smelling-out' of 'witches,' often practiced
for political reasons, is a well-known feature of the culture of
the Zulu-Xosa tribes."
That was the opinion of academics then. By 1966, a mere 50 years
later, the Encyclopedia Britannica had completely excised all
references to Negro intellectual ability and lack of cultural
achievement, and had contained only a physical description of
Negroes, nothing more. The question which immediately springs to
mind now is what on earth has happened to academia in the past 70
years? How could our finest academic minds go from telling such
hard-hitting racial truths to saying nothing at all?
The cause of this turnaround is the exact same thing that led Amy
Biehl to her death: an infectious social cancer has taken hold,
and subverted the Western World, the disease of liberalism. And
as you know, infectious diseases are caused by bacteria or a
virus: a foreign antigen. And the virus which infected Western
Academia, and which has sapped it to its core, came in the form
of a Jew by the name of Franz Boas.
Boas is the grandfather of modern anthropology and was the first
to actively promote the idea that race did not exist and was
merely a 'social construct' not found in nature. Boas' influence
on the 20th Century ranks alongside that of his fellow Jewish
tribesmen, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. As a professor at
Columbia from 1899 to 1942, he virtually created modern
anthropology, and the students he trained -- almost all Jews --
went on to spread his poison throughout the Western World.
Boas' students included the most famous names of modern
anthropology: Frank Speck, who founded the anthropology
department at the University of Pennsylvania; Edward Sapir, who
developed the anthropology program at the University of Chicago;
Alexander Goldenweiser, who started the anthropology program at
the New School for Social Research; Leslie Spier, who started the
anthropology program at the University of Washington; Melville
Herskovits who started the anthropology program at Northwestern
University; and Esther Goldfrank, who traveled with Boas to New
Mexico in 1919 to conduct research among the Pueblo Indians. Boas
strongly influenced the French Jew Claude Lévi-Strauss, who
developed structuralism as a method of interpreting culture.
Several of Boas's students went on to serve as editors of the
American Anthropological Association's flagship journal, American
Anthropologist.
In 1912, Boas published his most famous work -- a study which
claimed to show that the skull shapes of the descendants of
European immigrants to the United States altered from those of
the original immigrants. This study served to lay the foundation
for modern liberalism's greatest pillar: that there were no real
fixed different racial and ethnic types as far as physical
characteristics went. It was the start of the 'nurture rules over
nature' argument; an argument which was to form the basis of the
attack on racial realism and science from then till now because
Boas' argument claimed they changed according to environmental
circumstances like climate or diet or even, he asserted,
gynecological or swaddling practices.
Here was the start of the disease: the academic world had been
infiltrated by a Marxist-sympathizing Jew who, with the aid of
his network of fellow religionists, succeeded in turning the
academic world on its head and moving it from racial realism to
racial fantasy.
Boas' influence cannot be underestimated: the environmental
theory of racial development still holds sway to this day, and
was most recently exemplified in the books Guns, Germs and Steel
and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, written by
the Jew Jared Diamond. Both these works, which are now being
studied at universities and colleges across the Western World,
claim exactly as Boas did, that environment alone determines
racial achievement and not a race's inherent make-up.
It matters nothing that a 2002 study at the University of
Pennsylvania showed that Boas had manufactured his findings and
they were not supported by the measurements taken during the
course of his original study. The damage had been done and that
was the intention.
The disease entered the academic community, and from there it
spread through society. Today, American students who are only
exposed to these Jewish lies become in denial on the subject of
race. Slowly but surely -- over a period of decades -- these
Jewish infiltrators drove out truth in anthropology, in history,
in sociology, and replaced it with their version. This liberal
version is the impossibility of equality, mixed with malevolence,
lies and intolerance for other opinions. This is all packaged up
and called "liberalism."
Now it is ironic that most liberals are in fact the most
intolerant of all people on earth. Listeners might know for
example, the horror story of Ernst Zundel -- imprisoned for over
three years without trial, by the so-called liberal democracies
of Canada and Germany. But Ernst Zundel is not the only case:
thousands of German patriots have been imprisoned over the years
for daring to think or write things with which the "liberal
democracies" did not agree. This phenomenon is not limited to
Germany either, but is widespread across all of Europe. They even
have laws which state that truth is no defense, even if what
someone says is the truth, they are still fined or imprisoned for
saying it in public.
Even here in the USA, people are victimized for saying things
which liberals do not like: people lose their jobs, their
incomes, are railroaded out of schools and colleges as punishment
for daring to dissent with the great liberal lie.
The liberal is, we can conclude, a seriously mentally ill person,
who suffers from a schizophrenic condition. On the one hand, the
liberal says everyone is equal, and there must be freedom for
all. But on the other hand, if anyone dares venture an opinion
with which they differ, especially on the topics of race or Jews,
then those same liberals are the first to argue in favor of
depriving that person of their civil liberties such as freedom of
speech or association. In short, liberals appear to be quite
genuinely crazy, and at the same time, their openly stated
desires are tyrannical.
