Islam and the West: The Clash has Begun
repo
Islam and the West: The Clash has Begun
Teddy bear woes? Thoughts from Economist.com with a couple of my own
interjected for better measure:
FOR anyone who is labouring to improve Christian-Muslim relations, or
stop civilisations clashing, it is a painful setback: a well-
intentioned Western woman who has volunteered her services as a
teacher in a land stricken by conflict and poverty, only to find
herself denounced by a local colleague and incarcerated in horrible
conditions.
Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old teacher from Liverpool, was sentenced
on Thursday November 29th to 15 days in prison for “insulting
religion”, after allowing her pupils at a school in Khartoum, Sudan’s
capital, to name a teddy bear Muhammad. She had invited a seven-year-
old girl to bring in her teddy and then encouraged the class to vote
on a name for the toy.
When the story broke in the British press this week, it was widely
reported that she might face up to 40 lashes, or six months in jail,
if she were found guilty on all three of the charges laid against her.
British diplomats are now trying to secure Ms Gibbons’ early release.
The incident happened in September and caused no protest among parents
at the time. At one point the affair seemed to be spinning out of
control as groups of angry men gathered outside the police station
where she was held.
For Muslims in Britain and other democracies, the story was a deeply
depressing one: so many of its features, including the fact that it
happened in the run-up to Christmas, seemed almost calculated to
resonate with British tabloid readers, who may not know much about
Sudan or Islam (or any other faith) but have strong feelings about
teddies, tiny tots and motherly teachers.
In more elevated western circles, it is becoming commoner to hear the
view that Islam itself (rather than any extremist interpretations of
the faith) is posing a challenge to western values that must be
resisted. And if that view becomes more respectable, so too does a
defensive Muslim reaction, which is often tinged with geopolitical
grievance.
And are we to allow fear of this “defensive reaction” to the fact that
persons like myself, shouting from the rooftops, are now being take
more and more seriously — are we to allow this fear to control us? I
think not.
It’s time to stand up and point the finger at Islam, ladies and
gentlemen. The new Nazis have arrived on the scene and they mean to
destroy the future for your children. Wake up! Freedom came at a high
cost and we had better be prepared to continue to pay the ‘toll’ every
so often, or we will no longer possess such freedom.
To observers who know Sudan, the whole affair seems to have become
entangled with the broader stand-off between the government in
Khartoum and the Western countries, including Britain, that have
pushed for the United Nations to intervene in the appalling
humanitarian crisis in Darfur. All diplomatic exchanges between the
Sudanese government and Western ones, whether they concern refugees or
teddy bears, take place against that background.
But some articulate western Muslims have been emphasising that they
share the general horror over the affair, and their dismay over the
Sudanese authorities’ reaction. Many stressed that the treatment of Ms
Gibbons was at odds with a Koranic injunction to treat visitors
hospitably.
“Sudan’s official response to this incident is the exact opposite of
the model that Muslims are supposed to emulate,” said Firas Ahmed,
deputy editor of Islamica, a glossy magazine. Musharraf Hussain, a
well-known imam from the English Midlands, said Ms Gibbons had set out
to help Sudanese children with “great enthusiasm and sincerity” and it
was embarrassing for British Muslims to see her being punished for
making an unintentional cultural mistake.
Excuse me please, but can someone think about this and then ask
themselves: “When was the last time a ‘cultural mistake’ in a non-
Muslim nation cost someone their freedom and almost their lives?”
Please comment if you can think of any answers to that question. Thank
you. Please continue reading.
Perhaps the hardest question that Muslims in the West face from
sceptical fellow-citizens is whether they are prepared in any
circumstances to defend the harsh penalties, such as lashing and
stoning, which the sacred texts of Islam prescribe, in particular for
sexual offences, or blaspheming against the faith.
Here’s a harder question: “Are we as Westerners prepared to own the
reality that most Muslims will support and defend instances of Sharia/
Islamic Law over our own democratic laws?”
This is simply a matter of time and Muslim population explosion mixed
with their seizing of more and more economic power worldwide. Do you
really think that the Islamic terror isn’t for a purpose other than
just sowing the seeds of Chaos?
