Topaz is white supremacist and holocaust denier. Take time out of your busy schedule to tell him what you think of his views.

[SleepyHeed]

My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".

I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
sometimes.

[Angle]

SleepyHeed skrev:

My g/f would tell me that my communicating with him is at best a waste
of time. At worst there is some lingering assumption on my part that
1) such a person can change due to exposure to data, logic, feelings,
information, arguments that challenge his prejudices and 2) that such
a person is not in a literal sense a piece of a person - by this she
would mean that while many of us struggle with certain portions of
ourselves that are stuck in certain limited positions, he is nothing
but such a small part. IN fact, she might argue, it might be best to
view him as a voice in our own heads, voicing old ideas. To interact
with him as if he can actually shift positions, cares about reaching
the truth or knows himself well enough to notice the ways he interacts
with information and other people, is actually self-abusive.

That we actually do ourselves harm to treat him with intellectual
respect.

But I have not described him to her.

[SleepyHeed]

> My g/f would tell me that my communicating with him is at best a waste of time. At worst there is some lingering assumption on my part that 1) such a person can change due to exposure to data, logic, feelings, information, arguments that challenge his prejudices and 2) that such a person is not in a literal sense a piece of a person - by this she would mean that while many of us struggle with certain portions of ourselves that are stuck in certain limited positions, he is nothing but such a small part. IN fact, she might argue, it might be best to view him as a voice in our own heads, voicing old ideas. To interact with him as if he can actually shift positions, cares about reaching the truth or knows himself well enough to notice the ways he interacts with information and other people, is actually self-abusive.

So what you're saying is that conversations with Topaz assume a
masturbatory function, and that this thread is a bit like wanking in
public? I couldn't have put it better myself - Welcome to Usenet!

On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
air his views because they're so obviously stupid. Anyone who thinks a
cogent argument simply consists of stapling together bits of other
people's books is on a hiding to nothing. And if he wants to embarrass
himself in public I'm not going to stop him.

> That we actually do ourselves harm to treat him with intellectual respect.

I've not done myself any harm talking to Nazi holocaust denier. I've
come to appreciate just how insidious a remark taken out of context can
be; other than that I would say the effects have been minimal.

Incidentally - I wouldn't say I treat Topaz with any more intellectual
respect than a 5 year old. In fact, his arguments are worse than a
5-year-old's because it they have the form of cogent arguments, but
none of the substance. I talk to Topaz because I'm bored.

Hey - you're right! This /is/ like masturbation.

> But I have not described him to her.

Which, given your stance on self-abuse detailed above, is probably a
good thing.

[Topaz]

Exposing the Real Racists

Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book

Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003

----------------------------------------------------------
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been
sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian
Duma (parliament).
----------------------------------------------------------

In 1905, a new book was catalogued in the British Library. Its title
was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it claimed to be
the secret minutes of Jewish elitists who planned to dominate the
world. Most authorities now view The Protocols of Zion as an elaborate
forgery concocted by agents of the Russian Czar.

Over the last century since the book's release, thousands of other
books have been written on what is called the 'Jewish Question'. The
vast majority of them defend the Jewish people from the forces of
'Anti-Semitism', yet still the best selling book on the Jews since
1905 has been The Protocols, which has been published in most of the
world's languages. According to prominent Jewish leaders in Russia,
the popularity of 'The Protocols' has now been eclipsed by a new book
titled Jewish Supremacism. Unlike The Protocols, this book is no
forgery, for its author is proud of his work. He is the controversial
American politician David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House
of Representatives.

Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.

If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Richard
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-

'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-
separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I
attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign
flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign
national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the
superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.

'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'

This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.

Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.

Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.

In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.

Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.

Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.

Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.

SMEARS BACKFIRED

Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.

David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.

When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!

David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.

ABSOLVES SOME JEWS

The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.

Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.

How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-
Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very
effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-
Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-
Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects.
But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders
of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up
in prison for 'hate speech'.

One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.

While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.

INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT

In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled 'anti-
Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define that
term.

In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.

Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-

'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'

With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.

ON ISRAELI TERROR

Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.

Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.

Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.

In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.

It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.

After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

The Jews Are Our Misfortune
By Dr. William Pierce

If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts you will know that
the issue I talk about most often is that of media control. In nearly
every broadcast I have pointed out that the people who control the
mass media of news and entertainment are able to manipulate the
opinions and attitudes of about 95 per cent of the population. I have
pointed out
that the media bosses do this manipulation deliberately and in
collusion with one another, taking advantage of the compelling need
most people have to conform their ideas and their behavior to a
perceived norm.

The media bosses use their control over the mass media of
entertainment -- and to a lesser extent over the news media -- to
create an artificial norm that is presented to the public through
television, motion pictures, advertising, and other media, and this
artificial norm is the one perceived as real by most of the public.
Through their control of public opinion the media bosses also control
the democratic political process and governmental policy in a way that
is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to the White public. And
these media bosses are overwhelmingly Jews.

That has been the message I have presented over and over again in many
of these broadcasts. I have talked about different facets of Jewish
media control and have presented different specifics, different
details, in various broadcasts. I've discussed a number of different
Hollywood films or television shows as specific examples of the way in
which the Jews use their media control to brainwash the public, to
promote
fashions and styles and behavior that are harmful to our people but
that advance the long-term schemes of the Jews to further dominate and
exploit our society.

(Some of this may be outdated today, but it still explains why things
are the way they are)

I've talked about specific Jews who control various segments of the
mass media, and I've pointed out specific instances of the destructive
way in which they use their control. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Sumner Redstone and his control of MTV and CBS and the
Hollywood film studio Paramount Pictures. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Michael Eisner and his control of the Disney Company and
ABC. I've talked about the Jewish media boss Gerald Levin and his
control of Time Warner and CNN. I've talked about the Jewish media
boss Edgar Bronfman and his control of the largest segment of the
popular music industry and Universal Studios in Hollywood. And I've
talked about dozens of other Jewish media bosses and the media they
control and the specific ways in
which they use those media. In particular, during the past few months
I've talked about several recent Hollywood films which deliberately
target teenaged White girls and brainwash them with the notion that it
is fashionable for them to have sex with Black males.

And of course, I've talked about the Jewish control of the news media
as well as the entertainment media. In a way similar to their use of
the entertainment media to set popular fashions, the Jewish media
bosses distort and censor the news in order to give the public a
distorted picture of what is happening in the world. I've given
several very
specific examples of this Jewish management of the news in recent
months.

I've talked about the total blackout at the national level of the news
of the atrocious rape and massacre of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by
Blacks last December, and I've talked about the almost total
suppression of the news of the Black racial attacks on Whites in
Seattle in the Mardi Gras riot at the end of February this year. I
also talked about
the downplaying of the racial aspects of the Black rioting in
Cincinnati in April of this year, about the failure of the news media
outside the immediate Cincinnati area to mention the deliberate
targeting of Whites, especially White women, by the Black rioters. And
I described the gross distortions in the news coverage of the racial
politics in York,
Pennsylvania, that led to the current White mayor of York being
charged in May with the killing of a Black during a Black race riot in
York 32 years ago.

I have pointed out repeatedly how all of this suppression of the news
and distortion of the news is aimed at creating and maintaining a
false picture in the public mind of racial conflict in the United
States. In this false picture Whites always are the aggressors, Blacks
or other non-Whites are the innocent victims, and the root of all
racial conflict
is White racism.

In a number of my broadcasts I've discussed at length why the Jews do
what they do: why they use their media control in such a deceptive and
destructive way, what their motives are. I've also talked about how
they collaborate. I've pointed out that their propaganda policies are
not formulated independently, but that they have a coherent party line
that
they all follow. I've given a number of specific examples of this.
Well, all of these things that I've talked about have not gone
unnoticed by the Jewish media bosses themselves. When people expose
their activities or their scheming they pay attention. In particular,
they have been paying attention to these American Dissident Voices
broadcasts and to the work of my organization, the National Alliance.
They read what's on our Web sites at natvan.com and natall.com and
resistance.com, and they talk about it among themselves. This shows up
pretty clearly in the uniform way in which their media respond to us.
Whether it's the Associated Press or Time magazine or the Washington
Post or a television news commentator anywhere in the United States,
they always use the same
phrasing in talking about us. They always use the word "hate" in
referring to us. They always say that the National Alliance is the
"most dangerous organized hate group" in America, despite the fact
that all we do is disseminate to the public the truth about what
they're doing. That's what they regard as "dangerous" and as "hate."

If you want to see a current indicator of the fact that they do think
about us, go to the Web site promoting Steven Spielberg's new
movie,A.I. There you'll see a parody of a part of the National
Alliance's Web site in the form of a page headed "Who Is the
Anti-Robot Militia?" It's obviously copied, almost word for word, from
the page "Who Is the National Alliance?" on our Web site. It's
difficult for me to understand what they hoped to accomplish with this
parody. Perhaps they believe that it will make people take us less
seriously.

Somewhat less quirky but much more directly deceptive are their
standard smokescreen responses. It used to be that whenever I would
raise the issue of Jewish monopoly control of the mass media of news
and entertainment during an interview or on a call-in program, I would
hear the response from a Jew or an apologist for the Jews: "What about
Ted
Turner? He's not a Jew," as if that negated everything I had said. Of
course, that response was used before Ted Turner's CNN was taken over
by the very Jewish Time Warner. And now that Ted Turner has been eased
out of all decision-making positions in the cable news network he
built and has been replaced by Jews, one doesn't hear the Ted Turner
response any longer.

The standard responses today, the ones I hear as often as I used to
hear the Ted Turner response, are the "it's the shareholders" and the
"it's the big bankers." Whenever I start naming names -- whenever I
begin talking about the control over the media wielded by Michael
Eisner or Sumner Redstone, for example, a Jew will pop up with the
response:
"Those guys don't control the media. It's the shareholders who control
the media. Eisner and Redstone are just employees. The shareholders
tell them what to do." A variation on this theme is, "Eisner and
Redstone don't own the media. It's the big banks that own all of the
media, and most of the big bankers are Gentiles."

Well, of course, that's not really true, and they know it's not true.
The big Jewish media bosses are mostly quite autonomous. Sumner
Redstone, for example, owns outright two-thirds of the shares in his
media empire. His personal fortune is more than 12 billion dollars,
according to Forbes magazine this month. I'm quite sure he doesn't
check
with any shareholders before he dreams up some new piece of
race-mixing filth for MTV.

As for Gentile bankers telling the Jewish media bosses what kind of
propaganda they must produce for the public, that's total nonsense. I
haven't yet done a study of the investment banking industry to
determine what percentage of Jews and what percentage of Gentiles are
involved in it, but one thing that's certain is that the Gentile
bankers would faint dead away at the thought of telling Jewish media
bosses such as Michael Eisner or the Sulzberger family or the
Newhouses or Sumner Redstone to cut back on the race-mixing
propaganda. Gentile bankers as a class are rich, deracinated capons,
whose only interest is money.

Every Jewish propaganda medium -- CBS or MTV or Time magazine or the
New York Times -- is staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and they
all know what they're doing. They work as a tribe, as a swarm of
termites gnawing at the foundations of our existence. There is total
agreement among the media Jews as to the general thrust of their
propaganda. They may disagree on many of the details -- they may even
compete against each other for a bigger slice of the media pie -- but
all agree on the general goals of degrading and subverting Gentile
civilization, of corrupting Gentile institutions, of mongrelizing our
race. Again, the Jews work as a tribe, and that is the source of their
strength and their success.

Gentile bankers, on the other hand, work only for themselves. They
would not dream of combining and using their financial strength to
protect our people from the Jews. They are terrified of the Jews, of
the media. The more money they have, the more selfish and the more
cowardly they are. The huge difference, the decisive difference,
between the Jews and our people is that they work as a tribe, and we
work as individuals. They
work together, rich Jews and poor Jews, for their common tribal
interests, against us, and until now we have failed to organize
effectively to defend ourselves against them.

Anyway, my point is that their defense against my exposure of their
activities and their power over our government is orchestrated - that
is, they've all gotten together and decided what their defense will be
-- and it's a deliberate lie. As I continue to expose the destructive
activities of the Jewish media bosses, you will continue to hear them
and their apologists respond that they really don't have any power,
that it's the Gentile shareholders and the Gentile bankers who control
the media. A lot of dimwits will believe that lie. A lot of couch
potatoes, a lot of soccer moms, a lot of baseball fans, a lot of
lemmings, will
believe that it's not the Jew Sumner Redstone who deliberately uses
MTV to corrupt White teenagers; instead it's some cabal of Gentile
shareholders and Gentile bankers who tell him what to do, and Redstone
is only an employee who follows their orders.

I think it's time for us to orchestrate our exposure of the Jewish
media. I think it's about time for the public, lemmings and all, to
begin hearing a uniform charge against them, a uniform statement of
our opposition to them. How about this: The Jews are our misfortune.
That's simple, and it's true, and it's easy to remember. Repeat after
me: The
Jews are our misfortune. Let's use that statement. Let's let everyone
hear it. Let's impress it on everyone's consciousness: The Jews are
our misfortune.

Of course, when I say the Jews are our misfortune, I'm not talking
only about the Jewish media bosses. I'm not talking only about the
Jews at the top, such as Sumner Redstone and the Sulzbergers and
Michael Eisner and the others who formulate and direct the propaganda
line against Gentile society; I'm talking about the whole tribe, and I
believe that message comes across in the statement, the Jews are our
misfortune. Let me tell you what the standard lemming response will be
to that statement, the response that they have been taught and will
parrot back.

First, from the religious lemmings it will be something like this:
"Oh, no, the Jews aren't our misfortune, we owe everything to the
Jews. Don't you know that Jesus was a Jew and God was his father? That
makes God a Jew. We must do what the Jews tell us. They are God's
people." I'm sure that argument is embarrassing to some of the more
sophisticated
apologists for the Jews, but many Christian Fundamentalists use it,
and I've heard it often.

From the secular lemmings it will be more like: "Don't you know that
Freud and Einstein and Salk were Jews? We wouldn't have a space
program if it weren't for Einstein. We wouldn't have a cure for polio
if it weren't for Salk. The Jews are our fortune, not our misfortune."
Well, of course, our space program has practically nothing to do with
Einstein or his Jewishness. Gentile thinkers envisioned it and
pioneered both its theoretical basis and its practical development.
The German theoretician, Hermann Oberth, and the Russian, Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky, were two of the Gentiles who independently demonstrated
mathematically the feasibility of space travel in the early years of
the last century. The American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the
German Wernher von Braun designed actual rockets and built the
vehicles which were the precursors of today's space ships. Jews didn't
become involved until it became glamorous and profitable. And the
development of a polio vaccine hardly would have missed a beat if
Jonas Salk had gone into the garment business instead of medicine. He
was one of a team, and he got the credit for the work of others as
well as for his own work.

The reasons we hear these silly and groundless claims in the first
place about how much we owe the Jews -- the reasons are Jewish media
control and Jewish tribalism, Jewish support for their own. Freud was
given the enormous buildup he received for his theorizing about anal
personalities and penis envy and the like because he was a Jew, not
because of any genuine merit in his theorizing. Other Jewish writers
recognized him as one of their own and propelled him to a position of
undeserved authority, and his theories ultimately did an enormous
amount of damage to the development of our understanding of psychology
and mental disease. Einstein was a competent mathematical physicist,
but a great deal of the publicity he received was based on the fact
that he was a Jew rather than on the merits of his work. As in the
case of Salk, Jewish publicists gave Einstein credit for the work of
others as well as for his own work.

What we must do is look at the balance sheet. Is the damage done to
our race by Karl Marx and all of his Jewish followers in the communist
movement -- the selective murder of more than 30 million of the best
of our people in Europe during the past century -- offset by whatever
contributions Einstein and Salk and other Jews have made -- even if
they did everything their Jewish boosters claim for them? Certainly,
there have been many other Jews who were competent and creative
engineers and scientists besides Einstein and Salk. Not every clever
Jew became a lawyer or a scriptwriter or a pawn shop owner or a
middleman. Some became chemists or mathematicians or physicists. But
can all of them together make up for the mass murders Lazar Kaganovich
perpetrated
aginst the Ukrainians, for the rapes and murders of German civilians
instigated by Ilya Ehrenburg, for the Eastern European girls still
being forced into sexual slavery on a huge scale today by Israeli
slave dealers?

I think not. And I have not yet put on the balance sheet what the
Jewish masters of America's mass media have done and are doing to us.
What can possibly compensate White Americans for the deliberate,
malevolent corruption of our young people by just one Jewish gangster
like Sumner Redstone and his MTV? The race-mixing, culture-destroying,
hip-hop filth churned out by Sumner Redstone's MTV seven days a week
is the single most destructive influence in American life today. And
of course, Redstone doesn't produce this filth all by himself. He has
thousands of Jews working for him at every level, not only in MTV but
also in CBS and in Paramount Pictures and in all of his other media
properties.

And although MTV, targeting White teenagers as it does, may seem the
most blatantly and maliciously destructive of the Jewish media, it is
hardly much worse than some of the filth being poured into the minds
of the American public by Michael Eisner's Disney empire: especially
by its Miramax films division under the Weinstein brothers. The fact
that much of the entertainment produced by Eisner's Disney Company is
relatively nnocuous does not compensate for the fact that some of it
is pure poison. The poison is being introduced gradually, more and
more each year, and it is having its effect. When the Disney Company
was entirely a Gentile company a few years ago, its output of
ntertainment may sometimes have been excessively bland, but none of it
was poison designed to corrupt White Americans.

And what can possibly compensate on our balance sheet for what the
Jewish news media are doing in their deliberate, calculated distortion
of the picture of the world seen by the American public. It is a
picture which has been designed to confuse White Americans, to
undermine their self-confidence, to induce feelings of racial guilt in
them. Just one example: the systematic suppression of the news of
Black crimes against White people and the exaggeration of the news of
every White crime against non-Whites is not a fluke. It is done
routinely by all of the Jewish news media: by the New York Times, by
the Washington Post, by Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, by CNN
and ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and all the rest. And
interracial crime is just one issue. The relations between the sexes;
immigration; the foreign relations of the United States with the rest
of the world, especially in the Middle East; and a hundred other
important issues are similarly distorted in their portrayal by the
media. This deliberate distortion of the public's view of the world
has done irreparable damage to the American system of government and
to American society. And again: the distortion has been deliberate,
planned, systematic, and intended to do harm to us. No number of funny
Jewish comedians, or successful Jewish entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley
or on Wall Street, or clever Jewish medical researchers can compensate
for this harm.

When we look at the balance sheet the conclusion is clear beyond any
doubt: the Jews are our misfortune. It's way past time for us to
accept this conclusion, to overcome our fears of being labeled
"anti-Semitic" for accepting this conclusion, to brush aside these
fears which have been instilled in us by the propaganda of the mass
media, and then to begin working to improve our fortunes.

[Bret Cahill]

Hey, Nazi, I hope you catch yourself on fire next cross burning you
attend.

Now take off your white sheet.

Bret Cahill

[RyanT]

What's hillarious is that he thinks he's being oppressed because
everyone else isn't agreeing with his bigoted views. See, it's not him
that's being discriminatory, it's everyone else who's not being open
minded toward his racist views! Victimhood complex at its best here...

It's really too late for him to really change, although the best you
can do is to point out obvious contradictions in his ideas and then
maybe he'll shut the hell up once in a while. You can tell that he's
incredibly insecure with his ideas because he rarely posts his own
viewpoints, only digs through the garbage heap for some poorly written
article to argue the points for him.

[RyanT]

What's hillarious is that he thinks he's being oppressed because

everyone else isn't agreeing with his bigoted views. See, it's not him

that's not being open minded, it's everyone else who's not being open

[Angle]

SleepyHeed wrote:

> On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
> air his views because they're so obviously stupid.

I agree, even if they were not so obviuosly stupid.

[Topaz]

Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:

"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"

"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"

"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"

"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"

"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."

[Topaz]

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

[Topaz]

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html

Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique

Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bret Cahill]

< "To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious

< fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen

< covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for

< eyes"

So what was the burning cross supposed to do?

Bret Cahill

[RyanT]

Way to do exactly what I said you would. This ain't a football game
you know -- a large quantity of words isn't going to deflect criticisms
people have of you, but then again, I already told you that a while
ago.

Thankfully society is moving away from outdated ideologies such as
yours, and are becoming less tolerant of it. I can't imagine the kind
of fear you live with yourself every day, with everyone ignoring or
dismissing your bigoted viewpoints.

[SleepyHeed]

B ... b ... b ... but that would show his face!

>
> Bret Cahill

[SleepyHeed]

RyanT wrote:
> SleepyHeed wrote:
> > My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
> > arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".
> >
> > I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
> > tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
> > sometimes.
>
> What's hillarious is that he thinks he's being oppressed because
> everyone else isn't agreeing with his bigoted views. See, it's not him
> that's being discriminatory, it's everyone else who's not being open
> minded toward his racist views! Victimhood complex at its best here...

It is indeed a peculiar psychological exercise he's got going there. I
call it "Jyllands-Posten" syndrome. It's characterised by saying
something blatantly contentious and then wondering what all the fuss is
about. I suffer from it myself sometimes.

> It's really too late for him to really change, although the best you
> can do is to point out obvious contradictions in his ideas and then
> maybe he'll shut the hell up once in a while.

Ah! The anti-SPOG method of posting!

> You can tell that he's
> incredibly insecure with his ideas because he rarely posts his own
> viewpoints, only digs through the garbage heap for some poorly written
> article to argue the points for him.

Also similar in kind to Mr. Hammond, although in fairness to George at
least he's not a bigoted racist and at least he has the decency to a)
provide references and b) provide references to things he's not trying
to pass off as his own (mainly because he tends to refer to articles he
wrote himself).

Tend to think of Topaz as more of the freak-show element of Usenet.
Great to dip in once in a while as something to revile, but you
wouldn't want to do it for a job unless you were desperate.

[Angle]

Topaz wrote:
a quote of someone else's thinking as if this actually gives strength
to his ideas.

"The modern definition of a LIBERAL: someone who is winning an
argument with an selfish asshole who couldn't be bothered to look at
the consequences of his actions."
Brook Simons (2003)

[Topaz]

On 16 Mar 2006 20:39:55 -0800, "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>So what was the burning cross supposed to do?
>

They are Christians and they don't say they burn the cross. They say
they light up the cross at night.