After so many years of studying liberals, we are forced to the
conclusion that, with only a few exceptions, they cannot be
cured. Their brainwashing has apparently caused some hardwiring
within the brain to go haywire; and to bring any mental health to
them will require them to actually disengage from the mental
disease which has engulfed them.
Politically speaking, liberals have to be written off. And as
terrible as it sounds, the only way we will be rid of the worst
afflicted, that is the Liberal Orthodoxy, is when they immolate
themselves on their own lies, similar to what happened to Amy
Biehl. We must not waste our time trying to teach let alone
recruit liberals. We must aim our recruiting efforts at the
youth, at those people without a strong opinion either way and
those that have similar beliefs as ours.
These are our target group, and there are millions and millions
of them. We can break though the conspiracy of liberal lies. All
we need is enough dedicated activists who are prepared to put all
their available time and effort into saving their race and
nation.
In this battle, each and every person who cares about their
race's future, about the future which faces their children and
grandchildren, has a holy duty to take up the challenge. Join
with us in this holy quest.
turtoni
>>> A race has a right to have it's own nation.
>> humans are a race.
>>
>> turtoni - earthnation.
> Topaz wrote:
> I AM A TOOL.
turtoni - yes. 100%
Topaz
turtoni
it's ironic to think that after fighting against fascism people like you are
free to spew your hatred.
i wonder just how far you're going to go with this obession?
turtoni - what a waste of a life.
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
[a bunch of crap snipped]
Dutch
> Amy Biehl was murdered in a brutal fashion
> because she was White, not for any other reason. Her death
> symbolizes the reality check which always, always, destroys the
> liberal myth.
No, her death symbolizes the frustration and anger of an oppressed people.
That she was sympathetic was ironic. It symbolizes how you can only kick a
dog so many times before it will become vicious and bite anyone who looks
like you. What your story symbolizes more than anything is how oppressors
never give up until the oppressed rise up smash their faces into the ground.
Sleepyhead
And what happened before nation-states existed? How did pure races
remain pure? (and if they didn't, where does the idea that there's such
a thing as a pure race come from?)
> More intelligent people, more advanced. There used to be Neanderthals, but we advanced.
Well there's some doubt about whether we used to be Neanderthals, or a
different but related species, but now I'm just being picky.
Sure - we evolved into something different. But there's no 'goal' in
evolution such that we /must/ become more advanced. The most evolution
claims is that we'll change to suit our environment. It's entirely
plausible that the human race could become more stupid over time -
anyone who's watched any of the crap that's on British TV lately should
be familiar with that idea!
Sleepyhead
Like I said before - "The Jew" is a rather anachronistic way of saying
"Jews". But, if you insist I can over-generalize about "The Nazi", "The
American" and "The Pink-Skin" instead?
Topaz
wrote:
>you write like a terrorist.
>
>it's ironic to think that after fighting against fascism people like you are
>free to spew your hatred.
You think because you won it proves you were right? Here is a quote
from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of
the supernational Press and the definate abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
>
>i wonder just how far you're going to go with this obession?
>
The Germans removed the Jews from ruling over them. That is what
America needs to do:
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
Topaz
When Whites first went to Africa, the Africans were primative naked
head head hunters. Whites didn't oppress them before every going
there.
The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people. The
former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
countries are the third world. Leftist blame all the problems in the
world on the Whites. The real reason Black countries are the third
world is that Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites
as all IQ tests have proven.
In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
civilization there. The Blacks were much better off with schools and
hospitals and a lot of food. They were exporting food. But the
liberals didn't like White people being in charge so they put a stop
to the colonies. And they brought the starvation and misery back to
Africa.
The liberal plan of just giving food to the Blacks also causes more
suffering. It always causes them to greatly increase their population
and then there are a lot more people starving and needing even more
food.
Since the Liberals didn't like the colonies because Whites were
running them,
I propose that American Blacks be sent there. Many American Blacks are
not very dark and have a lot of White blood in them and they are more
intelligent than the African Blacks. They could teach the Africans how
to farm and educate them in many other ways. With the proper
leadership the starvation in Africa could be stopped.
Topaz
wrote:
What about us? Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
Topaz
wrote:
>> If a race is to live it must have it's own nation. Otherwise it would intermarry and be destroyed.
>
>And what happened before nation-states existed? How did pure races
>remain pure? (and if they didn't, where does the idea that there's such
>a thing as a pure race come from?)
Tribes of people usually had their own terrority. Sometimes they
mixed and then their greatness was lost forever, such as in Egypt.
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan.
1939, p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in
Egypt, has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971,
p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a
vivid blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII,
1889, p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored
ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899,
p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red
hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its
Splendors,1978 p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called
Wedjat Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue"
in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and
blond hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la
Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red
hair and blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932,
plate XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee
Boreby, 1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking
man with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The
Great. It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another
picture can be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the
picture on the jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published
showing paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading
personalities of Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look
black and the rest are hard to classify. All nine mummies look
European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed
the Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the
face of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T.