There was time when such a lighting could be seen as a threat. But
that was long ago. Now it's just a cool ceremony.

[Topaz]

On 17 Mar 2006 02:02:02 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Way to do exactly what I said you would. This ain't a football game
>you know -- a large quantity of words isn't going to deflect criticisms
>people have of you, but then again, I already told you that a while
>ago.
>
>Thankfully society is moving away from outdated ideologies such as
>yours, and are becoming less tolerant of it. I can't imagine the kind
>of fear you live with yourself every day, with everyone ignoring or
>dismissing your bigoted viewpoints.
>

My post was meaningful. Yours was pointless small talk.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

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..."

[Topaz]

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.

[Topaz]

"In pictures from New Orleans we see White rescuers saving Blacks from
the flood. Meanwhile, mobs of Blacks targeted and preyed upon the New
Orleans White population with racial hatred, rape, robbery, and
murder. They even shot at Whites who risked their own lives to save
them.

Tell me that we European Americans should not be outraged about this!

What if the situation were reversed and White mobs hurled racial abuse
at Blacks and raped and murdered them? Would there not be
international headlines and condemnation about it? Would not every
White politician from the President of the United States on down speak
out against it?

Instead, while our people are being raped, robbed, and murdered by
hate-crazed African Americans, there is a deafening silence, and even
worse, the media is full of stories of how "White racism" caused the
problems.

White people, this is your wake up call!"

David Duke

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2006 02:02:02 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> My post was meaningful. Yours was pointless small talk.

Nuh uh, you've never made a meaningful post here ever, just a flood of
drivel written by someone else. First step to being taken seriously is
to have enough of a dick to express yourself in your own words, and
until you can learn to do that, people will just ignore you. (Like
they always have anyway, so it's not something that you're not used
to.)

Just because you say you're meaningful doesn't make it so, and that's
the biggest problem with you theist types to begin with -- you think
that having strong opinions, as opposed to good opinions, is enough of
a reason to be taken seriously. Get yourself an education, get out of
the house once in a while and meet some people who might be different
from you, then you might realize how silly your narrowly minded
viewpoint really is.

[tooly]

Hey Topaz.
Bedford Forest. Whenever I think of the KKK, I think of Bedford Forest.
Wow...what a colorful soldier of war he was. If one reads of his deeds in
war, I would wager that there is a good argument this may have been the
greatest 'soldier' the world has known...at the least, one of the greatest
America has ever known. But we rarely read of him in our history books.
Why? His KKK affiliation after the war. Of course, that is political
claptrap in the modern era and has little to do with the times of that era.
Carpetbagging was rampant after the war and threatened to give away the
south to charleton opportunists who had little concern more than filling
their own tills in life. Much of that opportunism was being thrown at
blacks in a weird sad twist of fate for the south. Anyway, Bedford Forest
became maligned for this association in today's history books and today we
hear little about him. A shame for he WAS a great soldier [and perhaps like
in the tradition of Oliver North, was ready to sacrifice himself in name of
higher cause, however he saw that cause...the soldier's greatest virtue I
suppose].

Which brings to mind an argument about historical perspective. Before the
berlin wall came down, the former countries of the USSR were erecting grand
statues in many cities to communism's greats...including Lenin, Stalin, and
other notables. Most recently, we saw Iraqians pull down Saddam Husseins'
statue in Bahgdad, overturning what was previously 'hero' status, to that of
'criminal against humanity'.

Hero or Villian? Time tells I suppose. But it seems eye opening that
whatever hero's we see caste in bronze or stone in our local town squares
has everything to do with the reigning 'power' in the land, and little to do
with what is truth [unless of course one goes with the 'might makes right'
eddict?].

Today we find ourselves in another struggle...perhaps one even more
incredulous than whatever our past has made us endure. Many of us 'knowing'
what's going on, realizing the powerful 'brainwashing' our education systems
are now [that produce such minds as perhaps this guy's girlfriend who so
imbued her ire on you through her boyfried (supposedly, though I suspect it
was all a contrived to discredit you)]...well, I think of the good soldier's
virtue, who knows no vindication with how the wind blows, but must stand
tall for what he believes, however he sees; Even what he knows.

Bigot, racist, fascist, evil monger, hater...all these flagwords should have
no meaning...much as any freedom fighter 'knew' deep within that communism
was just another name for tyranny, or that carpetbagging was a spiritual
violation of the post civil-war southerners, or that Saddam Hussien was an
egomanical nutbag willing to kill masses of his own people just to retain
power, or that the nature of any true good 'citizen' is that of the
soldier's virtue to stand tall, even against the tide, if only that is what
they believe to be RIGHT and GOOD.

Rightness and goodness no longer sit with the ruling hegemony today; what is
being taught in our schools is a monstricty of political mishmash, all bent
upon severing ties with our noble past, reducing all of us, to little more
than sheep or cattle to be driven to market by the new money-changer power
brokers.

And so, I salute your courage...to stand against that tide; to embrace the
ire and vitriole of a now 'mind controlled' public in which far too many
have little perception of their own manipulations. It is a hard road to hoe
to say the least. But then, I imagine someone like Beford Forest would have
not thought twice, knowing only 'the right thing to do' at any given time,
even if it meant disgrace in history books, at least for a time. At least
for a time suggests though that there is a long run and short run to things,
and ultimately, human beings will be judged for the virtue they stood upon,
and not the political claptrap of how the wind blows at any given time.
These kids need to be saved; even as their hearts and minds have been turned
against us...if we are to have a continuence toward that future.

"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:06ak12dcqpt69jtqr...@4ax.com...

[SleepyHeed]

I couldn't care less what the extremely unlikely named "David Duke" has
to say about New Orleans. If you are upset about the same things he's
upset about why not just say that? Simply posting what DD thinks is no
more answer to my points than my trying to answer your points by
posting some of Martin Luther King's or Ghandi's writings. I could do
it just to annoy the piss out of you - y'know keep up the general level
of interaction we've come to expect out of each other - or we could try
and debate this issue. Of course if you're too chicken-shit to actually
debate with me you could continue posting other people's work?

[Topaz]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:19:19 -0500, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Hey Topaz.
>Bedford Forest. Whenever I think of the KKK, I think of Bedford Forest.
>Wow...what a colorful soldier of war he was. If one reads of his deeds in
>war, I would wager that there is a good argument this may have been the
>greatest 'soldier' the world has known...at the least, one of the greatest
>America has ever known. But we rarely read of him in our history books.
>Why? His KKK affiliation after the war. Of course, that is political
>claptrap in the modern era and has little to do with the times of that era.
>Carpetbagging was rampant after the war and threatened to give away the
>south to charleton opportunists who had little concern more than filling
>their own tills in life. Much of that opportunism was being thrown at
>blacks in a weird sad twist of fate for the south. Anyway, Bedford Forest
>became maligned for this association in today's history books and today we
>hear little about him. A shame for he WAS a great soldier [and perhaps like
>in the tradition of Oliver North, was ready to sacrifice himself in name of
>higher cause, however he saw that cause...the soldier's greatest virtue I
>suppose].

It is the most important point, that we can't trust the media or the
schools. These are in enemy hands.

>
>Which brings to mind an argument about historical perspective. Before the
>berlin wall came down, the former countries of the USSR were erecting grand
>statues in many cities to communism's greats...including Lenin, Stalin, and
>other notables. Most recently, we saw Iraqians pull down Saddam Husseins'
>statue in Bahgdad, overturning what was previously 'hero' status, to that of
>'criminal against humanity'.

The Saddam statue thing was a staged thing done by the USA and it's
media. It was just a show they put on. The media lies all the time.

>
>Hero or Villian? Time tells I suppose. But it seems eye opening that
>whatever hero's we see caste in bronze or stone in our local town squares
>has everything to do with the reigning 'power' in the land, and little to do
>with what is truth [unless of course one goes with the 'might makes right'
>eddict?].
>
>Today we find ourselves in another struggle...perhaps one even more
>incredulous than whatever our past has made us endure. Many of us 'knowing'
>what's going on, realizing the powerful 'brainwashing' our education systems
>are now [that produce such minds as perhaps this guy's girlfriend who so
>imbued her ire on you through her boyfried (supposedly, though I suspect it
>was all a contrived to discredit you)]...well, I think of the good soldier's
>virtue, who knows no vindication with how the wind blows, but must stand
>tall for what he believes, however he sees; Even what he knows.
>
>Bigot, racist, fascist, evil monger, hater...all these flagwords should have
>no meaning...much as any freedom fighter 'knew' deep within that communism
>was just another name for tyranny, or that carpetbagging was a spiritual
>violation of the post civil-war southerners, or that Saddam Hussien was an
>egomanical nutbag willing to kill masses of his own people just to retain

What you are right about is that the USA is anti-White. That is why
we see all the bias against the South. It is the enemy USA government
that is telling us they don't like Saddam. As for Communism here are
some important facts:

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 recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile 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 sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.

Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."

"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The 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 prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

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."

>power, or that the nature of any true good 'citizen' is that of the
>soldier's virtue to stand tall, even against the tide, if only that is what
>they believe to be RIGHT and GOOD.
>
>Rightness and goodness no longer sit with the ruling hegemony today; what is
>being taught in our schools is a monstricty of political mishmash, all bent
>upon severing ties with our noble past, reducing all of us, to little more
>than sheep or cattle to be driven to market by the new money-changer power
>brokers.

True

>
>And so, I salute your courage...to stand against that tide; to embrace the
>ire and vitriole of a now 'mind controlled' public in which far too many
>have little perception of their own manipulations. It is a hard road to hoe
>to say the least. But then, I imagine someone like Beford Forest would have
>not thought twice, knowing only 'the right thing to do' at any given time,
>even if it meant disgrace in history books, at least for a time. At least
>for a time suggests though that there is a long run and short run to things,
>and ultimately, human beings will be judged for the virtue they stood upon,
>and not the political claptrap of how the wind blows at any given time.
>These kids need to be saved; even as their hearts and minds have been turned
>against us...if we are to have a continuence toward that future.
>

I agree with that. I can only tell the whole truth and do what is
right. Any other way of doing things is totally unacceptable.

[Topaz]

by Kevin MacDonald

The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
display of Jewish power and influence. People who are very strongly
identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and
military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli
lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in
the defense and foreign policy establishment. These same people, as
well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the
most prestigious media outlets in the United States. People who
criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional
abuse.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is
the surreal fact that in this entire discourse Jewish identity is not
mentioned. When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin,
William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent
media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or
opine on the Fox News Network, there is never any mention that they
are Jewish Americans who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank; is on
the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper; maintains close
personal ties with prominent Israelis, especially those associated
with the Likud Party; has worked for an Israeli defense company; and,
according to credible reports, was discovered by the FBI passing
classified information to Israel - when, despite all of this, he is a
central figure in the network of those pushing for wars to rearrange
the entire politics of the Middle East in Israel's favor, and with
nary a soul having the courage to mention the obvious overriding
Jewish loyalty apparent in Perle's actions, that is indeed a
breathtaking display of power.
One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to
maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven
years, despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal
suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories - an
occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete
subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During the same period Jewish
organizations in America have been a principal force - in my view the
main force - for transforming America into a state dedicated to
suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging
massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a
legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to
the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities - the
culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of
double standards in the aboveground media...

[Topaz]

an interview with David Duke
by Kevin Alfred Strom

KAS: What was the reaction of the high-level people in Syria to your
visit?
David Duke: Extremely Positive. One of the most amazing aspects of
my visit was the reaction of the press. I'm used to an adversarial
press, of course, pretty much because of the influence of the Jewish
supremacists. In Syria I held a large press conference in a big
press tent in the middle of Damascus. There were probably a hundred
news people there from all over the Middle East, including about
twenty from the major national news media of the respective
countries. And this press conference was broadcast live in these
different countries. I got to explain about Jewish supremacism,
Jewish control of the American media, the attack on the U.S.S.
Liberty, and about how Israel actually made a terrorist attack
against America in the Lavon affair, which a lot of these people
aren't aware of.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5228 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4783 ]
So, I said, America's been a victim of both Jewish terrorism and
Jewish occupation in many of the ways that they have, and they got
to hear about this. They also got to see and hear an American who
doesn't go along with Jewish supremacism. The Syrian Press
Association-which is the official press association for that
country and it has associates all over the Middle East-came out
with an article in which they said that David Duke is the best
ambassador from the American people ever to come to Syria and the
Mideast because he has made us realize that not all Americans
support the policies of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Bush. He has shown us
that not all Americans support the Zionist terror in Israel and that
there are many Americans who support us. They may not be a majority,
but they're being manipulated, just as the Zionists try to
manipulate us here.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5460 ]
That was interesting to me because I didn't count on the media being
so supportive. Again, I'm used to hostile media. The representatives
of the Middle Eastern media interviewed me for an hour and a half,
and there was not one negative question. There was no mention of my
KKK involvement of thirty years ago-just a discussion of the
critical issues at hand, and it was very positive all the way
through the interview.
KAS: In addition to Syria, I know that you've engaged in outreach to
other Middle Eastern countries in the past. I find it interesting
that you, a man who is characterized as a hater of non-Whites, were
speaking in a friendly way to non-White peoples and receiving an
excellent reception from them in their countries-although you
have expressed an opposition to Islamic and Middle Eastern
immigration to Europe, the United States, and other White areas. Did
they address that issue at all, and if so, how do they feel about
that?
DD: Let me tell you an interesting fact; this is something that's
important that all of your listeners hear. Every time I've gone to
the Middle East and done public appearances I've make one thing
clear. I've made sure there's no stone left unturned because Israel
has started a hate campaign against me, telling the Arabs, "Well,
David Duke is against all the non-White, non-European people, so you
should not welcome him; instead you should spit upon him."
One of the first things I tell these people is, "I want to make
something very clear at the outset. I am a person of European
descent and I live in the United States of America. I want to
preserve the ancestral homelands of my people for my people-both
Europe and America. I want to preserve our traditions and our ethnic
heritage and I'm opposed to any non-European immigration to our
countries-just as I know you would be opposed to Europeans coming
en masse to your countries, controlling your societies, and trying
to change your religious values, traditions, or culture. So, I want
to let you know that that's what I stand for. At the same time, I am
not in favor of America or any other European country opening up
bases all over the world, oppressing your people, or supporting
Israel. We are allies in a sense, in that we both have a common
problem in the extreme danger posed by Jewish supremacism and by the
extremists who control Israel and have so much influence in the
Western world. They are a threat to you and also to us in much the
same way, and we should stand united in our opposition to them.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3663 ]
KAS: Well let's hope that there can be good will between different
peoples who want self-determination and feel no hostility toward
others who want the same thing.
DD: Well I think that there is such good will, and I certainly saw
it during my trip. The media in Damascus broadcast my interview and
my speech, which anybody can view on my Web site, davidduke.com.
That speech was aired on every news channel in Syria and just about
every Syrian saw it. After the broadcast, whenever I would walk in
the streets-of course, I'm pretty recognizable over there; I'm
tall and very European in appearance-everywhere I went people
would cheer for me and welcome me; it was amazing. So there is good
will now, and I hope that we can preserve it.
[ http://www.davidduke.com/ ]
There's a difference between a truly supremacist vision of life,
such as the Jews have, and what we want. We're not trying to hurt
other peoples or oppress them, and this message also helps our own
people to see the truth. When you talk to many White people about
preserving our heritage, our values, and our rights, and about
having their children grow up in a White society, they can go along
with that. They don't go along with the idea of murdering or
oppressing or exterminating other people, which, of course, is what
the Jewish media try to portray our movement as being all about.
That's why when our people act like the Hollywood stereotypes they
do a tremendous amount of damage to our cause. But when White people
see an individual who is active for White rights also befriending
people in the Middle East in a diplomatic sort of way, it basically
destroys the image that the Jewish media try to create of a "hater,"
or a "bigot"-of somebody who hates others. They realize that I am
a person just like themselves, and that the people of our cause are
decent individuals who are trying to preserve our heritage, but are
not trying to hurt other peoples.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5010 ]
KAS: I know that the reaction of the Jewish-controlled media here in
the West to your Syrian trip was very hostile-and they tried to
make it look like you were making anti-American speeches there.
DD: Right. In fact, I remember seeing that on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf Blitzer-now here's a guy who's supposed to be an unbiased
newsman. He's actually a former activist for AIPAC, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee-a group that is under
investigation right now for spying on the United States of America.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7091 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8084 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8085 ]
KAS: And one of the number one pro-war groups in this country.
DD: Exactly. And this is a guy who tells us about the Middle East
and tells us "David Duke blasts the U.S."? I didn't blast the U.S.
I blasted the Jewish supremacists who have subverted and hijacked
American foreign policy and led us to this disaster in the Middle
East, and I blasted the individual whom I believe has practically
committed treason against this country, George Bush.
When you send American boys into battle, you risk their lives and
they face losing their arms, their legs, their vision, and even
their ability to reproduce. When you send them into battle, you
don't send them to fight for a lie, and you don't send them to fight
for some other country's interests. You send them in only if America
and its well-being are truly threatened. And, of course, we've
learned that the reasons given for this war have been a lie. So I
see it as a great betrayal to send Americans into this war, which is
a war for Israel, rather than for American interests.
KAS: The Jewish "powers that be" have also tried to make some moves
against the university in Ukraine from which you recently earned
your doctorate. Can you tell us about that?
DD: Well, yes, that's true, and this is the first time I've talked
to your listeners since that happened. I've been quietly working
toward my doctoral degree for a long time. I made sure that every
"i" was dotted and every "t" was crossed in my studies at the
university. I took the required exams, did everything I had to do,
and defended my doctoral thesis-which had to do with the ethnic
supremacist aspect of Zionism-in the proper way before fifteen
academicians at the university. They were fifteen of the top
academicians not only at that school, but also in all of eastern
Europe. All of them were well educated and have been widely
published, not only in the academic community, but also in the
larger commercial market. And of course, I was awarded a doctorate.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6035 ]
The Jewish extremists are pretty upset about that. They had to admit
that everything was done properly, but they still said I should be
in prison robes rather than doctoral robes, and they said the same
thing about the president of the university, Dr. Tchokin. In fact,
Israel has demanded that Dr. Tchokin not be allowed to run for
office in Ukraine. He started a new party there called the
Conservative Party. He's a very anti-Zionist voice, a very
pro-Ukrainian, nationalistic voice, and they demanded that he not be
allowed to run for office.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4669 ]
That's chutzpah, when a foreign country tells you that you can't
have democratic freedoms or rights in elections. Since that time
they have also have demanded that the university be shut down, and
that all of its degrees be revoked. Well, it's kind of hard to shut
down the university; it's the largest university in Ukraine. They
have about fifty thousand students there and a beautiful, sprawling
campus with fantastic buildings on a hill in the middle of Kiev.
More people in the Ukrainian government, more members of the
Ukrainian diplomatic corps, more of the people in their bureaucracy,
their scientific community, and the other professions in Ukraine
have been educated at this university than at any other university
in the country. All of a sudden, here are these extremist Jews
saying, "Revoke the degrees of all the students." That would mean
revoking literally hundreds of thousands of degrees that have been
earned by the leading citizens of the country. But that's how evil
and oppressive these extremists are.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6036 ]
KAS: I understand that the university has held conferences on the
subject of Zionism. I have an article in front of me that says, "The
courageous university leadership"-it's called MAUP, which is a
Ukrainian acronym for Interregional Academy for Personnel Management
-- "said the United Nations should revoke its 1947 resolution on the
creation of a Jewish state. 'Mankind lived without the state of
Israel exactly 2,670 years, but after the second of its creation,
all the world feels a constant aggression,' they declared." So there
definitely is some conflict between the university and Zionist power
in the world.
DD: That statement was made in response to their efforts to shut
down the university and deny its President his rights. And, by the
way, my argument is not by any means for extermination of the Jewish
people. What I have said is simply that the Jewish people in Israel
can live as the other Jewish communities have historically lived
without bothering, oppressing, or imprisoning members of the Arab
community. I have no problem with Jews being in Israel; obviously
they have historically resided there. But I do have a problem with
them having created a state through terrorism, with their
terrorization of the Palestinian population, and with their jailing
and torturing of people by the tens of thousands over the years, and
with their fomenting of problems in other countries.
For instance, I truly believe that the Shi'ite-Sunni civil war now
looming in Iraq is the work of the Mossad. Only the Mossad would
bomb some of the holiest sites of Islam, and of course, the Israelis
seek this war. They destroyed the government of Saddam Hussein, but
in its place they now see something that they are beginning to view
as a big threat: a Shi'ite government that is very pro-Iran and a
refurbished, rebuilt Iraq, re-armed by America. They don't want this.
They want Iraq to be destabilized through civil war, so now they're
now trying to foment one. Now, before people begin saying, "David
Duke is loony again" or "He's just extreme. How can that be?," they
should remember that we know for a fact that Israel did precisely
the same thing in Lebanon. Moshe Sharett, the former Israeli Prime
Minister, talked about this. Israel purposely promoted bloodshed and
violence between the Christians and the Muslims in Lebanon in order
to foment civil war there. The reason why they hate Syria so much is
because Syrian forces came in-they were invited, by the way, by
the Lebanese government-and stopped the bloodshed among these
Lebanese people that had lived side-by-side for centuries. By the
way, although Syria is overwhelmingly Muslim, approximately four
million Christians, mostly of Greek descent-almost pure Greek
descent-also live there, and they and the Muslim population have
co-existed for centuries. Well, obviously it's in the interests of
the Jewish state to use the same old divide-and-conquer technique
that Stephen Steinlight has talked about. The Israelis want to see
their enemies fight each other, and I think that's what's why we see
what's going on in Iraq right now.
KAS: Did you not run an article on your website theorizing that
there was a Jewish element behind this Mohammed cartoon controversy
that began in Denmark and resulted in riots all around the world?
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8097 ]
DD: According to Wikipedia and other sources, Fleming Rose, the
person that launched the cartoon controversy is himself of direct
Ukrainian Jewish descent. We know for a fact that he is a very close
associate of Daniel Pipes, ones of the leading and most extreme
Jewish neo-cons, as pro-Israel and as supremacist as you could
possibly imagine. Rose stayed in Pipes' home in the United States of
America.
This affair is one more example of what they try to do, and it's
also what they're doing right now in our country. I think Israel
benefited a great deal from the 9-11 attacks, and I think that in
the long run, Israel wants these attacks. They want to escalate this
international conflict, they want World War IV.
And in the process, what does that do? Well, it again takes our
attention away from the vital domestic racial issues confronting us
in our country. It also gives them an opportunity to take away our
freedoms, because we find ourselves in a wartime public speech
scenario. So you see continued destruction of our basic
constitutional rights and liberties. Our Bill of Rights is falling
by the wayside a little more every day, and these international wars
that they're trying to foment are simply a disaster for us. We saw
the same thing in the Second World War. They got us into that war
through the back door, so to speak. For years they promoted war and
they tried to provoke a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in every way
they could. Our government engaged in many warlike acts against
Japan for the purpose of provoking this attack.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7110 ]
KAS: Well, if 9-11 was the Pearl Harbor of the Iraq war, do you
believe they will need another incident-another "Pearl Harbor"-
to bring on a war with Iran, which the neo-cons and the Zionists
clearly want?
DD: I don't know if they need an incident as big as 9-11, but they
do need continued pressure. They need for there to be more terrorist
acts in the West. I don't know if they themselves have to engage in
direct infiltration to promote these things or not, but I wouldn't
put anything past them.
They've done false flag operations before; it's a fact of history.
There's no denying the fact that Israel literally sent Jewish Mossad
agents to Egypt to blow up American installations, American movie
theaters, American restaurants, and American libraries. Luckily the
plot was thwarted because one of the bombs in a Jewish terrorist's
pocket blew up prematurely. So he was caught and made to talk, the
whole plot unraveled, and eventually the Israeli Defense Minister
Pinhas Lavon, had to resign. In that instance they tried to use
terrorism against America to get our country into a war against
another country-Egypt-that was innocent of any action against us.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5415 ]
If they had been successful, their scheme would have cost tens of
thousands of American lives and countless billions of dollars, and
would have caused the terrible injustice of war with a country that
had done nothing to harm us. And as you know, just recently, the
Israeli prime minister literally gave medals to-and praised as
heroes-these same Jewish terrorists who attacked the United
States of America, and yet there was almost no coverage of this
event in America's controlled media, and there was no outrage in the
United States Congress.
KAS: Virtually the only coverage came from the pro-White alternative
media. David, can you share with us your insight on the likelihood
of war with Iran? What insights do your Middle Eastern contacts give
you into the mind-set of the Iranians? What is Ahmadinejad looking
for and where is he going?
DD: I think Ahmadinejad is one of the most courageous, honest
overseas leaders, and I think he's smart enough to realize that
there's going to be a lot of problems for them, as well as for us,
unless Jewish extremist power in Europe and America is broken.
I did a lot of programs in the Middle East back in late October and
early November and I discussed how the Holocaust is being used as a
weapon. Of course, it was the primary weapon in the creation of
Israel and in the suppression of the Palestinian people, and there
are many revisionists who have legitimate questions about this
period of history. The Arab states and the Islamic world did well to
start challenging some of its claims. I talked about this to Nidal
Kabalan, who is Syria's leading journalist, and he later spoke with
the President of Iran. I think this may have something to do with
the statements that Ahmadinejad made just a few weeks later,
questioning different aspects of the Holocaust.
KAS: What do you think is the likelihood of war with Iran?
DD: Obviously the likelihood is high. The question is, how crazy are
these Jewish neo-cons? I think if they do launch an attack on Iran,
they'd much prefer it come from the United States rather than from
Israel, because they want to deflect their enemies from their own
country.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7739 ]
The Iraq war, after all, deflected a lot of bombers and terrorist
targets from Israel to America. If the crazies succeed, I think it
will be disastrous, ultimately, for international Zionism. Even if
we don't invade Iran, but instead bomb their nuclear sites, for
example, the Iranians will consider that an act of all-out war. They
have a very dedicated population three times as large as Iraq's.
They've already had 250,000 people sign up to be suicide bombers,
and these people are at the ready in a suicide brigade. Iran will
send its agents all over the Middle East and all over the world to
attack Americans. They not going to just sit back and take it.
This would be a disaster, and it would also disrupt the flow of oil.
We would very likely have $200-per-barrel oil, which would probably
lead to terrible economic depression in Europe and America. It would
probably bring on the most severe worldwide depression since the
1930s.
KAS: It seems crazy for people who are at the pinnacle of power-
that is, the Jewish supremacists right now in the West-to want to
shake things up so badly, just to protect their little Zionist
colony in Israel.
DD: Well, they're between a rock and a hard place, that's their
problem. They don't want Iran to eventually acquire nuclear weapons
and be on a par with Israel, but at the same time if they launch
this war it's going to result in disaster in all the countries of
the world, and that may cause them to lose their grip on the world.
So they have a very tough decision to make.
If the crazies prevail, I think it's going to be disastrous for the
United States and disastrous for the world. However, if the cooler
heads among the Zionists prevail, they'll try to use other means-
like subversion-to take care of the problem. They may try to
cause a civil war in Iran, or foment a coup d'état there. They're
very good at that kind of thing, you know. They've been practicing
and working at it for years and I'm sure that they have people
planted in the government of Iran and in many other governments as
well; this is their forte. In that case, we won't have war; and
since the Jews have tended to learn from history, at this point I
think that the cooler heads will prevail. There's just too much risk
for them in the other scenario.
KAS: Well, whatever the case, we must continue to work to educate
our people and to work for our own self-determination. Along those
same lines, you and I were in Washington, D.C. earlier this week at
the National Archives and we stood with our hands literally within a
couple of inches of the founding document of the United States, the
Constitution. What were your thoughts on that occasion?
DD: Well, I've seen them before, and I've been that close to them
before, but every time in my life that I've seen them they've made a
deep impression on me.
Our Founding Fathers were such brilliant men, and they were also
courageous men. They stood up against the strongest power in the
world at the time. They stood on principle, and they sacrificed.
Most who participated in the American Revolution died paupers.
It amazes me that the same issues exist today, except that they are
perhaps even more serious. For instance, our country was founded on
the principle of independence, on the idea that as a nation and a
culture we have a right to a government dedicated to "ourselves and
to our posterity." We have a right to our independence, to be free
of control by any foreign people. The people of the United States
then, of course, had been controlled by the British, who are
basically our people. Most of the American people then were of
British descent. But we still felt that we had our own life here in
America, we had the right to run our own affairs and to have those
affairs determined by what's good for our people here.
Of course, today we have a situation in which a foreign nation that
is absolutely opposed to the fundamental precepts of what America is
all about, to what our forefathers believed in, and to our values,
is in control of our mass media and in control of many aspects of
our government-certainly of our foreign policy. That makes it
contemporary for me.
And the principles of our Declaration of Independence apply to other
nations as well. They apply to the Iraqis, who have a right to their
independence under Saddam Hussein or whomever else they may choose
as their leaders. They apply to Iran and to Syria, to Israel, and to
any other country. For us to try to make things otherwise is a
terrible mistake; it gets us involved in these foreign conflicts.
Secondly, seeing these documents and the Constitution of the United
States again, I'm reminded of the founding of our country and how
much it's been subverted since those days. As we all know, the
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States says very clearly
that these principles are for "ourselves and our posterity." That's
our posterity. These men were talking about their own posterity. And
of course, whether or not our posterity will survive is in question.
We're being ethnically cleansed in our own country. Through the
differential birthrate, racial mixing, and massive immigration we
are literally becoming fewer and fewer in number and eventually
we'll be completely under the control-political, social,
economic, and cultural-of people who are not of our kind.
I also looked at the Bill of Rights while we were there, and
remembered that one of the very first laws that the framers of our
Constitution wrote limited immigration to the United States to
people of European heritage. So we know what this country was
founded on, and even though the media always call people like you
and me "un-American," we know that we are the authentic Americans.
One final thing I thought of when I considered how our country has
been subverted again, were the remarks that Mr. Neal Gabler made in
a documentary about Jewish media control (I quote him in my book
Jewish Supremacism). In that documentary he said, in approximately
these words, that the eastern European Jews who came to America-
people who were not allowed in many precincts of the old America-
literally changed America through control of our media-changed it
to their point of view, to their values, and to their issues.
He's Jewish himself, and his own words were "they devoured the old
America." In its place they created a new America of their own
design, in which they were the leaders; and he said that the Jews
subverted the values of this country in many of whose precincts they
formerly hadn't even been allowed.
Well, in my group, EURO, and in your group, National Vanguard, we
have a task. In our Web sites and our writings, and in our work, we
have an absolutely vital task ahead of us. We must get back control
over our own country, over our culture, our press, our media, and
truthfully, over our very hearts and souls.
Each of us has an individual battle in that way because all of us
are touched and affected by this virus that is among us-this
destructive, negative culture that the Jews have dumped upon us. We
must struggle to regain control of our lives, our heritage, and
eventually our country and our media, and unless we do this, unless
we have the courage and we acquire the ability and the knowledge to
regain control, unless we have the passion and the love that it's
going to take-it takes great love to make great sacrifices-we
will be lost forever and all the tears and dreams of our forefathers
will have been in vain. That's our task. I am committed, I am
dedicated to that task, and I believe that you are too.
KAS: Well, David, on the façade of the National Archives building,
which is a beautiful, almost Olympian structure in federal
Washington, are graven some words which I will quote, "The Heritage
of the Past is the Seed that Brings Forth the Harvest of the
Future." I want to thank you for working for the preservation and
the advancement of that precious heritage over these many years and
I want to thank you for your work as an ambassador for peace from
our people to the other peoples of the world. I look forward to your
work this year and in the decades to come, and I also want to thank
you for being a guest again on American Dissident Voices.
DD: Thank you, Kevin, and I look forward to being with you again soon.

TO SUBSCRIBE use:
advlis...@nationalvanguard.com

[Angle]

Topaz quoted Stalin:

Because Topaz needs his ideas so much he is willing to believe a man
who killed millions. Jews were mistreated and killed in Soviet
Russion, you poor, ignorant person. But that's bad PR for communism.
So Stalin lied.

Or do you, Topaz, assume that communist leaders, especially the
genocidal level killers, are always honest.

Go to college, you poor thing.

[SleepyHeed]

So you /are/ too chicken-shit to debate with me. Fine. Byeeeee!

[Angle]

SleepyHeed skrev:

> So you /are/ too chicken-shit to debate with me. Fine. Byeeeee!

But, I swear, that's a good thing for you. That small part of us that
thinks if we word it right, if we present the right facts, if we show
we understand his opinions and even using them undermine his
position....that one of these or all of these will somehow stop him, if
even for a moment, make him doubt his stupid ideas, even for a moment,
perhaps even be a seed that gnaws at him and actually sets off a
reconsideration.....

...that idea on our part can really cause a lot of pain, like those
plastic-like slips of popcorn that can slide between the gum and a
tooth.

What is scarier is that for the most part a cut and paste racism
program could be at work here and not a person? It just checks for
responses or its name, grabs some text from various files - perhaps
even with a search program built in to copy them from the net - and
then simply plops them down.

And here we are getting mad at a very simple- cro-magnon AI, and I use
that 'I' hesitantly - piece of software, that never reads and certainly
never 'responds' to anything said to it.

He could be that. And essentially, he is.

[RyanT]

Oh boy, this is rich. You did it again, and even better, posting an
article that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. I'm
assuming that you feel "attacked" by mine and others' posts, and like
war, if you don't retaliate with overwhelming force something about
your ego is about to be shattered. Too bad debate doesn't work that
way.

Now lets see if you're unpredictable enough to actually do something
different this time. I'm assuming not, and that's exactly what makes
you easily exploited by the likes of Bush and co. They don't give a
shit about you or your well-being, you know -- they just tell you what
you want to hear just so they can manipulate your vote to their
personal advantage.

[Topaz]

Andrew Roth, a Jew.

John Service, a gentile.

Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown

Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Topaz]

On 21 Mar 2006 11:18:25 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Oh boy, this is rich. You did it again, and even better, posting an
>article that has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

Here is one of my polices:

If postRude Then

.Edit
.Select All
.Delete (without reading the rest)

.Copy (more important information)
.Paste
.Post

End If

> I'm
>assuming that you feel "attacked" by mine and others' posts, and like
>war, if you don't retaliate with overwhelming force something about
>your ego is about to be shattered. Too bad debate doesn't work that
>way.

My policy is not to allow rude and obnoxious persons to get the
last word. It's also good to post the important info they hate.

>
>Now lets see if you're unpredictable enough to actually do something
>different this time. I'm assuming not, and that's exactly what makes
>you easily exploited by the likes of Bush and co.

I can't stand the sight of Bush.

> They don't give a
>shit about you or your well-being, you know

I know that.

> -- they just tell you what
>you want to hear just so they can manipulate your vote to their
>personal advantage.

I know that too.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

On 21 Mar 2006 03:28:54 -0800, "SleepyHeed"
<simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>So you /are/ too chicken-shit to debate with me. Fine. Byeeeee!
>

If someone is not speaking to you there could be several reasons for
it. For your edification I am not chicken-shit.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

On 21 Mar 2006 06:21:02 -0800, "Angle"
<butifyouloo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But, I swear, that's a good thing for you. That small part of us that
>thinks if we word it right, if we present the right facts, if we show
>we understand his opinions and even using them undermine his
>position....that one of these or all of these will somehow stop him,

Quote when anything like that happened.

> if
>even for a moment, make him doubt his stupid ideas, even for a moment,
>perhaps even be a seed that gnaws at him and actually sets off a
>reconsideration.....
>
>...that idea on our part can really cause a lot of pain, like those
>plastic-like slips of popcorn that can slide between the gum and a
>tooth.
>
>What is scarier is that for the most part a cut and paste racism
>program could be at work here and not a person?

I am a person.

> It just checks for
>responses or its name, grabs some text from various files - perhaps
>even with a search program built in to copy them from the net - and
>then simply plops them down.
>
>And here we are getting mad at a very simple- cro-magnon AI, and I use
>that 'I' hesitantly - piece of software, that never reads and certainly
>never 'responds' to anything said to it.
>
>He could be that. And essentially, he is.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2006 11:18:25 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh boy, this is rich. You did it again, and even better, posting an
> >article that has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
>
> Here is one of my polices:
>
> If postRude Then
>
> .Edit
> .Select All
> .Delete (without reading the rest)
>
> .Copy (more important information)
> .Paste
> .Post

What do you think you're accomplishing by getting in the "last word"?
Do you think people actually read these threads and go "oh, he said the
last thing, therefore he must be right!" Debate is not a football game
-- your "policy" is really just an excuse to remain ignorant of
opposing opinions.

Well, at least you posted in your own words this time around.

[tooly]

"Angle" <butifyouloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142520397.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> SleepyHeed wrote:
>
>> On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
>> air his views because they're so obviously stupid.
>
> I agree, even if they were not so obviuosly stupid.
>

Stupid? Topaz lends a boatload of information to support his
arguments...and makes no personal reference toward those who disagree with
him [flagwords and catcalling etc]. All I hear out of you guys is a call to
mob action built upon emotion and little else. Everything you have said can
be reduced down to 'bark'...'Let's hang Topaz; Topaz not good'...bark, bark.
You cannot give argument as to why though, for you yourself have not thought
it through. The best you can say is simply 'racism is evil'...which is just
something that has been planted in your brain as the social dictate you
'must' abide by. To go against that social conditioning would be something
frightfully scary to you...and so, your relinquish, taking the safe, easy
road of mass thought.

I'd ask that you take a step back, and look at that 'emotion'...and realize
it is placed in you much like Pavlov's dogs were made to salivate at the
mere ring of bells.

We all have our conditioning. The stupid among us are those that cannot see
past what is not of their own conclusions, but only 'social' in nature. It
is EASY to be social; to hide in the cloak of crowds...and mobs.

The one thing you cannot fault Topaz upon is that of cowardice; that's for
sure.

[RyanT]

tooly wrote:

> Stupid? Topaz lends a boatload of information to support his
> arguments...and makes no personal reference toward those who disagree with
> him [flagwords and catcalling etc]. All I hear out of you guys is a call to
> mob action built upon emotion and little else. Everything you have said can
> be reduced down to 'bark'...'Let's hang Topaz; Topaz not good'...bark, bark.
> You cannot give argument as to why though, for you yourself have not thought
> it through. The best you can say is simply 'racism is evil'...which is just
> something that has been planted in your brain as the social dictate you
> 'must' abide by. To go against that social conditioning would be something
> frightfully scary to you...and so, your relinquish, taking the safe, easy
> road of mass thought.
>
> I'd ask that you take a step back, and look at that 'emotion'...and realize
> it is placed in you much like Pavlov's dogs were made to salivate at the
> mere ring of bells.
>
> We all have our conditioning. The stupid among us are those that cannot see
> past what is not of their own conclusions, but only 'social' in nature. It
> is EASY to be social; to hide in the cloak of crowds...and mobs.
>
> The one thing you cannot fault Topaz upon is that of cowardice; that's for
> sure.

He's a coward because he can't be bothered to defend his positions with
his own words. First step to being taken seriously is to speak with
your own voice, instead of someone else's.

There's really no evidence that some massive Jewish conspiracy exists,
mostly because you can look at the top-level executives both in
economic and political power and see that the majority of them are in
fact Christian. To anyone who even has the slightest knowledge of
social sciences or history this fact is pretty obvious, and it's such
an elementary thing that what else can we say other than he's a bigoted
moron?

I might as well just post random links to the encyclopedia, cause
that'll be a lot of words and facts and arguments that probably make a
lot of sense! No, second thought, that would be stupid. That's why we
speak in the context of this argument right now, not pull some random
articles in hopes that at least one of the arguments might actually
make sense.

But none of them do. Believe it or not, I read all of them, and
they're all trash. All of the articles are some paranoid "OH MY GOD
THE JEWS" article that has no bearing in reality, or some "LIBERALS
ARN'T OPEN MINDED TO MY BIGOTED VIEWS" diatribe that has been spouted
over and over by conservatives with victimhood-complexes.
Conservatives aren't interested in open-mindedness, they only want
everyone else to be open-minded to their particular specific viewpoints
that they're not willing to compromise on.

[SleepyHeed]

Topaz said:

> I am a person.

*guffaw*

As far as Usenet goes I don't think you qualify as a person at all. You
appear to have no opinions of your own, and anyone who posts a reply to
you simply gets a cut-&-paste response. Frankly, the Jolly Rogers 'bot
does better at pretending to be a person than you do. Which makes you
not only not a person but not a terribly convincing program either.
Seems to me we need to rip out your kernel-level code and start coding
again from the ground up.

[Angle]

Topaz wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2006 06:21:02 -0800, "Angle"
> <butifyouloo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >But, I swear, that's a good thing for you. That small part of us that
> >thinks if we word it right, if we present the right facts, if we show
> >we understand his opinions and even using them undermine his
> >position....that one of these or all of these will somehow stop him,
>
> Quote when anything like that happened.

It hasn't. Nothing will change your mind or make you reconsider, I
would guess. In any case, I am not holding even my metaphorical
breath.

> I am a person.

It will take a lot more than that to show the kinds of flexibility and
nuanced response that are still tough for AI programmers to come up
with. But it would not surprise me at all if you turned out to be a
person. I merely meant that the limited range of response left open
other possibilities.

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

RyanT wrote:
> Oh boy, this is rich. You did it again, and even better, posting an
> article that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. I'm
> assuming that you feel "attacked" by mine and others' posts, and like
> war, if you don't retaliate with overwhelming force something about
> your ego is about to be shattered. Too bad debate doesn't work that
> way.

I'm sorry, you're not refuting any of the evidence he puts forth.
Everytime you attack Topaz character, he fires of legitimate data that
rebukes you and your assault on his character.

> Now lets see if you're unpredictable enough to actually do something
> different this time. I'm assuming not, and that's exactly what makes
> you easily exploited by the likes of Bush and co. They don't give a
> shit about you or your well-being, you know -- they just tell you what
> you want to hear just so they can manipulate your vote to their
> personal advantage.

Jews by public record completely control the United States, and you
cannot refute that. But if you want to try to argue with me, I'll post
the names of office holders in the Pentagon, and all of them are scummy
Zionists, in the name of hijacking America for Israel, and it looks to
me like Topaz has used data to show this, yet you in response have
attacked his character. You are a Jew, I bet, I can tell by the
attempts of duplicity and double-think.

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

SleepyHeed wrote:
> My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
> arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".
>
> I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
> tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
> sometimes.

Is she Jewish? Are you Jewish? The common mode of Jewish scum is to
attack the character of someone once they've spoken truths about Jewish
conspiracys & crimes.

Is that not what you're doing?

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

Angle wrote:
> SleepyHeed skrev:

>
> > My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
> > arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".
> >
> > I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
> > tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
> > sometimes.
>

> My g/f would tell me that my communicating with him is at best a waste
> of time. At worst there is some lingering assumption on my part that
> 1) such a person can change due to exposure to data, logic, feelings,
> information, arguments that challenge his prejudices and 2) that such
> a person is not in a literal sense a piece of a person - by this she
> would mean that while many of us struggle with certain portions of
> ourselves that are stuck in certain limited positions, he is nothing
> but such a small part. IN fact, she might argue, it might be best to
> view him as a voice in our own heads, voicing old ideas. To interact
> with him as if he can actually shift positions, cares about reaching
> the truth or knows himself well enough to notice the ways he interacts
> with information and other people, is actually self-abusive.

It sounds like your girlfriend owns you by clasping your balls, and you
are a pissant weak-lane who obeys her like she's your master.

> That we actually do ourselves harm to treat him with intellectual
> respect.

Topaz has more knowledge about truth and history than you do, that's
for sure.

> But I have not described him to her.

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

Bret Cahill wrote:
> Hey, Nazi, I hope you catch yourself on fire next cross burning you
> attend.