Nelson 1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper
class women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned
while outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by
Phillip Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street,
SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
>
>> More intelligent people, more advanced. There used to be Neanderthals, but we advanced.
>
>Well there's some doubt about whether we used to be Neanderthals, or a
>different but related species, but now I'm just being picky.
>
>Sure - we evolved into something different. But there's no 'goal' in
>evolution such that we /must/ become more advanced. The most evolution
>claims is that we'll change to suit our environment. It's entirely
>plausible that the human race could become more stupid over time -
>anyone who's watched any of the crap that's on British TV lately should
>be familiar with that idea!
If advancing is not our goal we should change gears and make it our
goal now.
Dutch
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:56:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Amy Biehl was murdered in a brutal fashion
>>> because she was White, not for any other reason. Her death
>>> symbolizes the reality check which always, always, destroys the
>>> liberal myth.
>>
>>No, her death symbolizes the frustration and anger of an oppressed people.
>>That she was sympathetic was ironic. It symbolizes how you can only kick a
>>dog so many times before it will become vicious and bite anyone who looks
>>like you. What your story symbolizes more than anything is how oppressors
>>never give up until the oppressed rise up smash their faces into the
>>ground.
>>
> When Whites first went to Africa, the Africans were primative naked
> head head hunters. Whites didn't oppress them before every going
> there.
That's true, the whites didn't oppress the Africans until they went to
Africa and took control of the land and it's people.
> The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people.
Who built their fortunes on the backs of African slaves. Even today large
western corporations are working their way through underdeveloped nations
seeking the absolutely cheapest labour, as close to slavery as they can
approximate the better.
The
> former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> countries are the third world.
That's false, from an economic standard southeast Asia (not black) and
eastern Europe (white) are as poor economically as anywhere.
> Leftist blame all the problems in the
> world on the Whites.
The white race is responsible for a lot of things, some of it very good, a
lot of it really disgusting.
> The real reason Black countries are the third
> world is that Blacks are on average much less intelligent
Based on intelligence tests written by whites.
Dutch
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On 17 Oct 2005 06:32:46 -0700, "Sleepyhead" <simonh...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> If a race is to live it must have it's own nation. Otherwise it would
>>> intermarry and be destroyed.
>>
>>And what happened before nation-states existed? How did pure races
>>remain pure? (and if they didn't, where does the idea that there's such
>>a thing as a pure race come from?)
>
> Tribes of people usually had their own terrority. Sometimes they
> mixed and then their greatness was lost forever, such as in Egypt.
Only in the mind of a racist.
turtoni
>>are
>>free to spew your hatred.
> Topaz:
> You think because you won it proves you were right?
i'm sure i have more claims to any arian bloodline than you do. historically
the romans and the british had the biggest empires ever in the world and
actually made some great differences. the germans during the roman times
were basically barbarians.
hitler wasnt even german. hitler used the german people like tools after the
failure of WWI to further his own crazed hunger for power. by hilters own
standards he would have been one of the first to put to death. a short, dark
haired, austrian intellectual with no wife or children. he was a traitor and
had a self hatred that he projected onto the jews and any other persons that
didnt match up to his own short comings.
you're being used by similar people. people that have a self hatred and
project it onto others.
the supernatural mumbo jumbo was of himlers making and had nothing what so
ever to do with hitlers believes.
it all might seem exciting, interesting and romantic but really it's a
cesspool of primitive thinking.
you're buying into these masterplan big conspiracy theories were none exist.
turtoni - it much more boring than that.
Day Brown
>>"Race" is an obsolete term now that we have the human genome
>>and the relationship between DNA and the distribution of hormones
>>that affect behavior like adrenalin, seratonin, dopamine, protamine-
>>and of course- melanin. And it turns out that raising melanin tends
>>to raise the levels of some hormones, and lower others. So- it also
>>turns out that as the melanin level rises, you find more men after
>>puberty who are more violent. And in such cultures where there are
>>higher melanin levels you need draconian control to stop violence.
> your point being?
You need more remedial education in some schools.
We could quit forcing people to fail in college by not sending them
where they wont succeed in the name of racial diversity.
> little is known about *why* dopamine (for example) does what it does.
Not much is known about any of the hormones, except that it is plain
that some have powerful effects on behavior sometimes. the politically
correct idea that all races are equal deters researchers from looking
at how variations of hormones in hominid genotypes affects culture and
individual behavior.
>>Note that there is a red form of melanin as well; which has a lot
>>to do with why redheads are notoriously challenging people. Nobody
>>calls me racist for pointing that out. Remember 'Eric the Red'?
> viking are cool. redheads have been noted to have higher pain thresholds.
I didnt know that. It makes sense. Alpha males are often warriors, and
warriors are more effective with higher pain thresholds.
> i'd imagine there's lots of sight differences in our genetic makeups.
>>Nobody rebuts the point either.
> turtoni - wadda ya want, a medal?
The cessation of denial would lead to more solutions being sought
rather than chanting the mantra that all 'races' are equal.