Hey man, you are a consummation of Jewish owned media, all that you
know is the workings of Jewish owned media, therefore, you really know
nothing. I can prove that all you reference was done by Jews, by using
public record of ownership of the media, way back to before WW2, yet
you're calling us who saw through the lies (any data from Jewish owned
media is lies) vile hateful NAZIs, when that wasn't the truth of the
NAZIs at all.

In fact, a good damaging piece of data is a Jew named David Cole, who
loudly says the holocaust did not happen, and he went on site to
Auschwitz and filmed his interviewing the camp managers and tour
givers, and he made them all contradict themselves. That video data to
rebuke you fully, solidly, is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X19IUJaWS0&search=david%20cole

Now that you've been shown by a Jew, to be a fool, that you insist the
NAZIs were evil and did horrible things they did not do, you owe Topaz
an apology.

> Now take off your white sheet.

Get off the grade school mockery operandi.

> Bret Cahill

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

SleepyHeed wrote:
> Bret Cahill wrote:
> > Hey, Nazi, I hope you catch yourself on fire next cross burning you
> > attend.
> >

> > Now take off your white sheet.
>

> B ... b ... b ... but that would show his face!
>
> >
> > Bret Cahill

You two annoying children need to apologize to Topaz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X19IUJaWS0&search=david%20cole

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

Angle wrote:
> SleepyHeed wrote:
>
> > On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
> > air his views because they're so obviously stupid.
>
> I agree, even if they were not so obviuosly stupid.

Jews are the evilest beings that ever walked the face of the Earth.

They are completely staging terrorism and the war on terrorism, and
warmongering Christians against Muslims.

I have real-time evidence from an award winning professor stating
exactly what I just said. You attack Topaz when he provides data that
is validated, like you're children at recess on a playground with no
teacher around.

Do you want the evidence from this well known scholar, who shows
Zionist Jews are criminals and murderers?

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

Angle wrote:
> Topaz quoted Stalin:
>
> Because Topaz needs his ideas so much he is willing to believe a man
> who killed millions. Jews were mistreated and killed in Soviet
> Russion, you poor, ignorant person. But that's bad PR for communism.
> So Stalin lied.

No I'm sorry Angie, it was Jews in Soviet Russia doing the killing. I
know one of them, and I know one of the Jews that fell victim to the
Jews that were behind it. This Jew last name is Gill, and he now works
for an SS man who was Waffen SS.

His name is Ernie von Schledorn, and he owns a large auto dealer in
Wisconsin.
No one ever went after Ernie yet it is well known in the state that he
was Waffen SS. So the staged deportations of previous NAZIs is all
lies, and the guys being said to be NAZIs are not really NAZIs,
probably were never in the military. Yet the Jews by their ownership of
media pull of these lies.

If what I said was not true, this man Ernie Von Schledorn would not be
in the USA, he would be deported.
http://www.evsvw.com/en_US/

> Or do you, Topaz, assume that communist leaders, especially the
> genocidal level killers, are always honest.

THey were Jews, and only Jews, and it was them that first announced
there were death camps in Germany. Because it was Russians that made
the discovery of death camps, it's apparent they had to be the ones
because they themselves ran deathcamps, of which knew how to stage
evidence to convince the public they existed, when they didn't.

> Go to college, you poor thing.

He is far more intelligent than you. In fact, public record shows the
colleges are all controlled by Jews, do you want to deny that you have
a college education by colleges controlled by Jews?

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

RyanT wrote:
> Topaz wrote:
> > On 17 Mar 2006 02:02:02 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My post was meaningful. Yours was pointless small talk.
>
> Nuh uh, you've never made a meaningful post here ever, just a flood of
> drivel written by someone else.

I think the data he provided was valid data, and your attempt to label
it drivel seems that you don't like what it exposes.

> First step to being taken seriously is

> to have enough of a dick to express yourself in your own words, and
> until you can learn to do that, people will just ignore you. (Like
> they always have anyway, so it's not something that you're not used
> to.)

You talk like a sassy little kid in grade school, on recess, on the
playground, trying to torment Topaz because he says and proves things
to be different than what is said to be by the mainstream. You got a
lot of gall to take shots at him when you behave like a adolescent.

Try this, website and the quotes from Jews and their own mouths:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html

25. "We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers.
Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever
destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish
Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

26. "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The
only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest
or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he
testified before the U.S. Senate).

> Just because you say you're meaningful doesn't make it so, and that's
> the biggest problem with you theist types to begin with -- you think
> that having strong opinions, as opposed to good opinions, is enough of
> a reason to be taken seriously. Get yourself an education, get out of
> the house once in a while and meet some people who might be different
> from you, then you might realize how silly your narrowly minded
> viewpoint really is.

He like I, has provided valid data, and you've only responded with
grade school mockery and tauntery with an attempt to get him to believe
by your adolescent attacks that his character is warped. You're on a
kick to see yourself convince him his character is flawed, and this is
to suffice your own validness to yourself. You're quite an entertaining
piece. I've provided hardcore fact about Jews and their henious
intents, their sadistic aims at reducing anyone who is Non-Jewish to
disparity. You've done nothing to rescue them or rebuke me, or Topaz.

Now STFU and leave him alone while he trys to reeducate people out of
their dopery duping from the jewish owned media complex.

[noge...@linuxmail.org]

SleepyHeed wrote:
> Topaz said:
>
> > I am a person.
>
>
> *guffaw*
>
> As far as Usenet goes I don't think you qualify as a person at all.

You're a blimey!! You're MAD!! MUHWAHAHAH!!

> You appear to have no opinions of your own, and anyone who posts a reply to
> you simply gets a cut-&-paste response.

He presents raw data that never gets rebuked by you. And he clearly by
presenting the data shows he does have a opinion, and this hasn't been
missed by many other people who understand his opinion quite clearly,
Hitler, as well as his NSDAP, is innocent of all that they are charged
and falsely convicted of guilty. Yet you missed this. Clearly your
facultys aren't working right.

> Frankly, the Jolly Rogers 'bot
> does better at pretending to be a person than you do. Which makes you
> not only not a person but not a terribly convincing program either.
> Seems to me we need to rip out your kernel-level code and start coding
> again from the ground up.

Perhaps he's a heavy hitter in American society and he doesn't want you
to know who he is, because come time to restore the Reich in Germany,
as well as the USA, he might want to slice your neck from behind if you
don't come to see you're a Jewish created & operated drone, by them
owning all media.

[Topaz]

On 22 Mar 2006 00:37:08 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>He's a coward because he can't be bothered to defend his positions with
>his own words.

If someone does not bother to write personally to you there could be
several different reasons for it.

> First step to being taken seriously is to speak with
>your own voice, instead of someone else's.

Are you mainly interested in the issues being discussed or are you
mainly looking for some kind of pen pal or something to write to you?

>
>There's really no evidence that some massive Jewish conspiracy exists,

by Kevin MacDonald

>mostly because you can look at the top-level executives both in

>economic and political power and see that the majority of them are in
>fact Christian.

The group with the real power is the media.

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..."

>To anyone who even has the slightest knowledge of
>social sciences or history this fact is pretty obvious, and it's such
>an elementary thing that what else can we say other than he's a bigoted
>moron?
>
>I might as well just post random links to the encyclopedia, cause
>that'll be a lot of words and facts and arguments that probably make a
>lot of sense! No, second thought, that would be stupid. That's why we
>speak in the context of this argument right now, not pull some random
>articles in hopes that at least one of the arguments might actually
>make sense.
>
>But none of them do. Believe it or not, I read all of them, and
>they're all trash. All of the articles are some paranoid "OH MY GOD
>THE JEWS" article that has no bearing in reality, or some "LIBERALS
>ARN'T OPEN MINDED TO MY BIGOTED VIEWS" diatribe that has been spouted
>over and over by conservatives with victimhood-complexes.
>Conservatives aren't interested in open-mindedness, they only want
>everyone else to be open-minded to their particular specific viewpoints
>that they're not willing to compromise on.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

On 21 Mar 2006 20:38:20 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>What do you think you're accomplishing by getting in the "last word"?

I show that rudeness as a strategy does not work very well. People
do not need to be silenced by that.

>Do you think people actually read these threads and go "oh, he said the
>last thing, therefore he must be right!"

They might think, "rudeness is never going to silence this guy."

> Debate is not a football game

> your "policy" is really just an excuse to remain ignorant of
>opposing opinions.

I sometimes wonder what they wrote. But if they wanted me to read it
they shouldn't have been rude, right?

>
>Well, at least you posted in your own words this time around.

Actually, rudeness is not the only reason I cut and paste a lot.
Those who are mainly interested in the issues be discussed rather than
mainly interested in making pen pals should not care.

[Topaz]

On 22 Mar 2006 06:46:59 -0800, "SleepyHeed"
<simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

If you were mainly interested in the issues being discussed you
would not be so concerned about such matters. If you just want people
to write to you and are not mostly interested in the issues you might
look for alt.pen-pals or something.

[Topaz]

Great post. The part about the raw data not being rebuked was right
on target. But you must stay away from anything that could be seen as
a threat. There is a law against threats as I think there should be.
The point is I'm sure you can guess how fair and just the courts are
with our kind of folks.

[LIBERATOR]

You're right even when it's a metaphorical figure of speech it'll be
taken as a physical intention. I won't do it no more cuz you pointed
this out.

[RyanT]

> If someone does not bother to write personally to you there could be
> several different reasons for it.

Such as your inability to address arguments point by point, perhaps.
It's much easier on the mind when you don't have to actually think
about what the other person is saying.

The support for Isreal extends for more than just the Jews -- it's more
of a west vs. middle east scenario than a religious one, and of course,
everything is directly connected to the matter of control of resources,
mainly oil. Religious wars only usually exist as an extension of
resource control.

There's really not much we can argue about until you start debating
your own points instead of posting those articles all the time. Most
of your posts are just "Jews control everything!" statements said by
some random person that noone cares about without much to back it up.
Of the few things that contain factual information, they merely state
the existence of a few Jewish people who might be in places of power.
It doesn't add up to the MASSIVE JEWISH CONSPIRACY NETWORK though,
because the rest just lies on unfounded speculation that these people
are somehow working together against the will of the public.

On a broad general scale, Christians own most of the wealth in the
nation just because of their sheer presence and size. Sure there are
Jews who have power, but on the larger scale of things, no. And of
course the media is funded by whom? Companies, most of which are owned
by Christians -- do a bit of research, jesus. The Jewish community,
while large, is still a minority religion so it just doesn't have the
power of the Christian right. You ought to be more afraid of them,
because exploiting the lower-classes is exactly what they've been doing
and they sure as hell don't give a shit, for sure.

Keep in blabbing anyway -- the more you talk, the better it will be for
everyone. Your articles are not only poorly written but they're also
very boring because they're all saying the same thing over and over in
different ways.

Topaz wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 00:37:08 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >He's a coward because he can't be bothered to defend his positions with
> >his own words.
>

>

[RyanT]

Bottom line, cut and paste methods don't work. Part of the process of
argumentative debate is to check for one's logical consistencies, and
that doesn't get accomplished if all you're doing is pulling in
articles. If I wanted to read a bunch of text I have the internet for
that.

> They might think, "rudeness is never going to silence this guy."

Or maybe they won't. How many people have you actually swayed during
your time here? To get people who already agree with you to nod their
heads -- that's easy, but I don't think that's what you're after here.

> I sometimes wonder what they wrote. But if they wanted me to read it
> they shouldn't have been rude, right?

Part of academic dicipline is to read things that you might disagree
with, play devil's advocate, check to see which sets of theories
presented seem more *plausably* true. If you want to be taken
seriously as an intellectual you need to have this dicipline, because
people who do research have a dedication to the persuit of truth, not
just coddle themselves with fairy tales that make them feel better
about themselves. When you ignore information just because it makes
you feel bad, then you're only screwing yourself in terms of your own
education.

Is it that there are a bunch of people in the higher level of society
who have nothing better to do than to personally conspire against you,
or maybe it's just the fact that the system itself is broke?

[RyanT]

Holy shit man, HARDCORE FACTS. Quoting a few assholes doesn't give you
the right to discriminate against an entire race of people, you moron.
If I got into the mindset that all Christians were like yourself, I
might have even become a racist, but good thing I know better.

[Angle]

You are so right. White non-Jewish scum never attack character. They
always stay on the point and argue rationally.

I used to think that racism itself was basically a character
assassination philosophy, instead of aimed at individuals it is aimed
at races, but now I see you are right, racists never resort to name
calling or references to other people's characters. That is what
Jewish people do.

Once I would have thought you were being strange here. You are upset
because someone insulted Topaz's Character. I would have said, but
Topaz insults the character of millions of people he has never met or
exchanged words with every day. I would have found it strange that
this insulting of one man, a man who insults millions, would be so
troublesome. But now I understand that white people, because they are
better than other races, can be bad and do whatever the fuck they want.

I also appreciate the warning. I used to, on occasion, insult other
people's characters. This might make me seem Jewish. Hell it might
even make my foreskin disappear.

[Topaz]

On 22 Mar 2006 23:55:22 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Such as your inability to address arguments point by point, perhaps.
>It's much easier on the mind when you don't have to actually think
>about what the other person is saying.
>
>The support for Isreal extends for more than just the Jews -- it's more
>of a west vs. middle east

The "west" is the White race.

The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as the are the White race is doomed.

And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.

Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.

Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."

> scenario than a religious one, and of course,
>everything is directly connected to the matter of control of resources,
>mainly oil. Religious wars only usually exist as an extension of
>resource control.

There certainly is a culture war:

Israel Line - Friday, June 10, 2005

Thousands Participate in Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv.

Thousands of people took to the streets of Tel Aviv this
afternoon to participate in the city's annual gay pride parade,
HA'ARETZ reported. The parade set out from Rabin Square and was to end
in Yarkon Park, where musical performances were planned.

MKs Yosef Lapid (Shinui), Eitan Cabel (Labor) and Zehava Gal-On
(Yahad), as well as Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai, were set to speak at
the event.

The chairman of the national Association of Gay Men, Lesbians,
Bisexuals and Transgender in Israel, Mike Hamel, said today the parade
was organized with the "close cooperation" of the Tel Aviv
municipality. "It's great to see it, and great that it's one of the
few places in the world that has the support of a municipal body, a
government body," he said.

Hamel said the event is called a "pride parade," because it has
to do with "being proud of the way we are and the demand to accept
every person as a person, as he is, and not trying to change him."

Full story:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/586950.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
- -- - -- -
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1122-03.htm
Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

NEW YORK - November 22 -

Iran's execution of two men last week
for homosexual conduct highlights a
pattern of persecution of gay men that
stands in stark violation of the rights
to life and privacy,

Human Rights Watch said today.

On Sunday,
November 13, the semi-official Tehran
daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian
government publicly hung two men,

Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A.
(25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar
Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

The government reportedly executed
the two men for the crime of "lavat."

Iran's shari`a-based penal code defines
lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative
sexual acts between men.

Iranian law punishes all penetrative
sexual acts between adult men with the
death penalty.

Non-penetrative sexual acts
between men are punished with
lashes until the fourth offense,
when they are punished with death.

Sexual acts between women,
which are defined differently,
are punished with lashes until
the fourth offense,

when they are also punished with death.

"The execution of two men for
consensual sexual activity is
an outrage,"

said Jessica Stern,

researcher with the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Rights
Program at Human Rights Watch.

"The Iranian government's persecution
of gay men flouts international human
rights standards."

In addition to the two executions last week,
there have been other cases of persecution
and execution of gay men in Iran in recent
years.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
-

NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
Lee Duigon

If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
try gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks
that way to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away-pronto.

But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
displayed by adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union,
most parents simply let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.

The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
access to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for
the homosexual lifestyle.

Lean this equation, America:

Public schools=The homosexual agenda

If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
National Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition. There,
among their "great achievements" in shaping NEA policy, the homosexual
militants cite the NEA's promotion of "the lesbian-gay-bisexual
curriculum" and "family life education... regarding the diversity of
sexual orientation."

The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
"Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
a T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
homosexual "marriage."

The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
"gay marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight
Education Network), the media's favorite poster gal for "gay
marriage", is also--surprise!-a paid consultant to the Massachusetts
teachers' union. Paid in taxpayer dollars, to boot. (You may remember
Massachusetts GLSEN from a few years ago as the organizers of graphic,
intensely perverted sex "workshops" for public school children--a
scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")

Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
days makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep them
from jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of Address
which would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who
imposed this oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts. Supported by
taxpayers' money, she makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual
lawmakers. Nice work if you can get it.

Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
New Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school
gym teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
handouts, posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw
personally)--is getting the kids comfy with homosexuality. To this
end, they handed out a "resource guide"--handsomely produced, slick,
paid for largely by Fleet Bank
Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
February archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)

You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
Sex (Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted
by Rutgers, New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again,
there was no effort to hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for
homosexuality...

>
>There's really not much we can argue about until you start debating
>your own points instead of posting those articles all the time. Most
>of your posts are just "Jews control everything!" statements said by
>some random person that noone cares about without much to back it up.
>Of the few things that contain factual information, they merely state
>the existence of a few Jewish people who might be in places of power.
>It doesn't add up to the MASSIVE JEWISH CONSPIRACY NETWORK though,

Our Jewish Keepers
by Kevin Alfred Strom

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of May 31, 2003

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Kevin Alfred Strom.

Did you ever wonder why America is declining in popularity around
the world, and especially in Europe?

Perhaps it might have something to do with America's increasingly
common image as a puppet-state of International Jewry. Perhaps it
might also have something to do with growing European resentment
toward being bossed around by U.S. Congressmen who are first and
foremost lackeys of the Jewish power structure. Yes, that's right
-- United States Congressmen are spending more and more of their
time instructing European nations about what steps they should
take to control the growing awareness of destructive Jewish
behaviors throughout Europe. Not only has entrance into NATO for
some nations been predicated upon approval by the American Jewish
Committee, but there exists a little known official U.S.
Government agency called "The Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe", also known as "The Helsinki Commission,"
which consists of nine members from the United States Senate,
nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member
each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. A
professional staff assists the Commissioners in their work -- and
a glance at their website at <http://www.csce.gov> will readily
confirm that their work has recently focused on squelching
justifiable criticism of Jewish involvement in the national and
international affairs of European nations -- or what they refer
to as "combating anti-Semitism." Our American tax dollars are not
only being spent to support an illegitimate Jewish theocracy
(Israel), but we are also funding American intervention in
European affairs on behalf of International Jewry.

Led by Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey, "our"
congress is working feverishly to coerce European leaders to
further suppress any criticism of Jewish activities, no matter
how mild that criticism may be. In the April 30, 2003 edition of
the Congressional Record you will find examples of Smith's
shameless application of political pressure on sovereign European
nations:

From [United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
108th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 Washington, Wednesday,
April 30, 2003], we read Smith's own words as he says

"The U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, has worked with
the Museum on several occasions, from pushing for the release of
documents from the Romani concentration camp in Lety, Czech
Republic, to urging Romania to give greater meaning to its stated
commitment of rejecting anti-Semitism by removing Antonescu
statues from public lands. In response to the alarming spike of
anti-Semitic incidents found last summer in Europe, myself and
other Members of the Commission have been very active in urging
governments and elected officials to denounce the violence and
ensure their laws are enabled to prosecute the perpetrators. In
support of this effort, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 49,
urging, among other things, European states to 'promote the
creation of educational efforts throughout the region
encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter
anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people,
increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the
necessary resources to accomplish this goal.' It is my hope that
other countries will copy the unique and effective model of the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum."

Smith is not alone in his demands. Congressman Joseph Crowley of
New York wants to suppress any critical discussion of Jewish
behavior: [ Ibid., SUBMITTED REMARKS OF HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY,
MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]

"Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address this
distinguished forum. I am greatly concerned by the rise of
anti-Semitism throughout the OSCE region....In the 21st century,
countries in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia should not
witness attacks against Jews... Nor should these countries
tolerate the hatred spewed by skinheads and other radical groups
throughout the region. Such hatred has brought catastrophe to the
region in our lifetimes already, and we must ensure that the
fields of Europe and Asia are not sown with the seeds of
intolerance ever again. It is the responsibility of the OSCE
governments to set a zero tolerance policy for anti-Semitic
speech and acts. In their OSCE commitments, all governments
pledged to condemn anti-Semitism unequivocally and take effective
measures to... prosecute those who commit such hate crimes..."

The OSCE site also features the speech of one Juliane
Danker-Wetze, who bewails the fact that some European thinkers
are starting to connect the dots and find that they form a Star
of David:

"Jews are imagined [sic] to be a national and international
influential group who allegedly exert a bad influence on or even
steer politics, the economy and the media, which is a way of
expressing the old anti-Semitic prejudice of hidden Jewish
power."
[<http://tinyurl.com/cuam> ]

And the so-called Helsinki Commission, which was founded in 1976
supposedly to further human rights under Soviet Communism,
recently heard from one of the main opponents of the right of
free speech, none other than the Jewish ADL. [
<http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/121102JTA.shtml> ] Though they
sugar-coat the language, what the ADL is really "pushing" (their
word) the supine Congressmen to do is to make criticism of our
'superhuman' self-chosen masters illegal. The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency informs us:

"Jewish leaders are pushing the White House and Congress to take
a firmer stance against European anti-Semitism. A group of German
and American lawmakers heard Tuesday from Jewish leaders who
expressed concern about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The
Jewish leaders also suggested ways to combat anti-Semitism in
states that participate in the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. 'Many European Jews today feel more
vulnerable, disillusioned and frightened than at any time since
the Holocaust,' said Ambassador Alfred Moses, past president of
the American Jewish Committee and a former U.S. ambassador to
Romania. 'I know from my personal experience that anti-Semitism
is never far below the surface in Central and Eastern Europe.'
The Anti-Defamation League presented a series of recommendations
on combating the problem, including urging political leaders to
speak out against bigotry, strengthening administrative, legal
and monitoring instruments and using educational initiatives.
'While the last century witnessed the most heinous results of
bigotry unchecked, fortunately we also have witnessed in our
lifetime powerful examples of how strong U.S. and German
leadership have brought about dramatic change,' said Kenneth
Jacobson, ADL's associate national director. 'America and
Germany, each having learned painful lessons from their
respective past experiences with the danger of bigotry, are
uniquely positioned to lead the OSCE' ...The visit to Washington
by members of the German Bundestag was a follow-up to a July
session in Berlin on anti-Semitism. Moses noted that incidents of
anti-Semitism have risen in Europe because of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's ties to the United States
and the momentum that right-wing groups have been gaining in some
European countries. U.S. and German lawmakers signed a letter of
intent to strengthen their work against anti-Semitism, use
educational initiatives and urge other parliaments to follow
their lead."

As Robert Faurisson once said at a meeting in Washington, D.C.
"by 'human rights' is usually meant 'Jewish rights'" -- which
follows the notion, enshrined in the Jewish 'holy book,' the
Talmud, that only Jews are human and that non-Jews are equivalent
to beasts. And isn't that what the Helsinki Commission is
currently all about? -- keeping the European cattle from getting
too uppity and questioning their keepers and questioning why they
are kept in economic and political pens?

The Helsinki Commission isn't the only group under the thumb of
organized Jews, manipulating governments behind the scenes. A
secretive group with the Orwellian-sounding name of the 'Office
of Special Plans' also deserves our attention.

The 'Office of Special Plans' is nominally within the Pentagon
and is headed by a Jew named Abram Shulsky. It is of very recent
incarnation, having been created by several Jewish handlers of
George Bush with the explicit purpose of expanding the U.S.-led
war for Israel in the Mideast.

The Jews who came to power under Bush, or rather over Bush, saw
9/11 as an almost heaven-sent opportunity to get the despised
Americans crying tears for their dead countrymen (the deaths of
whom the Israeli Mossad, who had been following Mohammed Atta for
months, probably condoned to create that very opportunity), and
to get the same stupid American goyim fired up for having
themselves and Moslem goyim slaughtered in the Middle East for
Holy Israel's sake. Afghanistan was their first and easy target,
but Iraq was a harder nut to crack.

The neoconservative Jews' thirst for Iraqi blood began years
before 9-11, of course, as did their determination to find a
justification for spilling it. As early as March 2001, Richard
Perle, then Bush's new chairman of the Defense Policy Board, made
the claim that Iraq almost certainly had nuclear weapons. [
<http://tinyurl.com/cukp> ] In one of the most bizarre cases of
Jewish triplespeak I have ever heard, Perle actually argued
before Congress that Saddam had to have these weapons
specifically because our intelligence indicated that he did not:
"Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does.
How far he's gone on the nuclear-weapon side I don't think we
really know. My guess is it's further than we think. It's always
further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think
about this, to what we're able to prove and demonstrate." Now,
limiting yourself to what you can prove and demonstrate is
certainly dangerous. At least it is dangerous to Jews, as with
their fantastic tales of World War II persecution that are as
profitable as they are fictitious. Instead of limiting ourselves
to facts, far better for us to believe whatever tales the Jews
want us to believe and launch another world war. Now that's safe!

The Jews wanted to destroy Iraq because Iraq's secular Arab
government was a bulwark against Israeli expansionism and
aggression in the region. But that reason wasn't enough to
convince the American people. Since the hated-by-Jews Americans
were still somewhat exercised over the deaths of Americans on
9-11, the Jews decided that a case had to be made that Iraq was
somehow involved in international terrorism and possessed
so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction which could, conceivably,
threaten Americans.

The problem was that there was no evidence for this claim.

Neither the Central Intelligence Agency nor the Defense
Intelligence Agency could discover any credible evidence showing
that Iraq supported al-Qaeda -- in fact, the opposite was true.
And the CIA and the DIA also could find no evidence whatever that
Iraq possessed any of the dreaded 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'
that could threaten America. Bush's Jewish handlers found this
situation intolerable. They wanted their war and they were going
to get their war, by hook or by crook.

In the same way that they 'know' that 'God is the Jewish people'
they also 'knew' that Saddam must have nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons capable of harming or at least frightening
Americans. It would serve their purposes if that were true, so it
must be true. The trouble was that the CIA and the DIA weren't
buying it. The facts that their extensive intelligence networks
turned up all indicated the opposite.

The frustration of Bush's Jewish handlers was profound. What to
do? Create their own intelligence-agency-lite. And so the Office
of Special Plans was born. The small group of influential Jews
who run this secretive outfit even call it -- in typically Jewish
mockery of those who expose Jewish conspiracy -- "the Cabal." [
<http://tinyurl.com/b26r> ]

Starting with just two staff people and never having more than
five (compared to the CIA and DIA with their thousands of agents
and analysts worldwide) and led by the Jew Abram Shulsky, the
Office of Special Plans was designed at the outset to feed
Rumsfeld and Bush, via Wolfowitz and Feith, a series of lies
which would cause them to question the intelligence agencies'
reports.

Jewish writer Robert Dreyfuss describes the procedure:

"Rumsfeld noted that a primary purpose of the unit was to provide
him with ammunition that he could use to harass the CIA staffer
who briefs him every morning. 'In comes the briefer, and she
walks through the daily brief and I ask questions,' said
Rumsfeld. 'What I could do is say, Gee, what about this? Or what
about that? Has somebody thought of this?' Using powerful
computers and having access to reams of intelligence factoids,
Feith's team could create a steady stream of data bits that
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith himself could use to pick apart the
CIA's conclusions, sending the CIA's collectors and analysts back
to rewrite their reports." And, of course, preventing the real
intelligence reports from being believed and from giving the
President any second thoughts about obeying any of the orders of
the neoconservative Jews who surround him.

W. Patrick Lang, former chief of Middle East intelligence at the
D.I.A., admitted that this group has pulled a real coup and has
"...banded together to dominate the government's foreign policy,
and they've pulled it off. They're running Chalabi. The D.I.A.
has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there's no guts at
all in the C.I.A.."

Jewish writer Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, quotes an
unnamed Pentagon advisor who worked with the Office of Special
Plans as crowing about Wolfowitz, Shulsky, and their coup: "I'd
love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small
group of eight or nine people made the case and won," defeating
the combined might of the CIA and DIA.

Shulsky has had a long relationship with the Jewish power
structure, and is described as the intellectual heir of Jewish
philosopher Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago, a person
who, for some unknown reason, decided to flee Europe in 1937.
Shulsky and Wolfowitz both received their doctorates under
Strauss in 1972. It is most revealing, I think, to consider
Wolfowitz and Shulsky as students of Strauss when one of
Strauss's major themes as a philosopher, according to Stephen
Holmes, a law professor at New York University, was the idea that
"philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at
large but also to powerful politicians." I'll say that again -- a
guiding principle of this small Jewish cabal that even calls
itself "the Cabal" that tells our government what to do is that
"philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at
large but also to powerful politicians." "Noble lies," of course,
are lies which advance the interests of the Jews.

Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of anti-terrorism operations
and analysis at the C.I.A., stated of this Jewish group: "...they
all work together. This has been going on since the
nineteen-eighties, but they've never been able to coalesce as
they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now
they're in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They
want to believe it. It has to be there."

The Office of Special Plans also had a very cozy relationship
with the criminal and con-man Ahmed Chalabi of the so-called
Iraqi National Congress, who is very eager to become the Jews'
front man in Iraq, and who "cooperated" by making up stories
which could then be attributed to "Iraqi defectors" when recited
for the President. Experienced intelligence analysts dismiss the
tales told by Chalabi as totally worthless fictions.
[ <http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html> ]
Columnist Harold Meyerson calls what the Office of Special Plans
did "faith-based intelligence." I call it Shilling for Sharon.
The short name of course, is simply lying. And these liars not
only influenced our not-so-bright leaders, but fed their false
stories to the mainly Jewish-controlled media who used them
influence the public to support the Jews' new war.

The Jews' plan worked quite well. They got the ear of the
President, his superstitious heart, and his easily-befuddled
brain. They got their war. But it was all based on lies. It has
been many weeks since the fall of Iraq, and no evidence of Iraqi
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" have been found. Even Task Force
75, the armed services team specifically created to root out
Saddam's supposedly hidden and supposedly illegal arsenal has
found nothing and is actually closing up shop.

The Office of Special Plans is nothing but an odious Jewish lie
factory.

It is this Jewish lie factory that will soon attempt to start
another war, this time for 'regime change' in Iran. [
<http://tinyurl.com/cusy> ] They're already gearing up for a battle
with diplomats in the State Department who oppose the Iranian
step in the Jews' world war. They're already arranging meetings
between a pretender to the Iranian throne and Ariel Sharon.
William Kristol's Weekly Standard is already banging the war
drums against Iran, and another Jew, Michael Rubin, is already
concentrating on Iran from within Shulsky's Office of Special
Plans. We told you months ago on American Dissident Voices that
this was going to happen, and the Office of Special Plans is
making our prediction come true.

It is from this Jewish lie factory that came the tales that Colin
Powell told the UN about Iraq's purchase of nuclear material from
Nigeria. It is from this Jewish lie factory that the story of a
"ring" of chemical weapons around Baghdad originated. It is from
this Jewish lie factory that came the 'revelation' that al-Qaeda
and Saddam were allies. It is this Jewish lie factory that killed
innocent children and blew off their heads and arms and legs. It
is this Jewish lie factory that killed your son and maimed your
daughter.

Their intelligence was worthless. Their lies were priceless.
You're being killed because you believe in the emperor's new
clothes. The purpose of this program is to stop you from
believing in lies; to help you understand how you are being
ruled; to help you see reality; to save your family, your
country, and your life.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to stay
active -- stay legal -- and keep on thinking free.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe

>because the rest just lies on unfounded speculation that these people
>are somehow working together against the will of the public.
>
>On a broad general scale, Christians own most of the wealth in the
>nation just because of their sheer presence and size. Sure there are
>Jews who have power, but on the larger scale of things, no. And of
>course the media is funded by whom? Companies, most of which are owned
>by Christians -- do a bit of research, jesus.

If Christians were in power abortion and homosexual perversion would
be outlawed.

> The Jewish community,
>while large, is still a minority religion so it just doesn't have the
>power of the Christian right.

WHY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT WAR
C. E. Carlson

The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote "Democracy in America"
when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In
ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of
morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in
America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this
familiar quote: "AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, and if America
ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.

First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author
Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy", began with a small very
wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream,
and the American churches stood in its way.

The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves,
had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though
most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not
any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that
American Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists
read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's
churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that
Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self proclaimed Jews, they were,
according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ
and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion.
America's traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand
for a Jewish occupation of Jesus' homeland.

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its
religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal
was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I.
Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected
European book publisher The Oxford University Press.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and
promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's
role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting
Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,
and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used
Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed
such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield
Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it
became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90
years.

The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation,
subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a
revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King
James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new
worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet
exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed,
well-funded authors of World Zionism.

Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn
of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it
considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of
these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial
Committee.

Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of
whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His
mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated
with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical
trips to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism". It is from
Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist
theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield
Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism
was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford
University.

The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from
the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he
received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's advertisers and
promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its Christian
Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in
Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has
been published in at least four editions since its introduction in
1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.

The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but
worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the
first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance
to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the
fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study
Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students
from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from
Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts.
These invariably teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their
theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.

Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases
recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge
Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World
Zionism's crowning achievement.

Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby
and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy to read footnotes at the
bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of
the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of
readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language
footnotes...

Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under
the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage
today pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity,"
and most recently the highly political movement openly called
"Christian Zionism."

Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the
questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It
reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a
political animal with the charm and talent for self promotion of a
Bill Clinton. Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a
deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self serving lies.
He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend
Christian thought, a controllable man and one capable of carrying the
secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by
Joseph M. Canfield).

Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his
original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views.
Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.
(http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch)

We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our
own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to
Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations
have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the
Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would
have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted
the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against
the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian
mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We
thank God for the exceptions.

It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition
deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not
even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This
writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race
hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the
Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have
occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be
alive today.

What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that
were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words
tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to
misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of
America.

There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much
about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a
close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York
lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and
most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the
unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a
password and a common watering hole, and it appears that Untermeyer
may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself
lacked. Scofield's success as an international bible editor without
portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been
accomplished with financial aid and international influence.

This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work
of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues
to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it
would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is
significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after
Scofield's death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death
of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has
gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added
to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes
from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed
to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the
title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I.
Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an
enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in
genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.

The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the
Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the
notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These
notes are the subject of this paper.

Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of
the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to
the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the
Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the
Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and
outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:

"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE
JUDGMENT." (page 19&#64979;20, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our
emphasis
added)

This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief
Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism.
But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition
of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American
churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for
their preaching and teaching...

All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being
really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers
the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of
creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is
considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime"
punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian
Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have
written this footnote...

It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the
lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of
Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various
Bible references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But
we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already
done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our
course.

It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has
done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological
liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in
Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent
people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual
war.

Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these
1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the
text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to
support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the
Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose,
Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more
recently labeled "Christian Zionists," have remained mute during wars
upon Israel's enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and
elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some
of it Christian blood...

And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists
who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?

The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider
Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of
Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many
Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's
promise, and they correctly believe that present day Israelis have no
Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also
speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter
how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent
Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.

The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in
the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect,
substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and
Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The
Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the
Zionists want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright
right now! Read it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of
Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity."

And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the
same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note
referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.

"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE
PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8" (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to
John 8:44)

Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is
speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his
day, and to no one else:

"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL
DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A LIE, HE SPEAKEST
OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT." John 8:44 King
James Ed.)

Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what
Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they
inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred
text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It
seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but
they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by
themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers
in order to try to solve this problem:

"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE
BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED, THAT HE
MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)

Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech
about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus
was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he
called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book
written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical
Christian Zionist diversion.

To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John
8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only
one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and
in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford
simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes
at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.

(The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:

"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today.")

These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have
shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or
the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or
the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe
themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the
predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human
tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is
carried out by this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity
Christian evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not
enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.

Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England
is perhaps the most dedicated new
scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as
Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking
at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by
watching Benny Hill."

Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is
Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting
inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was
speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the
American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star
Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing,
"We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is
not a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the
Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a
blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are
"the Devil."

Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who
have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in
unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many
of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from
his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from
whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian
Zionists--do not shrink at his words, because they have been
conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept
Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several
evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn "the
line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and
evil."

An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the
fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James
Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not
as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist
Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of
conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of
branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and
Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation,
the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine.
(see note)...

Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire
history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders:
they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent people
down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.

> You ought to be more afraid of them,
>because exploiting the lower-classes is exactly what they've been doing
>and they sure as hell don't give a shit, for sure.
>
>Keep in blabbing anyway -- the more you talk, the better it will be for
>everyone. Your articles are not only poorly written but they're also
>very boring because they're all saying the same thing over and over in
>different ways.
>

You are asserting that Jews don't rule America over and over. But you
are mistaken.

"Nearly all the world has access to less biased information than
residents of the US. In recent votes on sanctions of Israel in the
General Assembly of the UN, the votes have ranged up to 153 to 2, the
2 being the US, and Israel."
RLA

[Topaz]

During the American revolution there must have been some British
people who thought America should be independant. Does this mean the
British were not the enemies of Americans? You can say the same about
any war or conflict. In any country there are those who don't agree
with the countries leaders.But that doesn't mean there is no war or no
group that is the enemy.

The real war is not with another country but another race, namely
the Jews. Jews are the cause of all the attacks on White civilization.
The little Jews may be pawns in the game. But they are pawns from the
other side of the board, not our side. Little Jews follow their
leaders and are enemies. Jews think it would be a fine thing if the
White race were destroyed. But they want Whites to give them billons
of dollars so they can have their own country.

Jews were behind Communism and feminism and political correctness.
They are the problem. They are the ones who rule America and control
the media. They are not just the reason America is always in the
Middle East. They are the reason everything is for women and
minorities and against the White man. Here is one example:

The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Sean]

"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4df622lvhdkn8pth1...@4ax.com...

>
> During the American revolution there must have been some British
> people who thought America should be independant. Does this mean the
> British were not the enemies of Americans? You can say the same about
> any war or conflict. In any country there are those who don't agree
> with the countries leaders.But that doesn't mean there is no war or no
> group that is the enemy.
>
> The real war is not with another country but another race, namely
> the Jews.

The Jewish people are NOT a RACE, they are a broad dynamic group of people
who share a common ideology and religion. As such jews are comprised of all
ethnic groups on the planet, and no single race. There are white, brown,
yellow, red & black people who are Jews.

As such some have left wing politics, and some are right wing. Some believe
a jewish state is enshrined in their spiritual texts, others say the exact
opposite. You'll find conservative fundamentalist style Jews think like
Zionists, and yet other conservative fundamentalist style Jews don't. You'll
find Jews in the military that think all Palestinians Arabs are scum of the
earth, and you'll also find those who refuse to fight or work in the
Occupied territories.

In America you'll find Jews whose first supreme loyalty is to the existance
of Israel, and anything that serves that end, even treason, is therefore
justifiable. And you will also find far more who don't think like that at
all.

If you want to be critical of the behaviour of some people as a "group"
you'd best learn how to do that in a more refined way than mis-representing
them as an entire "race" of people when they aren't.

I won't hold my breath though. Victims always present the perpetrator as
being more Omnipotent and Omniscient than they really are. ;-)

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 23:55:22 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Such as your inability to address arguments point by point, perhaps.
> >It's much easier on the mind when you don't have to actually think
> >about what the other person is saying.
> >
> >The support for Isreal extends for more than just the Jews -- it's more
> >of a west vs. middle east
>
> The "west" is the White race.
>
> The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
> multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
> Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
> anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
> If things continue as the are the White race is doomed.
>
> And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
> media, in other words the Jews.
>
> Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
> own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
> remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
> our allies. Today it is the Muslims.

Incorrect. Basic statistics show that educational and living standards
are constantly on the rise, and crime rates have declined compared to
say a couple of decades ago. One valid criticism of the media is that
they tend to always report the bad stuff, so the COVERAGE of crime rate
are up some 600% (or some ridiculous amount), I heard. I find it
interesting that conservatives are normally resistant to media
information, yet when they are told they're being under attack and
should fear for their lives, they take it in without much heed.

What's the point of preserving the purity of the white race anyway?
Mixed-race children tend to excel further in school because they're
exposed to multiple viewpoints of thinking. The rest of the articles
don't have much to do with what I was talking about...please stay on
topic!

[SleepyHeed]

noge...@linuxmail.org wrote:
> SleepyHeed wrote:
> > Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > Hey, Nazi, I hope you catch yourself on fire next cross burning you
> > > attend.
> > >
> > > Now take off your white sheet.
> >
> > B ... b ... b ... but that would show his face!
> >
> > >
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> You two annoying children need to apologize to Topaz.

And you need to shove your face up your ass.

Really.

I know you don't think you do, but it's a necessity nonetheless.

[SleepyHeed]

noge...@linuxmail.org wrote:
> Angle wrote:
> > SleepyHeed skrev:
> >
> > > My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
> > > arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".
> > >
> > > I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
> > > tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
> > > sometimes.
> >
> > My g/f would tell me that my communicating with him is at best a waste
> > of time. At worst there is some lingering assumption on my part that
> > 1) such a person can change due to exposure to data, logic, feelings,
> > information, arguments that challenge his prejudices and 2) that such
> > a person is not in a literal sense a piece of a person - by this she
> > would mean that while many of us struggle with certain portions of
> > ourselves that are stuck in certain limited positions, he is nothing
> > but such a small part. IN fact, she might argue, it might be best to
> > view him as a voice in our own heads, voicing old ideas. To interact
> > with him as if he can actually shift positions, cares about reaching
> > the truth or knows himself well enough to notice the ways he interacts
> > with information and other people, is actually self-abusive.
>
> It sounds like your girlfriend owns you by clasping your balls, and you
> are a pissant weak-lane who obeys her like she's your master.

Actually I like it when my g/f clasps my balls - it's a wonderful
feeling.

> Topaz has more knowledge about truth and history than you do, that's
> for sure.

Topaz has ready access to a number of uninspiring and tedious books.
That's for sure. If all you can do is call me names then I suggest you
leave usenet and go back to fucking your sister.

[SleepyHeed]

> SleepyHeed wrote:
> > Topaz said:
> >
> > > I am a person.
> >
> >
> > *guffaw*
> >
> > As far as Usenet goes I don't think you qualify as a person at all.
>
> You're a blimey!! You're MAD!! MUHWAHAHAH!!

And you're as thick as shit. There is no such thing as 'a blimey'. The
word 'blimey' means "Blind Me" and is a minced oath. But enough of this
- your sister's waiting all eager for your attention ... go to her now
you can't refuse.

> > You appear to have no opinions of your own, and anyone who posts a reply to
> > you simply gets a cut-&-paste response.
>
> He presents raw data that never gets rebuked by you. And he clearly by
> presenting the data shows he does have a opinion, and this hasn't been
> missed by many other people who understand his opinion quite clearly,

He presents other people's opinions and that's all he does. I've asked
him to give me his opinions (y'know - the things you have that don't
require quotation marks), but he's too chicken-shit to voice them.

And if cutting and pasting is a sign of intelligence then the Jolly
Rogers bot knocks you both into a cocked hat.

Can't you hear your sister's cry? She's getting impatient. Go on before
she feels the need to avail herself of the billy-goat you keep out the
back of your trailer.

> Hitler, as well as his NSDAP, is innocent of all that they are charged
> and falsely convicted of guilty. Yet you missed this. Clearly your
> facultys aren't working right.

Hitler was a megalomaniac who shot himself because his pathetic plans
for world-domination didn't work out. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

And it's 'faculties', not 'facultys' you F-grade dunce.

> > Frankly, the Jolly Rogers 'bot
> > does better at pretending to be a person than you do. Which makes you
> > not only not a person but not a terribly convincing program either.
> > Seems to me we need to rip out your kernel-level code and start coding
> > again from the ground up.
>
> Perhaps he's a heavy hitter in American society and he doesn't want you
> to know who he is, because come time to restore the Reich in Germany,
> as well as the USA, he might want to slice your neck from behind if you
> don't come to see you're a Jewish created & operated drone, by them
> owning all media.

Well if he sliced my neck from behind that would confirm him as the
buttfucker I know him to be. And no, he's not a heavy-hitter in
American society - if he was a heavy hitter he's come out and say who
he is - then (if he was a heavy-hitter) I might, possibly, fall at his
feet and worship him. But somehow I doubt it: I don't (as a rule)
worship shit-kickers.

[SleepyHeed]

Topaz wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2006 06:46:59 -0800, "SleepyHeed"
> <simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >As far as Usenet goes I don't think you qualify as a person at all. You
> >appear to have no opinions of your own, and anyone who posts a reply to
> >you simply gets a cut-&-paste response. Frankly, the Jolly Rogers 'bot
> >does better at pretending to be a person than you do. Which makes you
> >not only not a person but not a terribly convincing program either.
> >Seems to me we need to rip out your kernel-level code and start coding
> >again from the ground up.
>
> If you were mainly interested in the issues being discussed you
> would not be so concerned about such matters. If you just want people
> to write to you and are not mostly interested in the issues you might
> look for alt.pen-pals or something.

Oh my God! I don't believe it! You've, you've finally developed an
opinion of your own! Let's subject it to scrutiny and see if it holds
water ...

> If you were mainly interested in the issues being discussed you would not be so concerned about such matters.

And if you were willing and/or able to /discuss/ these matters instead
of simply posting someone else's opinions about it then I might credit
our previous exchanges with the designation of 'discussion'.

> If you just want people to write to you and are not mostly interested in the issues you might look for alt.pen-pals or something.

Ah, so it /my/ fault that /you/ post other people's thoughts!

I see.

I /caused/ you to operate the keyboard on your computer. You are /my
puppet/. Dance! Dance little puppet!

[SleepyHeed]

> No I'm sorry Angie, it was Jews in Soviet Russia doing the killing. I
> know one of them, and I know one of the Jews that fell victim to the
> Jews that were behind it. This Jew last name is Gill, and he now works
> for an SS man who was Waffen SS.

Ah, and because you know one of them that makes them all the same. It's
funny but I know a Nazi, and he's a pig-fucker. Therefore all Nazis
fucked pigs. Brilliant argument. I can use the same argument to 'prove'
that you've got the intelligence of a badly deformed squirrel, that you
fuck your sister (and up the ass as well, you fucking dirty bastard),
and that talking to you is like having a lobotomy. Twice.

> His name is Ernie von Schledorn, and he owns a large auto dealer in
> Wisconsin.
> No one ever went after Ernie yet it is well known in the state that he
> was Waffen SS. So the staged deportations of previous NAZIs is all
> lies, and the guys being said to be NAZIs are not really NAZIs,
> probably were never in the military. Yet the Jews by their ownership of
> media pull of these lies.
>
> If what I said was not true, this man Ernie Von Schledorn would not be
> in the USA, he would be deported.
> http://www.evsvw.com/en_US/
>
> > Or do you, Topaz, assume that communist leaders, especially the
> > genocidal level killers, are always honest.
>
> THey were Jews, and only Jews, and it was them that first announced
> there were death camps in Germany. Because it was Russians that made
> the discovery of death camps, it's apparent they had to be the ones
> because they themselves ran deathcamps, of which knew how to stage
> evidence to convince the public they existed, when they didn't.

Sure. And atoms were simply made up by Oppenheimer, Nixon never lied to
the American people, and you got a first in languages and classics at
Oxford.

> > Go to college, you poor thing.
>
> He is far more intelligent than you. In fact, public record shows the
> colleges are all controlled by Jews, do you want to deny that you have
> a college education by colleges controlled by Jews?

All public colleges. Really? Do you have a source for that bit of
information other than the festering shit-heap you call your brain?

[SleepyHeed]

> Hey man, you are a consummation of Jewish owned media, all that you
> know is the workings of Jewish owned media, therefore, you really know
> nothing. I can prove that all you reference was done by Jews, by using
> public record of ownership of the media, way back to before WW2, yet
> you're calling us who saw through the lies (any data from Jewish owned
> media is lies) vile hateful NAZIs, when that wasn't the truth of the
> NAZIs at all.

Then don't just stand there blithering on about "I can prove it" - get
on and prove it.

> In fact, a good damaging piece of data is a Jew named David Cole, who
> loudly says the holocaust did not happen, and he went on site to
> Auschwitz and filmed his interviewing the camp managers and tour
> givers, and he made them all contradict themselves. That video data to
> rebuke you fully, solidly, is here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X19IUJaWS0&search=david%20cole
>
> Now that you've been shown by a Jew, to be a fool, that you insist the
> NAZIs were evil and did horrible things they did not do, you owe Topaz
> an apology.

Topaz can fuck off and die screaming with nails in his eyes for all I
care. He doesn't deserve an apology either - he deserves a swift kick
right up the ringpiece.

> > Now take off your white sheet.
>
> Get off the grade school mockery operandi.

You first.

[SleepyHeed]

> SleepyHeed wrote:
> > My g/f thinks he's a "pig-ignorant fuckwit who keeps his brains in his
> > arse, /and/ who can't tell his arse from his elbow".
> >
> > I asked her not to use language like that, but she told me if I don't
> > tell you exactly what she said she'll leave me. *sigh*. Life is hard
> > sometimes.
>

> Is she Jewish?

Nope.

> Are you Jewish?

Nope.

> The common mode of Jewish scum is to
> attack the character of someone once they've spoken truths about Jewish
> conspiracys & crimes.

And the common mode of fuckwits is to pick a racial characteristic and
use it to pillory someone, when in fact all they're saying is "Hey! I'm
a wanker. All my friends are wankers too. They don't even like me, but
I have to hang around with them to bolster my pathetic sense of
self-esteem. I even fuck my sister because it helps ease the pain.
Someone - anyone - please put me out of my misery!"

> Is that not what you're doing?

I'm attacking your characters, sure - all the arguments I've presented
so far are purely and simply ad hominems against Topaz and smegma like
him. But then that's all your arguments against jews amount to in the
end. If you don't like it I suggest you stop making unsubstantiated
allegations. Or you could try sticking up for yourself instead of for
Topaz - are you saying he's not old enough to look after himself on an
anonymous forum where no-one knows who he is? Aw! Diddums!

[SleepyHeed]

> >He's a coward because he can't be bothered to defend his positions with
> >his own words.
>
> If someone does not bother to write personally to you there could be
> several different reasons for it.

Like cowardice.

> > First step to being taken seriously is to speak with
> >your own voice, instead of someone else's.
>
> Are you mainly interested in the issues being discussed or are you
> mainly looking for some kind of pen pal or something to write to you?

For someone who's got the balls to defend himself using his own words
instead of reading them from a book like a 5-year-old child who's lost
his mummy.

[SleepyHeed]

Actually it was miles off target - if anything I /do/ rebuke your
views. I also repudiate your views, I reject them out of hand, I
consider them offensive enough to throw all semblance of civility away
and treat you like the animal you've become. I might not refute them.
But I don't think I need to do that seeing as you'll probably argue
yourself round in a circle sooner or later.

Make sure you know the meaning of a word before you use it, dumbass.
You've got no excuse for not looking at an online dictionary.

> But you must stay away from anything that could be seen as
> a threat. There is a law against threats as I think there should be.
> The point is I'm sure you can guess how fair and just the courts are
> with our kind of folks.

That's right. Even the courts pick on poor ol' Topaz. Poor Topaz who's
quite happily beat the shit out of Jew just for being a Jew, but would
go up the fucking wall if Topaz were beaten up just for being a
pink-skin.

[SleepyHeed]

You are free to make as many physical threats as you like. I don't have
to take them seriously though. In fact the more physical threats you
make the more you simply prove my argument that you're not interested
in discusssion but coercion through violence, and that coercion through
violence is a shoe-dribblingly stupid way to get things done.

[SleepyHeed]

> If someone is not speaking to you there could be several reasons for
> it. For your edification I am not chicken-shit.

There could. And if you'd ever actually spoken / debated / conversed
with me other than to post your pro-Nazi claptrap on the Internet then
getting on your high-horse and riding off into the sunset might have
some force. But the truth is that /never/ spoken / debated / conversed
with me. So all you're interested in doing is posting other people's
views online. And seeing as you /still/ won't debate these issues with
me (other than to say "No I don't" and then post another load of
pro-Nazi claptrap) then you /are/ chicken-shit, although clearly you
don't want to admit it because it'll make you look as small-minded as
you truly are.

[SleepyHeed]

> Angle wrote:
> > SleepyHeed wrote:
> >
> > > On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
> > > air his views because they're so obviously stupid.
> >
> > I agree, even if they were not so obviuosly stupid.
>
> Jews are the evilest beings that ever walked the face of the Earth.
>
> They are completely staging terrorism and the war on terrorism, and
> warmongering Christians against Muslims.
>
> I have real-time evidence from an award winning professor stating
> exactly what I just said. You attack Topaz when he provides data that
> is validated, like you're children at recess on a playground with no
> teacher around.
>
> Do you want the evidence from this well known scholar, who shows
> Zionist Jews are criminals and murderers?

Nope. I want /your/ views, possibly substantiated by evidence so we can
debate those views and see whether they stand up to rational criticism.
This is alt.philosophy not some fucking "Show and Tell" session: "Duh.
Tooo-day I red a buk. It was a gud buk I think it is right. The end".

Of perhaps you're too chicken-shit to debate your own views too?

[SleepyHeed]

> I think the data he provided was valid data, and your attempt to label
> it drivel seems that you don't like what it exposes.

All it exposes is Topaz failure to grasp the nature of philosophical
debate.

> You talk like a sassy little kid in grade school, on recess, on the
> playground, trying to torment Topaz because he says and proves things
> to be different than what is said to be by the mainstream. You got a
> lot of gall to take shots at him when you behave like a adolescent.

I 'torment' Topaz by asking for his opinion. He replies with someone
else's. He's either failed to understand the question or he's doing it
deliberately. Either one of which makes him an idiot as far as I'm
concerned. This is a philosophy forum. Philosophers don't like idiots.
That clear enough for ya?

Any old twat can copy / paste from a website: It proves nothing except
that you think the view valid and have failed to explain why.

> He like I, has provided valid data, and you've only responded with
> grade school mockery and tauntery with an attempt to get him to believe
> by your adolescent attacks that his character is warped. You're on a
> kick to see yourself convince him his character is flawed, and this is
> to suffice your own validness to yourself. You're quite an entertaining
> piece. I've provided hardcore fact about Jews and their henious
> intents, their sadistic aims at reducing anyone who is Non-Jewish to
> disparity. You've done nothing to rescue them or rebuke me, or Topaz.

You've provided links to other people's websites, most of which simply
restate the same opinions.

And we've all /rebuked/ Topaz: Once more I urge you to purchase and use
a dictionary.

> Now STFU and leave him alone while he trys to reeducate people out of
> their dopery duping from the jewish owned media complex.

Or you could fuck off back to
alt.white-power-freaks-are-shit-kicking-sister-fuckers where you can
masturbate over Hitler's writing and Daisy, sorry David Duke's
shite-house-wall scrawlings.

[SleepyHeed]

> "Angle" <butifyouloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142520397.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

> >
> > SleepyHeed wrote:
> >
> >> On a more serious note - I don't think it's a bad thing to let Topaz
> >> air his views because they're so obviously stupid.
> >
> > I agree, even if they were not so obviuosly stupid.
> >
>

> Stupid? Topaz lends a boatload of information to support his
> arguments...and makes no personal reference toward those who disagree with
> him [flagwords and catcalling etc].

Topaz doesn't 'lend a boatload of information' unless by that you mean
'cuts and pastes irrelevant texts from his favourite authors'. I'm not
saying that other people don't do the same (myself included) - but as
/the/ method to be used in a philosophical debate? Get real!

> All I hear out of you guys is a call to
> mob action built upon emotion and little else. Everything you have said can
> be reduced down to 'bark'...'Let's hang Topaz; Topaz not good'...bark, bark.
> You cannot give argument as to why though, for you yourself have not thought
> it through. The best you can say is simply 'racism is evil'...which is just
> something that has been planted in your brain as the social dictate you
> 'must' abide by. To go against that social conditioning would be something
> frightfully scary to you...and so, your relinquish, taking the safe, easy
> road of mass thought.

Yeah, yeah, Four-legs good, two-legs bad. Tell me - in what way did
Nazi propaganda differ from the bark-bark conditioning you're accusing
me of?

> I'd ask that you take a step back, and look at that 'emotion'...and realize
> it is placed in you much like Pavlov's dogs were made to salivate at the
> mere ring of bells.

I feel no emotion towards Topaz. Seriously. He's just another avatar on
Usenet, with views to be debated like everyone else's. If he doesn't
want to actually debate (rather than cutting and pasting other people's
opinions) then he can fuck off.

> We all have our conditioning. The stupid among us are those that cannot see
> past what is not of their own conclusions, but only 'social' in nature. It
> is EASY to be social; to hide in the cloak of crowds...and mobs.

It is. But I'm not trying to defend anyone but myself, and I'm not
trying to attack anyone but Topaz (except for the silly cunts who've
decided 'poor' Topaz needs someone to defend him - they can fuck off
too). If he was man enough he'd realise that a one-on-one fight isn't
mob rule, or being picked on. He's either too chicken-shit to actually
debate his opions with someone, or too stupid to come to his own
conclusions. I have no patience with either viewpoint, thus I have no
patience with Topaz.

> The one thing you cannot fault Topaz upon is that of cowardice; that's for
> sure.

Sure he's a coward. Quote me one opinion he's posted that didn't come
from someone else's text. Plus he flat refuses to debate his opinions
with me - I asked him, then challenged him and still the only thing he
can do is to post other people's words.

[Topaz]

"According to Jewish researcher John Sack, "In 1945 many Poles felt
(and not without reason) that Jews ran the Office of State Security
... the chief of the Office was Jacob Berman, a Jew, and all or almost
all the department heads were Jews."
Sack reports that 75% of the officers of the Communist Secret Police
in Silesia were Jews. He noted that many Jews in the Communist terror
apparatus in Poland changed their names to Polish ones like General
Romkowski, Colonel Rozanski, Capt. Studencki and Lt. Jurkowski. (cf.
John Sack, The New Republic, Feb. 14, 1994, p. 6. Sack in this
article also refutes some shoddy research performed by Daniel Jonah
Goldhagen, author of Hitler's Willing Executioners, who, in the double
standard typical of the Jewish mentality, refuses to accept the proven
fact that Jews ran the Polish Communist secret police even as
Goldhagen asserts the racist myth that the entire German nation was
guilty of genocide. Sack does a good job of proving Goldhagen wrong
about Poland).
In Poland, "... a disproportionate number of Communists were Jews. In
1930, at its peak, 35% of the members of the party were Jewish. In
Communist youth organizations, Jewish membership was even higher,
while Communists of Jewish origin occupied most of the seats on the
central committee. Communism appealed to some Jews because it opposed
anti-Semitism more vigorously than any other Polish party ... Jewish
Communists reached their apogee in the years immediately after World
War Two, when the party leadership was totally in the hands of the
prewar Communist leadership that abhorred anti-Semitism." (Sheldon
Kirshner, The Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1992, p. 16).
Of course when one encounters the issue of Jews, Communists and
Catholics in Poland in the Establishment media or universities today,
the mass murder of the Polish Catholics at the hands of the Jewish
Communists, is never raised. Instead, a minor attack on Jews by
Polish peasants enraged at the role of Jews in Communist terror, which
occurred in July, 1946 at Kielce and which has come to be called the
"Kielce pogrom" will be the centerpiece of the "discussion." The
motivation for the attack is not usually mentioned. Rather, the
Catholic peasantry are painted in terms of "fiendish bigots" whose
"blind, irrational hate" for the "poor, persecuted Jews" resulted in
"yet another martyrdom of God's Chosen." But the Catholic Primate of
Poland at the time, Cardinal Hlond, a brave prelate in a stalwart
tradition of Christian resistance to Jewish tyranny in Poland, so
different from the traitorous philo-Judaism of the current Pontiff,
stated that the attack in Kielce occurred because of resentment 'due
to the Jews who today occupy leading positions in Poland's (Communist)
government and endeavor to introduce a governmental structure that the
majority of Poles do not wish to have." (Ibid., Kirshner)
As Piotr S. Wandycz of Yale University observes, "The average Pole
could not but notice in the Stalinist era that the two most powerful
men in the country-Berman and Minc-were both Jewish as was the dreaded
security official Rozanski." (N.Y. Review of Books, Aug. 18, 1983, p.
51).
With this record it is interesting to note that the Polish occupant of
the papacy, John Paul II, consistently lent his prestige and his
presence to canonizations and commemorations of politically correct
victims of the Nazis. Nowhere did this Pope breathe a word about the
openly Jewish, Communist massacres of Polish Catholics, Spanish
Catholics, Croatian Catholics, Lithuanian Catholics - he was too busy,
intoning the Shoah, referring to the heirs of the Pharisees as "our
Elder Brothers in the Faith", giving official recognition to an
Israeli state which even many orthodox, Haredi rabbis regard as a
blasphemous and abominable entity, and attacking the German people as
"the image of the beast."
Solomon Morel: commandant of a post-war Communist concentration camp
for Germans in Poland. Stalin deliberately put Jews in charge of such
camps. Morel tortured and murdered thousands of Germans, sometimes
with his bare hands (cf. "The Wrath of Solomon", Village Voice, March
30, 1993 and John Sack, "An Eye for an Eye"). Morel is comfortably
esconsed in Tel Aviv. German survivors of Morel's camp have demanded
he be tried as a war criminal, but for the Establishment media and the
phony, partisan, "human rights" groups, bringing Morel to justice is
simply a non-issue. After all, he murdered helpless Germans, so
what's the problem?"
Continued under "26 Hc. POLISH nation libel", the same date.
Dana I. Alvi <PAP...@aol.com>

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were
not liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:

"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
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."

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

[Topaz]

Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.

"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."

"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."

"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."

"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."

"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."

"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."

"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."

"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."

"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."

"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."

"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."

"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."

"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."

"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."

"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."

"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."

"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"

"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."

"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"

"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"

"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."

"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."

"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."

"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."

"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."

"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."

[Topaz]

On 23 Mar 2006 22:38:57 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Incorrect. Basic statistics show that educational and living standards
>are constantly on the rise,

Living standards are constantly on the decline.

(an interview with William L. Pierce)

WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family
will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it.
KAS: So it's this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you
to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter
which party is in the White House?
WLP: That's one of the reasons, and it's an important reason, but
there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of
non-White immigration into America, for example. There's the continued
policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in
the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And
there's the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely
non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic
decline are thoroughly entrenched, they're long-term, and they're
bipartisan reasons. Which is to say that they're Politically Correct,
and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything
about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican
proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United
States and try to restore America as a White country? ... There's no
more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican
President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to
reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon
and the Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because
there's simply no chance that the controlled political establishment
in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit
the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living
standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the
economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this contry's real economic problems.
KAS: That's interesting. But you know, the so-called economic
"experts" that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you
completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly,
a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy.
They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by
allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White
immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills
and eager workers. Here's a recent issue of Business Week; the
headline on the cover says, "The immigrants: how they're helping the
U.S. economy." Are the media experts wrong?
WLP: Yes, they're wrong, and what's worse they know they're wrong.
They're deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as
much as the politicians are. It doesn't take a genius to see what's
happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War.
The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to
us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality
is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The
fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and
exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for
example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is
that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying
jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs.
The fact is that before the Second World War most American families
needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives
and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today,
of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is
that our economy isn't getting better and better; it's actually
getting sicker and sicker.
KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the
economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war
have to do with it?
WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position
of world mastery. On the other side were the believers in quantity
over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural
equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States
to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world
empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism,
wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the
fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War
White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry,
non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could
justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground
right out from under themselves.
KAS: Of course, that's not the way it was presented to Americans back
in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America
free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on
the side of decency and justice.
WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched
the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and
murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment
media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits
full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the
world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it
quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.
After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a
squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles,
and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern
Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered
Poland's leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of
way. After all, murdering a nation's elite is an egalitarian act.
After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a
nation the ones who're left will be more nearly equal.
KAS: And easier to control.
WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American
people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It
was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest
danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an
ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern
the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and
strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican
peons aren't as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a
real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The
loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the
U.S. economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our
spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country
determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that
determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it aws wrong of
us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media
began pushing for so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our
borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push
to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poalnd a
more "equal" country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits
in the Katyn woods. We don't really have time today to trace the whole
process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at
a few examples which more or less tell the story. We've been talking
about the economy, but it's really our whole society which has been
corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.
Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect. Just as the
government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments
but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the
sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of urban crime, but
dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a
racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at
popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should
be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so
they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens.
It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors,
about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a
feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for
the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach
them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people. But
most of the schools in America's cities cannot do these things. They
are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things
are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind
of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a
school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed
by our government after the Second World War, because they are
contrary to the principles for which that war was fought. When our
kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from
the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon
meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying the price of
the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the
breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy, but
what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism,
to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid in the
last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program understand
exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to point it out to
them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take a genius to
understand why our schools aren't working or why the New World Order
will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more
prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up
and say these things when we've had it drummed into our heads that we
always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this
program have for years been watching America being torn down. They
have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society.
They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and
worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the
controlled politicians tell them that what's needed to fix things is
more of the same. And they've thought to themselves, this is crazy.
But they've been afraid to say that out loud. They've been afraid to
say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't have any clothes on." And
it's my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go
along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the
politicians, even when we know it's unnatural and immoral and
destructive of everything worthwhile--this is a spiritual failure.
This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more
serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are
able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able to heal ourselves
economically and socially, but not before.
KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American
people? You've repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the
principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our
problems. Aren't they to blame? Aren't the people who control the
media responsible for what's happening to America? And, by the way,
who are these media controllers?
WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news
and entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who
let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first.
KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there's any
hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are
betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual
strength to stand up and say, "Hey, the emperor is naked"?
WLP: I do. I believe that one day they'll be shouting it from the
housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is
doing to America than at any time since the Second World War. As time
passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable,
because the policies of the controlled media and the government are
making America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps
too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could
patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know
that they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and
worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of
who's in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the
future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will
overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most
timid White American.

> and crime rates have declined compared to
>say a couple of decades ago.

Around the 1950's people didn't bother locking their doors. Crime
was very rare.

>One valid criticism of the media is that
>they tend to always report the bad stuff, so the COVERAGE of crime rate
>are up some 600% (or some ridiculous amount), I heard. I find it
>interesting that conservatives are normally resistant to media
>information, yet when they are told they're being under attack and
>should fear for their lives, they take it in without much heed.
>
>What's the point of preserving the purity of the white race anyway?

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?

>Mixed-race children tend to excel further in school because they're
>exposed to multiple viewpoints of thinking.

Black Culture Retarding White Children

John Tyndall on the detrimental effects of black culture

INCREASING ALARM is being expressed by both government and
educationalists over the failure of so many boys at school to match
the standards of girl pupils. Now one of the latter has come out with
an admission that has alarmed the educational establishment and sent
the legions of the politically correct into a fury. Tony Sewell, a
lecturer in education, has said that the influence of black culture on
many young people in Britain is having a positively retarding
influence on their educational development, affecting both sexes but
boys more than girls.
And the thing that has got under the skin of the establishment - most
of all is the fact that Mr Sewell himself is black!
No interest
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph last month, Sewell said that large
sections of his community were not interested in intellectual activity
and that fashionable youth culture, with its interest in money and
consumer goods, was much more damaging to black pupils' chances than
racism. He said that black peer grouping and culture was propping up
the sale of trainers and rap music.
But that was not all. Sewell warned that all this was crossing over to
white teenagers, who admired it. "Black culture has become the
dominant culture," he said, "and now it affects everyone." According
to the black cultural norm, he said, "to be good at school is seen as
nerdy and white while it's cool to be black."
Being "cool"
On the theme of "coolness", Telegraph reporter Nicole Martin, in a
study of Sewell's findings, spoke of the influence of rap music on
both black and white teenagers, mentioning such performers as Sean
"Puff Daddy" Combs and Tupac Shakur, saying:-
'Their obscene lyrics, glorifying tales of casual rape and murder,
have made them cult figures among disaffected black teenagers who
aspire to the wealth, fame and glamour their rap idols appear to have
achieved with little or no effort.'
Miss Martin went on to say that:-
'Educationalists have warned that the wealth and glamour of the rap
scene have become so infectious that many white (our emphasis)
teenagers also share the aspirations of their black contemporaries.'
These findings simply confirm what Spearhead has been saying for a
long time. Black culture is totally inimical to the mental and
spiritual development of young white people, encouraging laziness,
lack of ambition in worthy pursuits, preoccupation with the trivial
and the banal, appalling manners and absence of respect for others. Mr
Sewell is to be praised for pointing this out.

Spearhead Online

> The rest of the articles
>don't have much to do with what I was talking about...please stay on
>topic!
>

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

[Topaz]

Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...

[Topaz]

KARL L. SCHOTTE
Berlin-Lankwitz,
Dürkheimerstrasse 14,
GERMANY.
August 7th, 1933.
Dear Ken:
Dont think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor that
the world is coming to an end. This is not so, and I must object very
sincerely if the fact of my sitting down again after only several
months write a letter to you gives you such impressions. The reason
for this outstanding event is much rather the hotheaded criticism
about Hitler and his Government which you gave us in your recent
letter to Ruth, and which indeed surprised me very much. However,
before giving you my point of view on the new turn that has taken
place in Germany I should like to ask you to in the first place do me
the favour of keeping your shirt on, otherwise it is you who is making
"an ass of himself". One should never speak the language of a
truckdriver, no matter how much one likes it. Now, don't be mad, but
calm down. You did not hurt Ruths or my feelings at all, but there are
two reasons why I feel I should answer you. The first reason is that
your remarks are very unfair to Hitler and his new Government, and the
other is that I intend to do my share in preventing the American
generation to which you belong to be equally as ignorant as the
generation of the whole world was which tumbled into the last war.
What makes you believe and in such a definite way state that we are
unable to see the things as they are, since, as you write, we are
hypnotized by Hitler. It is not true, that you and all those of your
friends who you claim take the same viewpoint as you are taking are
basing your opinion upon reports and comments of American newspapers
and perhaps upon interviews of American visitors who recently have
been in Germany, and while you are willing to disregard certain
exaggerations you readily accept the rest as the truth? Is it not
possible that thus you are receiving but one side of the story? You
know that the American Press endeavouring to please the so called
taste for sensational news of the American Public is working according
to the countrywide newspaper principal: All the news thats fit to
print, and be it even lies. I do not belong to those who claim that it
is the American people who have such taste, but instead it is the
American Press which in order to obtain the attention of the reader
considers any means good enough to beat competition. You will never
find such crookedness among decent business. Such business spirit is
identified all over the world with the jewish business spirit. You
must not misunderstand me. Such spirit can be found among Christian
Jews as well as among Jewish Christians, if you get what I mean.
Nevertheless it is all over the world condemned as the jewish spirit.
You will not doubt this, I suppose? Perhaps in this connection you
will find it interesting to recall that the inventor of the most
unchivalrous means to fight the enemy, namely the father of all
newspaper liars, Lord Northcliffe was a Jew. When comparing the basis
of your knowledge about present day Germany with the basis of our
knowledge, dont you think that ours at least is a broader basis? Don't
you think that the possibility of witnessing present developments in
Germany combined with the ability of reading and understanding
American newspapers can represent an ideal basis of knowledge for such
person who - and this is the important thing - is free of all feelings
of hatred against either one of the two countries? The Berlin
Correspondents of the American newspapers are not such persons. Many
of them are jews and many have taken a hostile attitude towards
Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the stage of German Public
Life. This includes also Mr. Mowrer of the Chicago Herald Tribune who,
as I saw from the New York Times received this years Putlitzer Prise
of Journalism for his "excellent" articles on the German development.
A year ago a German Democrat, mind you, not a Nazi, expressed
astonishment that I should like to call upon Mr. Mowrer, since this
"excellent" American reporter has long enjoyed the reputation even
among German Democrats of being a German hater. This hostility towards
Germany on the part of American Correspondents in Berlin indeed could
much more entitle me to claim that it is you who is hypnotized namely
by the American Press in general.
Dear Kenneth, not until today in August 23rd could I find time to
continue this letter. When rereading what I so far have said above I
doubt if it is of any use to speak to you the way I did. I know you
are not anti-German, and yet while having received your school
education at a time of outright hostility towards Germany your mind is
only to readily inclined to accept any piece of news about Germany as
true and the correct version as long as this piece of news is
presented in such form which is free from obvious sensational
exaggeration. Since, however no piece of news published in the
American papers is reporting favourably on the German National
Socialistic Revolution your mind is systematically kept from turning
pro-German. This is the work of jewish influence in the American
Press. In face of such mental attitude of yours you naturally hesitate
to accept as the correct version anything which is told you by someone
who on one hand is not even a 100% American Citizen and on the other
hand is, as you know pro-German. For this reason I doubt if I can
change anything of your attitude towards Hitlerite Germany and of the
attitude of those of our friends who, as you claim take the same
viewpoint as you are taking. When, however, after reconsideration I
continue this letter it is, because even if I should not convince you
I wish to do my share in trying to destroy this hostile spirit of the
American People towards Germany and especially to contribute to making
the young Americans a more broadminded generation.
In the following I am going to copy part of my last letter to Mr.
Houston. The article I sent him months ago intersted him very much.
Unfortunately he told me it was not written in good enough English. I
naturally am rather disappointed that my English still is too poor.
But even if my English had been correct there would have been no
possibility to place my article, Mr. Houston wrote, not saying of
course that any favourable viewpoint is prevented from publication in
the American Press. Here is what I answered him.
" --- Wheras the American papers beyond doubt are carrying a
tremendous amount of material about Germany from their regular
correspondents, and no number of interviews from all kinds of people
who recently have been in Germany, all this material, and be it even
just a report, is skillfully presented in such form which seemingly
intentially aims at being equally offensive for Hitler and his new
Government through ridiculing his deads as giving nourishment to
anti-German sentiment. Most of the recent American visitors in Germany
seem to be of the type of jews whose hatred towards Hitlerite Germany
is a fanatical one. They of course are not in a position to give a
true picture to their countrymen of what they have seen or heard. Mr.
Michael Williams, editor of The Commonweal, president of the Calvert
Association, and a member of the Committee appointed by the American
Committee on Religious Reports and Minorities to go to Germany and
investigate conditions published a report (New York Times of June
14th) of his own private visit, since the committees visit was
postponed. He claimed to have spent "nearly" two weeks in Berlin
interviewing members of the Hitler Government, leading business and
professional men, both German and American, as well as Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish leaders. Not one single name is mentioned in his
report. "One of the most prominent German political leaders"(?) told
him that the outlawing of the Jews was a mistake comparable only to
the invasion of Belgium at the outbreak of the World War. It is plain
that such a remark, if it really was made, could be made only by a
person equally hostile towards Germany as Mr. Williams himself. Maybe
this interview took place at a concentration camp. When returning to
America these people cry: Democracy is at an end in Germany. But they
are anxiously concealing the truth that before Hitler came jewish
democratic corruption has brought Germany on the verge of Communism.
Such "Democracy" indeed is at an end now in Germany. All this
excitement about democracy being at an end and about "persecutions"
and outlawing of the German Jews who amount to but 1% of the total
German population seems very strange indeed when compared with the
calmness with which the world took the cruelty and terrorism of the
Russian Revolution which, as everyone knows, was prepared and created
by Jews and by jewish money. Too bad that Mr. James G. McDonald,
chairman of the Foreign Policy Association, can find nothing better
for him to do than to call upon all American Christians to step into
line with Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, as I see from the New York Times of
June 15th and July 11th. He too has recently been in Germany, and on
July 11th the New York Times published his address in Chautauqua, N.Y.
dealing with his visit in Germany and with the situation there as it
existed more than three months ago, namely on April 1st, at the time
of the (24 hours) anti-Jews boycott. The report in the paper was
headed by the remark: Statements that Jews are not being cruelly
treated in Germany were termed "an insult to the intelligence" by
James G. McDonald. Thus the American Public is made to believe that
Mr. McDonald is furnishing an up-to-date denial for all new reports
about improving conditions in Germany. Such is the way matters about
Germany are twisted in the American Press. Senator Wagner too has
stepped into line with Rabbi Wise as I have noticed. I regret it, but
I am convinced that many people have done so because of absolute
misinformation about present day Germany. People trying to argue in
favour of Hitlerite Germany, as Mr. Bernard Ridder tried to do, are
quickly being ridiculed as one may see from the New York Times comment
of June 14th, and I doubt if the well known Radio announcer Douglas
Brinkley who during his visit in Germany in Berlin Talkies expressed
his admiration for Hitler and this new Germany ever again will be
allowed to broadcast in America. The Berlin correspondents of the
American Press fall in line with the above mentioned general attitude
towards Germany. I suppose they have to in order to keep their jobs.
This might be easy for them, since many of them are Jews and some are
known to be hostile towards Germany long before Hitler ever appeared
in front of German Public Life. Under such circumstances it seems
plain to me that any viewpoint favourable for Germany would today not
be considered by the big American papers, since jewish influence in
the American Press is much too strong.
Dear Mr. Houston, when in the above I have given you my opinion about
American Public Opinion it was done, because I feel confident that you
will not misunderstand me. When I am arguing for Hitler and in favour
of present day Germany it is not only because of the many great deeds
of Hitler (uniting the German people, crushing Communism, successfully
fighting unemployment) but also because I positively know that the
only way to serve the purpose of German American friendship is to
bring about mutual respect between the people of the two countries. To
accomplish this one must fight for mutual respect between Opinion in
America and in Germany. German Public Opinion and the German People
are showing this respect for America. Everyone here is speaking of the
courage and leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of
admiration. It is up to American Public Opinion to give honour where
honour is due.
So much about my letter to Mr. Houston. Now I shall give you part of
my article which I sent to Mr. Houston and which he showed to Dr.
Wilbur Thomas, the Director of the Carl Schurz Foundation, and to Dr.
Carl Ackerman, the Dean of the School of Journalism at Columbia
University. Although, as I said above it is not written in good
English, Mr. Houston as well as the two other gentlemen found the
article very interesting. Here is what I said back in May 1933.
After a short introduction I wrote: "The world war was won not with
the sword but with the pen. This is a German opinion which is shared
also by a good many Americans. Apart from now one might think on this
subject nobody today would deny the fact that the pen, if used as a
weapon, can proove to be a mightly deadly sword. If now we wish to
liquidate the world war, if we seriously endeavour to promote world
peace, to promote good relationship between the nations of the world
it seems to be absolutely essential that we should stop using war
weapons and stop tolerating warlike propaganda. In other words, we
should do all we can to prevent endangering good relationship between
countries. Claiming to be well acquainted with German political
troubles of past years as well as with the mentality of the German
People I feel that the American newspaper reader is not at all put in
a position to get a clear and true conception about Germany. Above all
it is to my mind equally silly as it is preventing the education of
the American people if the American newspaper reader is left to
believe that the Germans are a barbaric nation. The absurdity of such
statements does not make them less dangerous to good relationship
between the American and the German people. If in the following I am
dealing with the fundamental achievement and the fundamental aim of
the German national socialistic revolution I am doing it for the
benefit of a better understanding between the American and the German
people. This better understanding is the more necessary the more we
wish to prevent that a few years of animosity between the two
countries should be permitted to destroy a century old friendship
between the American and the German people. Contrary to political
custom Hitler said in his address to the masses on the Tempelhof field
on May 1st that he is not going to tell the workman how important for
the Nation the labourman and his work are, and turn around and speak
to the intelligent class of people as if to the cream of the Nation,
and turn around again and speak to the peasant telling him how
valuable he is. On the contrary he is going to demonstrate to one
class of people the importance and the value of the other. This
attitude is not only wise, but it also reveals the mystery of this
sudden sense of unity that has come over the German people. When I am
going to apply the same methods while writing to America about
Germany, it is because making one people understand and respect
another people might equally well proove to be the best method to
bring about the much longed for mutual understanding between the
nations of the world.
The German national socialistic revolution beginning on January 30th,
still in full swing today, and going to be carried out furthermore for
an indefinite time to come is a revolution of mind. It is a revolution
of the national mind as well as of the social mind of the people. Only
a short time ago American Correspondents and travelling newspapermen
used to report from Germany that the growing of the Hitlerite Party
was the outcome of general dissatisfaction and hardship. If this had
been the case, if Hitler had gained support merely on the ground of
promising the same bread and work with all of his
(page missing)
possibility of such development before taking place in Germany, Hitler
succeeded in changing the minds of his followers from the Communist
rank and file. They no more are Communists, but Nationalsocialists.
They have killed in themselves that hatred they felt towards the rich
and towards the white-collar-man, in general to an equal extent as
this white-collar-man and this rich man have been made to no more look
down upon the workman or anybody doing manual labour. It is true, not
all of Germany has turned to nationalsocialism. However while for this
very reason Hitlers revolution still is in full swing, and will be
carried out furthermore until such time when this final aim is
reached, a new election, if held today, might well show an increase of
the nationalsocialsit vote from 17.5 million on March 5th to close to
30 million out of a total electorate of about 44 million votes.
Hitlers revolution of mind, as I have tried to explain it, in no way
is representing a danger to world peace, and again it seems strange
that Hitlers assurances to keep peace frequently are ignored in
reports printed in the foreign Press. As impressive as this German
revolution of mind might be to the foreign observer who knows Germany
and the German people it is only reasonable that it cannot be equally
impressive to those Americans who not yet have had a chance to visit
and get acquainted with Germany. After all, this new German spirit is
nothing new to us in America. Republicans and Democrats, both call it
the true democratic spirit. The workman in America always has been as
much respected as the white-collar-man, and our boys have long been
working their way through College through manual labour. However, for
this very reason it seems to me that no people is better equipped
mentally to understand this new Germany and its leader than the
American people.
If when writing about the Germany nationalsocialistic revolution I
would fail to touch the jewish problem in Germany the reader indeed
would miss an important explanation to a new German attitude which has
created worldwide interest and partly even new animosity. Endeavouring
to from and impartial point of view seek an explanation for this
change in Germany one must realize two outstanding facts. One is that
the percentage of Jews in Germany indeed is exceptionally small and
the other is that this small percentage in postwar years has enjoyed
an undue large share of public influence. While moreover a great many
Jewish names are connected with all kinds of affairs of administrative
corruption of postwar Germany thus making it all the easier for Hitler
and his followers to gain countrywide support when calling for a
radical reduction of the Jewish influence, it is wrong to regard this
attitude as an affront to the Jewish religion. This it is not. Instead
this attitude is directed against a postwar political system which has
discredited the marxistic parties in Germany and the Jews, since many
of them have played such prominent part in cooperation with those
parties and the many cases of illoyalty and dishonesty they have been
connected with. When I said above that the small percentage of Jews in
Germany in postwar years so far have enjoyed an undue large share of
public influence, this was possible because of their close cooperation
with the marxistic parties. In other words it was not superior ability
which entitled them to such share but political pull. Until recently
conditions in Germany indeed were of such kind that many a Christian
student would cease studying, since he had to realize that his road of
future was blocked by political interests, whereas the jewish student
would keep on studying knowing perfectly well that his father,
although perhaps a businessman and not a politician, nevertheless had
sufficient political pull to pave his way. In such development the new
Germany sees a controlling increase of the Jewish element in the field
of education which the Jewish population percentage in Germany does
not justify. Hand in hand with this development the possibility of
marrying has thus been made so much easier for the young Jewish
generation, which fact in turning no doubt is contributing to
increasing the population percentage of the German Jews to the
disadvantage of the other confessions. Such developments are of no
little importance for Germany, and while today under the Hitler
Government a radical change is being made this radicalism is not
directed against each single Jewish citizen. On the contrary the form
in which the new laws are being applied show a liberal spirit and
reveal the truth that the attitude of Hitler Germany towards this
Jewish problem ought to correctly be regarded as directed against a
political system of corruption with which the German Jews
unfortunately so impressively have identified themselves."
So much from my article. I hope I have put it clear enough to realize
that the Jewish problem in Germany is a question of life or death of
the German race. If such development as was tolerated before Hitler
came should be permitted to continue it should be obvious for everyone
that in the course of time the face of the German population would
change considerably. Germany, as you know, has a population of 66
million people. Among these 66 million are but about 600,000 Jewish
citizen. Under those circumstances as described above this small
percentage in the course of time could increase rapidly because of
conditions of life being more protected against all hardship,
marriages being made easier because of professional and business
protection which safeguard in turn enables the Jewish woman to give
birth to children. Moreover it should be easy to realize that
favouring the Jewish element to such an extent as was done before
Hitler came necessarily leads to giving away the top positions in
Government, industry, and education to Jews, while on the other hand
the German race of Protestant and Catholic confession is being pushed
back into positions of no influence which in turn in the course of
time will make them unable to lead their own country because of being
deprived the necessary educational training in matters of
administration, big business, and education. At the same time their
population percentage of now 99% is rapidly decreasing because of the
German woman through hardship of life and uncertainty because of the
German woman through hardship of life and uncertainty of the husbands
future being unable to give birth to children.
Dear Kenneth, my English might be very poor, but I hope you get what I
am trying to explain. I hope you see that Hitlers anti-Semitism is not
directed against the Jewish religion nor against each single Jew. No
Jewish citizen here is being molested. News to the contrary are lies
and nonsense. Such news naturally are being spread by Jews, since the
Jews realize very well, as the newspaper "Jewish Chronicle" published
in South Afrika recently admitted, that the Jewish fight for world
control through the Hitler Revolution in Germany has received a
setback of 100 years of strenuous work. The Jewish citizen in Germany
shall continue to enjoy a peaceful living as he did before Hitler came
with the only exception that he shall enjoy no influence beyond the
frame of his own population percentage. In the interest of the German
race I do not hesitate to call such attitude, as queer as it might
seem to you, a "democratic persecution" and I regard it as very sound.
The Jewish citizen who does not like such democratic persecution might
leave the country and immigrate somewhere else. And when I say
immigrate somewhere else you perhaps will realize how harmful it was
and still is that the USA for such a long time had kept its doors open
especially at times of business prosperity. In America the Jew saw a
vast country with tremendous resources and no end of business
possibilities. But he had no intention to go out and work. You will
find no Jew being busy as farmer. No, such common work is good enough
for the children and grandchildren of the Christian pilgrims of
German, French and English birth who alone have built up the country
which is called the United States. The Jew was doing the business of
his own race, namely lending out money and waiting in his armchair for
the return. Thus he gradually got hold of this and that business
undertaking, thus he gradually got hold of the entire country. There
is today no country in the whole world with a more powerful influence
of the Jewish element except perhaps England, than the USA. The fact
that such a powerful Christian businessman as Henry Fold is flatly
denying everything he said in his book against the Jews speaks for
itself. The German element among the American population used to have
a great influence in the country. And when I recall the name of
Steuben do you doubt that such influence was for the benefit of the
country? Where are the Steubens of today? Dont tell me there are none.
That is not correct. But it is true that in the course of time the
German American element has been degraded to the influence of a
butcher and grooceryshopowner. Where there are exceptions you will
possibly find that the exception is a Jew. The USA was not governed by
Washington but by Wall Street. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first
President to challenge this. It remains to be seen if the power he has
been given is sufficient for the success. You may be absolutely sure
that Washington and Berlin are in perfect accord although this
sometimes does not seem so. Washington is not fighting against Hitler,
but instead is watching Hitlers experiment with the Jewish problem
with very keen interest knowing perfectly well that this experiment
might lead the whole world. Watch Ireland, watch the increase of
fashism in England, watch the change in France that will come,
remember the American Postmaster Generals order forbidding anti-German
boycottstamps on the back of envelopes.
October 2nd 1933.
Dear Kenneth: Not until today could I find time to continue this
letter, and I must admit that since your last letter arrived which
again was full of insulting remarks about Adolf Hitler I feel little
inclined to do so. I must state that you have changed greatly. You
were much more grown-up when in May 1932 you left us. I dont know
whose influence it is and I dont care. I only know that while you were
with us you grew accustomed to argue in a serious way seeking effect
only through the sincerety of your arguement and not through a strong
language. The letter method is used only by children and hysteric
women and men. If I wanted to argue with you on the basis of your last
letter I indeed could easily come back and picture a great many
Americans who have been making an ass of themselves and still are
making an ass of themselves, and I could speak much more convincing,
since I know America, whereas you in your highhatted ignorance are
adopting nothing but what jewish reporters publish and you fall for
any line of talk as long as the lies are presented in a somewhat
plausible form. You need not boast about not having Nationalsozialism
in America. It is quite doubtful if such is an advantage, and the fact
that the American Democratic system given to the country by men who
justfully can be called great Americans has grown into a system of
rotten corruption might bring about American Nationalsozialism quicker
than you think. Any system of government stands and falls with its
leaders. Are the leaders rotten the system will turn to be rotten too.
Such was the case in Germany, and such might be the case in America
too. Moreover America some day might be happy to turn to
Nationalsozialism instead of turning to Communism. However as long as
there are many of young Americans thinking the way you do, namely from
one mooving picture to another I see great trouble ahead for the
country, trouble which will be far more serious than the Russian
revolution was. When in face of your calling us being hypnotized I
answer you that I am a great admirer of Adolf Hitler I am doing so in
order to warn you to remain as narrowminded as you now are. You never
will hear the truth about present day Germany, for America at present
is a jewish country. Jewish influence is dominating, and sooner or
later the American aryans will realize what they shall have to fight
for. Nationalsozialism would never come to America from Germany but
from the aryan population in America and such will bring about a
rebirth of Washingtons United States. Why cry about the poor little
children who are called upon to join Hitlers junior leagues, when they
themselves are crazy to do so. Little Jobi has joined and he is
tickeled to death about it. Why throw out your chest and condemn
militarism when there is no country on the face of the earth more
militaristic than the United States? Or do you deny that American boys
in their small years even are receiving military training? Is such a
sign that America intends to go to war? You say: No. Well, I answer
you, Germany wont either. A picture of Hindenburg and Hitler published
in an American paper was called: A business conference between H. and
H., whereas truly it was a picture of the celebration of the battle of
Tannenberg. Such shows how much even in matters of minor importance
American newspapers are making an ass of themselves. Even if you dont
like it, Adolf Hitler is one of the greatest and at the same time one
of the most modest men Germany has ever had. Future will show that I
am right. Goodbye now, and dont think that I am sore, I am just a
little disappointed in you.
Hearty greetings,

[Topaz]

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

[Topaz]

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]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:00:25 +1000, "Sean"
<santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>The Jewish people are NOT a RACE, they are a broad dynamic group of people
>who share a common ideology and religion. As such jews are comprised of all
>ethnic groups on the planet, and no single race. There are white, brown,
>yellow, red & black people who are Jews.
>
>As such some have left wing politics, and some are right wing.

from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000

Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to
any mixing of religion and public life.

A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict
separation between church and state have waned, Jews are far more
reluctant than non-Jews to accept references to religion in the public
schools or other public arenas.

''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square''
project, one of seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts
examining the contemporary role of religious groups in the United
States.

The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more
liberal than other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of
homosexuality, abortion, birth control and pornography than do
Gentiles,'' the study found. ''In each case, Jewish leaders are even
more tolerant than the Jewish public.''

For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to 23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And
while 56 percent of non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of
Jews and 96 percent of Jewish leaders do.

The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number
of children in Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy
makers have suggested that the community supports the use of vouchers,
but the survey suggests that Jewish reluctance to support such a step
runs deep.

Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious symbols on public property.

Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the
public sphere means a greater presence of Christianity.

''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian majority in the American population, would promote an
explicitly Christian character to the American state and its
institutions,'' the study declared. ''Jews, in particular, were
concerned that the schools not be used to indoctrinate their children
in the culture and tenets of Christianity.''

Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism associated with some Christian groups, and by the
community's liberalism and secularity, the study said. In recent
years, the study said, Jews have become more accepted in the United
States, Jews have become less liberal, and a significant fraction of
the community has become less secular, but the attitudes have
remained.

Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with
63 percent of non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers
that could be used at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of
non-Jews.

The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a
sample - they queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to
be surveyed by mail on various matters.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious populations in the United States. Each study will include a
poll, scholarly papers, and conferences over a three-year period.

>Some believe
>a jewish state is enshrined in their spiritual texts, others say the exact
>opposite. You'll find conservative fundamentalist style Jews think like
>Zionists, and yet other conservative fundamentalist style Jews don't. You'll
>find Jews in the military that think all Palestinians Arabs are scum of the
>earth, and you'll also find those who refuse to fight or work in the
>Occupied territories.

This is what Jews believe:

"One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel
"This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country
for the Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he
decried intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial
suicide, and likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to
death of the Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy
should be to sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even
giving up territory was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews
and making Israel a more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that
post-Zionists threaten Israel when they publish textbooks that
de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism
has no place in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the
Jews." That's the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's
country, talking about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending?
Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]

But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks
it's just
fine -- even necessary -- to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a
different tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was
galvanizing White Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the
wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture
that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being
part and parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian
Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000]

How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival. They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to
survive and racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not
stupid. They want what is best for Jews.

But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States - wherever White people live -- Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people,
everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil
and they never let us forget that."

Kevin Alfred Strom
The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>

>
>In America you'll find Jews whose first supreme loyalty is to the existance
>of Israel, and anything that serves that end, even treason, is therefore
>justifiable. And you will also find far more who don't think like that at
>all.

For more that don't tell you they thing like that.

>
>If you want to be critical of the behaviour of some people as a "group"
>you'd best learn how to do that in a more refined way than mis-representing
>them as an entire "race" of people when they aren't.
>
>I won't hold my breath though. Victims always present the perpetrator as
>being more Omnipotent and Omniscient than they really are. ;-)
>

Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:

"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:

1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.

2) Non-interference with prostitution.

3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.

4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.

5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.

"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.

"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."

[Topaz]

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

[Topaz]

On 24 Mar 2006 05:51:46 -0800, "SleepyHeed"
<simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Actually it was miles off target - if anything I /do/ rebuke your
>views. I also repudiate your views, I reject them out of hand, I
>consider them offensive enough to throw all semblance of civility away
>and treat you like the animal you've become. I might not refute them.
>But I don't think I need to do that seeing as you'll probably argue
>yourself round in a circle sooner or later.

[Topaz]

[Topaz]

On 24 Mar 2006 05:59:53 -0800, "SleepyHeed"
<simonh...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>There could. And if you'd ever actually spoken / debated / conversed
>with me other than to post your pro-Nazi claptrap on the Internet then
>getting on your high-horse and riding off into the sunset might have
>some force. But the truth is that /never/ spoken / debated / conversed
>with me. So all you're interested in doing is posting other people's
>views online. And seeing as you /still/ won't debate these issues with
>me (other than to say "No I don't" and then post another load of
>pro-Nazi claptrap) then you /are/ chicken-shit, although clearly you
>don't want to admit it because it'll make you look as small-minded as
>you truly are.

If you had anything meaningful to say you negleted to include it in
your post. Since you have nothing to say I will post more important
information:

The Finlandization of America

by Edgar J. Steele

Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to
say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to
Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings
from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's
safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.

From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had
proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to
death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia?s Beth Shalom
synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark,
hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's
anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard
denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America
carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such
classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."

The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements
particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they
had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course,
that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's
favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector -
$366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin -
$564,858).

What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls?
Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to
him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to
listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any
wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby
groups.

There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er,
contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just
to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews
who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions,
such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel
was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look,
you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just
make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn
that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now
come from Jews?

Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman
from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in
the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you
know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it
took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been
paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in
America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The
coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for
good.

I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really
want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz?
And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the
river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting
their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with
whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and
against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.

Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile,
on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching
back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first
American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed
low before Zionism.

"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry
- which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against
them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and
small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another."
Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6,
1991.

John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.

Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word
on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's
available once again, in a new, expanded edition at
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf. Do yourself a
favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give
your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid
upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print
because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the
water).

During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred
to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing
behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The
faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind
before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them
every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this
specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so
many.

Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been
a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing,
the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being
blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let
alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into
question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all,
but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary
discussions.

George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those
assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the
same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny.
They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill
without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the
innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something
with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Problem is, we are the terrorists, because it is America that burns
with hatred these days. America that hates those who reject its grim
vision of democracy. America that hates so many who know the real
meaning of freedom. America that kills women without mercy. America
that kills children without shame. You and the Jewish organ grinders
for whom you are but a dancing monkey count your victories in the
deaths of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis. You have shamed us and
you have condemned us all to Hell, right along with you and your
Jewish masters.

George the Second also told the AIPAC audience that "(W)e have a duty
to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found." He
followed that up with "The demonization of Israel...can be a flimsy
cover for anti-Semitism." With those two statements, George the
Second made crystal clear where his loyalties lie with regard to the
mushrooming portion of America's population that objects to our Middle
Eastern campaign of conquest: With Israel and against America, that's
where.

Could it be any more clearly stated, folks? Of course, George is the
same fellow who gave new life to the phrase, "yer either with us or
agin us." At least, now we know what he meant by "us," and it most
assuredly isn't us, fellow Americans.

In contrast to what George the Second thinks, I rather liked what
Fritz Hollings had to say in response to his Jewish critics from the
Senate floor two days ago: "I want them to apologize to me. Talking
about 'anti-Semitic.' They're not getting by with it."

Finland avoided military invasion and conquest by Joseph Stalin's
Soviet Union back in the 1940s by adopting a Soviet-style government,
paying fealty to the USSR and otherwise acting just as it would, had
it been conquered by force. Today, the US has gone along with
International Zionism in precisely the same fashion: installing
Jewish and Christian Zionists in all governmental power points, bowing
to the wishes of Israel's lobbyists, removing Christianity from
America's culture by edict of an increasingly-Jewish judiciary,
fighting Israel's fights and even purging those who disagree with
foreign Jews pushing Zionism by imprisoning its own citizen political
dissidents on phony charges. Of course, Finland had the example of
20-80 million Russian Christians executed right next door early last
century, simply for being anti-Semitic, a lesson that America seems to
have forgotten. The term "Finlandization" has come to refer to
quislings like Finland and, now, America.

I will be speaking at the Duke International European American Unity
and Leadership Conference in New Orleans this next weekend, May 28-30.
Call 985-626-7714 or go here to reserve on line. From David Duke's
web site promoting the conference: "The leaders who will be present
at the conference recognize that the enormous media and financial
power of Zionism is not just a Palestinian problem, but the greatest
single threat to the European and other peoples of the world. The
Unity and Leadership conference is about setting an effective agenda
for the restoration of our rights, freedoms and heritage." You who
follow this list regularly know that I will be pulling no punches in
pursuit of this very agenda during my speech. And, yes, it is that
David Duke: the ex-Congressman.

For those who have indicated an interest in going, but been reluctant
to sign up because my name does not appear on the list of scheduled
speakers, rest easy. It's right there - I'm one of the "other
prominent speakers." Be assured that I will be speaking, even if I
have to do it on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And I make it a
point of honor at these affairs to attend all proceedings and to be
available to members of this list at all times throughout.

Already, Mark Potok of the very Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center,
one of Zionism's many American apologist-cum-attack dogs, is calling
this a world-class gathering of anti-Semites. To him, I say: Unlike
Mr. Hollings, no apology to me is necessary. Just remember, though,
that's Mr. Anti-Semite to you!

New America. An idea whose time has come.

Subscribe: Send email with "subscribe" in subject line to
subs...@conspiracypenpal.com

[Topaz]

"I ask you to consider the following:
Imagine if the rulers of a Mideast nation such as Syria, and I am not
simply speaking about a gang of radicals in that nation, but the
actual government ministers of this Mideast nation, launched terrorist
attacks against American civilian installations.
Imagine if the Syrian Government sent terrorists into Egypt to
firebomb American theaters and libraries and treacherously plotted to
blame the attacks on Egypt so that the United States would go to war
against that nation.
If successful, the treacherous plan would harm America even more than
the terrorist attacks themselves, because even more American blood and
treasure would be spilled in a devastating war on an innocent nation!
Imagine that the premature explosion of the one of the Syrian agent's
bombs led to the capture of all the Syrian operatives and ultimately
caused a complete exposure of Syria's terrorism against America.
In fact, imagine that the failed plot became so exposed that the
Syrian Defense minister had to resign.
How do you think the United States would respond to these acts of
terrorism committed against Americans by the Syrian government?
Would not at the very least America make military strikes at Syrian
installations?
Remember, that without Iraq committing even a single warlike act
against the United States, America invaded Iraq and spent hundreds of
billions of dollars and suffered great numbers of dead and wounded.
Again, how would America respond to any Mideast nation that clearly
made terrorist attacks against American civilian installations?
After such dastardly terrorist attacks would the American people send
billions of dollars in aid including military weapons to Syria?
After such attacks, how would every Congressman be viewed that took
money from Lobby organizations that support the Syrian government?
Would they not be attacked in the press, would they not be properly
accused of disloyalty to the United States, perhaps even treason?
Imagine that due to the ubiquitous pro-Syrian political and media
power in America that amazingly no actions were taken against Syria
and that military and other aid to Syria continued.
And finally, imagine that years after the attacks, the President of
Syria in an open, public ceremony gives awards to the Syrian
terrorists who bombed American installations and calls them "heroes."
Do you think a free press would keep such an obscene ceremony from the
knowledge of the American public? Or do you think that the Syrian
Government's praising of terrorists who attacked America would unleash
a huge scandal and uproar.
Well, everything I just described to you actually has happened, and I
mean in every detail.
Except it wasn't the Syrian government that launched terrorist attacks
on America, it was Israel.
In the Lavon Affair, the Israeli government sent terrorists to bomb
American installations in Egypt and blame the Egyptians for it. One of
their bombs exploded prematurely which led to the capture of one the
agents and eventually the rounding up of all of them. They confessed
and the Israeli Defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign
because of the failure and exposure of this Israeli treachery.
This is no fantasy; this is absolute historical fact which you can
verify from numerous major historical sources, including leading
Jewish sources.
Only thing is, you probably haven't even heard of it.
Why not?
And why would America continue to give military weapons and equipment
to a nation that launched terrorist attacks against us?
What does that tell you about Israeli influence over the American
government and the press?"
David Duke
www.davidduke.com

[LIBERATOR]

> > > Great post. The part about the raw data not being rebuked was right
> > > on target. But you must stay away from anything that could be seen as
> > > a threat. There is a law against threats as I think there should be.
> > > The point is I'm sure you can guess how fair and just the courts are
> > > with our kind of folks.
> >
> > You're right even when it's a metaphorical figure of speech it'll be
> > taken as a physical intention. I won't do it no more cuz you pointed
> > this out.
>
> You are free to make as many physical threats as you like. I don't have
> to take them seriously though. In fact the more physical threats you
> make the more you simply prove my argument that you're not interested
> in discusssion but coercion through violence, and that coercion through
> violence is a shoe-dribblingly stupid way to get things done.

Are you role playing me? You're from Wisconsin, ainja.

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2006 22:38:57 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Incorrect. Basic statistics show that educational and living standards
> >are constantly on the rise,
>
> Living standards are constantly on the decline.

That would be true if your article actually had any statistics in it.
Just take a quick look at any income study that's been done over the
last few decades. Now income *inequality* is on the rise, which might
be posing a problem in the future, but that's another issue. In terms
of absolute amounts, it's rising, and strangely enough it's an argument
that even conservatives use.

[Topaz]

On 25 Mar 2006 11:51:50 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>That would be true if your article actually had any statistics in it.
>Just take a quick look at any income study that's been done over the
>last few decades.

Accounting for inflation of course.

> Now income *inequality* is on the rise, which might
>be posing a problem in the future, but that's another issue.

That is the main issue. Who cares if Gates and some others are
making billions. In the past one pay check per family was plenty of
money to have plenty of children for most people. It's nothing like
that now.

> In terms
>of absolute amounts, it's rising, and strangely enough it's an argument
>that even conservatives use.

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

[Angle]

Topaz,
threads tend to be thought of as exchanges of ideas in a dialogue. You
could just come here occasionally and post some links to racist sites.
You really don't have to keep posting like this AS IF you know how to
engage in a dialogue or AS IF you respect anyone who might read what
you say. There is no need to pretend.

[Topaz]

If you are proven wrong you are proven wrong. It doesn't matter who
said it.

The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> That is the main issue. Who cares if Gates and some others are
> making billions. In the past one pay check per family was plenty of
> money to have plenty of children for most people. It's nothing like
> that now.

Yes, that's because income inequality is on the rise and the middle
class is disappearing. The only thing that can counter-act this is
economic redistribution, which for some reason you loathe. It seems to
work well abroad, but people buy into the propaganda and resist the
ideas that would make their life a lot easier.

What I really don't understand is why the poor actually buy into
conservative economic policies, because when you do a little bit of
research it's abundantly clear that all they do is screw the little guy
over. I guess it has to do with the notion that America is a land of
opportunity and it's up to the individual to take advantage of these
opportunities or otherwise get fucked. But the reality is that the
rich have an easier time getting richer, and no amount of ideological
equality is going to change that fact. It's unfair, but that's how it
is.

[Topaz]

On 26 Mar 2006 13:33:44 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Yes, that's because income inequality is on the rise and the middle
>class is disappearing. The only thing that can counter-act this is
>economic redistribution, which for some reason you loathe.

The only real answer is National Socialism. Gates does deserve to
have a lot more money than most people. But we should have a system
that doesn't tolerate greed. Plans that sound like Communism must be
bad.

> It seems to
>work well abroad, but people buy into the propaganda and resist the
>ideas that would make their life a lot easier.
>
>What I really don't understand is why the poor actually buy into
>conservative economic policies, because when you do a little bit of
>research it's abundantly clear that all they do is screw the little guy
>over.

It's because the democrats are against the boy scouts because the
scouts don't allow homosexual perverts to be scout masters. A lot of
people aren't even going to listen to their economic ideas after
something like that.

> I guess it has to do with the notion that America is a land of
>opportunity and it's up to the individual to take advantage of these
>opportunities or otherwise get fucked. But the reality is that the
>rich have an easier time getting richer, and no amount of ideological
>equality is going to change that fact. It's unfair, but that's how it
>is.

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

[Angle]

Topaz skrev:

> If you are proven wrong you are proven wrong. It doesn't matter who
> said it.

It matters in relation to the respect I hold for you. If you are
simply capable of quoting, I know you cannot really think for yourself.
this is bolstered by the fact that what you put forward does not prove
Jewish conspiracies. You don't digest what you read. It controls you.

> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
> lie.

Well, I've always been critical of the media. I guess my beliefs there
were lies. What I do not believe is that Jews and blacks are less
human than whites. In fact I know this is false. I know that these
people are not the root of evil. I also know that you serve the
purpose of very evil people. Rather than having the strength to face
your own fears you MOUTH THEIR WORDS. One of your fears is that you
have no words of your own. That you are empty and that the problems in
your life are your own fault. But you never face that fear. Adn by
the way, I do not think the problems in your life are all your fault.
But the blame you have is misplaced.

> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
> controlled the media. Why don't they?

Gee, somehow I knew that Hitler blamed the Jews for all sorts of
manipulative behavior and control. The Jews must not have been out
with their erasers when I read library books, newpapers, magazines....

I am sure you won't give up the idea that your ideas are right, but
please, they are not new and they and the documents quoted are and have
been readily accessible.

[RyanT]

Topaz wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2006 13:33:44 -0800, "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Yes, that's because income inequality is on the rise and the middle
> >class is disappearing. The only thing that can counter-act this is
> >economic redistribution, which for some reason you loathe.
>
> The only real answer is National Socialism. Gates does deserve to
> have a lot more money than most people. But we should have a system
> that doesn't tolerate greed. Plans that sound like Communism must be
> bad.

Communism emerged precisely to counteract the greed that inevitably
emerges from inequality. The way the world works is that you need more
money to make money, and as you can already see, this creates a
situation in which the rich naturally get richer, and the poor
naturally get poorer. Redistribution helps curb this tendency, because
as nearly all historical examples show, when income inequality gets too
large it creates unrests, tensions, and instability within the society
that becomes too economically polarized. Peasants have always revolted
against the upper class, and the revolutions that happened in the
socialist countries were more or less of the same thing under a
different ideological name. ("Real" communism was never implimented
anyway, because what ended up happening was that the revolutionaries
ended up turning into authoritarian dictatorships, like Lenin and
Stalin.)

The downside of communism is that in its pure form it reduces the
motivation for people to work hard and move up the ladder. Most people
in the U.S. support equality of opportunity, but not equality of
outcome, which I think is reasonable. What a lot of nations abroad
have tried to do is to maintain the structure of upward mobility while
at the same time keeping a level of minimum standards in place so as
not to foresake any members struggling at the bottome. So that's why
we have systems of progressive taxations and such.

You're not going to get that if you impliment policies based on race,
because it flies in the face of notions of equality that this country
was founded upon. And people aren't going to willingly leave the
country (unless you give them a nice severance package, which I'm
assuming you're also opposed to) so they will resist, and since not
everyone can even afford to move out own their own anyway, there will
be a lot of resistance, and a lot of termoil. Your policies are just
asking for more trouble, and won't solve any of the problems. I'm
sorry, but minorities are here to stay, and if you don't learn to deal
with it you're just fucking yourself.

>
> > It seems to
> >work well abroad, but people buy into the propaganda and resist the
> >ideas that would make their life a lot easier.
> >
> >What I really don't understand is why the poor actually buy into
> >conservative economic policies, because when you do a little bit of
> >research it's abundantly clear that all they do is screw the little guy
> >over.
>
> It's because the democrats are against the boy scouts because the
> scouts don't allow homosexual perverts to be scout masters. A lot of
> people aren't even going to listen to their economic ideas after
> something like that.

I really have no idea where you got that idea from. The Democrats
arn't "against" boy scouts. Anybody agrees to the idea that anyone who
molests children are bad

[Bret Cahill]

Saturday I saw a pure black pigeon flying with a pure white pigeon and
thought, "what a striking couple" -- this is actually true -- then I
remembered the neonazi on newsgroups and wondered, "would he shoot the
black pigeon only or both?"

For some reason I didn't chuckle at the thought.

Bret Cahill