Tariq Ramadan, an influential Muslim philosopher, has called for an
indefinite moratorium on capital and corporal punishment, using
elaborate theological arguments to support his view that these
penalties have resulted in horribly cruel treatment for vulnerable
people, including women and the poor. Scholars in the Muslim heartland
do not go far enough when they say the necessary conditions for the
application of these traditional punishments are “almost never”
fulfilled, Mr Ramadan has argued. Some westerners (including France’s
President Nicolas Sarkozy, in the days when he was interior minister)
taunted Mr Ramadan over the use of the word moratorium: did that mean
stoning might resume in the future? But to traditional scholars, Mr
Ramadan is clearly going too far. The gap he is trying to straddle is
already a wide one, and the story of Ms Gibbons suggests that it risks
growing even wider.
Outlaw Islam. That would be a start on the right road for a change.
Al Nakba
Islam delenda est! Deus le veult!
*us*
Topaz
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 they 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."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
pen...@gmail.com
> The West is the White race.
> 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.
It's high time to remove TopASS from the list of human beings.
Topaz
Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique
Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:
"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."
Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."
This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.
stat...@lycos.com
> The goal of America is to destroy the White race.
Wrong. It's Muslim's goal. Although not the white race, but all
infidels.
> Many Whites are traitors.
They sure are. You are on the top of the list.
>They support the USA government and their
> own destruction.
No, dumbo, they support Muslims.
>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.
Very good. In this case we need to find you , to remove you from the
hole you are hiding and throw you out of the West along with Muslims
back to their filthy shit-holes where they came from.
*us*
Topaz
>On Sep 9, 9:05 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The goal of America is to destroy the White race.
>
>Wrong. It's Muslim's goal. Although not the white race, but all
>infidels.
No, you are wrong. Look at Black history month just for example. If
you don't know the USA government wants to destroy the White race you
don't know much about the USA. The USA is ruled by Jews who hate the
White race.
"The 1950s-1960s civil-rights movement might go unnoticed by many
White citizens if it were not for the fact that that movement was
created and steered by Jews, not by Blacks. Indeed, the NAACP was
founded by and run for many years by Jews, such as the Spingarn
brothers. Other key Jews in the NAACP included Henry Moskowitz,
Lillian Wald, Jack Greenberg and Kivie Kaplan.
The groundbreaking Brown v. Board of Education court ruling in 1954
resulted almost entirely from the work of Jewish lawyers connected
with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, for example Jack Greenberg. Indeed,
the legal brief for the Brown case was signed almost exclusively by
Jews. Jewish activist Esther Swirk Brown was also a prime player in
the Brown case. In fact, Swirk Brown actually launched the Brown case
herself [3].
Furthermore, the constitutionally questionable U.S. Civil Rights Act
of 1964 came from a Jew, i.e., Congressman Celler's House bill H.R.
7152. That act created, among other things, affirmative action. It
ended the practice of business owners deciding for themselves whom to
hire and fire. In fact, the destruction of White rights in America was
caused largely by the Jewish-created/led civil-rights movement.
The civil-rights movement also transformed the attitudes of American
Blacks: before the civil-rights movement Blacks were largely
respectful of Whites. Today Blacks openly denigrate White culture and
challenge White authority. They demand that 'whitey' now show them
respect which they may or may not have earned...
Jews have also led the movement in the U.S. Congress to open America
to non-European immigration. The best example of that is the 1965
Immigration Act, aka the Hart-Celler Act, which resulted in a
revolutionary change in U.S. immigration rules. Congressman Emanuel
Celler was the point man for that law, even though he is listed
second, after Hart, in the title 'Hart-Celler.' Indeed, President
Johnson mentioned Celler twice at the signing of the bill - H.R. 2580
into law on Oct. 3, 1965 but did not mention Hart. Other Jews in
Congress also spearheaded the movement to allow more non-Europeans
into America, such as Jacob Javits and Herbert Lehman. And an
influential Jewish immigration lawyer named Edward Dubroff regularly
advised Congressman Celler about immigration issues.
Additionally, powerful Jewish organizations carried out intense,
ongoing campaigns in order to pressure individual Congressmen to vote
for the loosening of U.S. immigration laws. At nearly every step of
the campaign to alter U.S. immigration laws, Jews were at the
forefront....
The controversial 1951 UN/UNESCO 'Statement on the Nature of Race and
Race Differences,' which denied many human racial differences, was
largely the invention of infamous Jewish anthropologist Ashley
Montagu. Here we see the doggedness of the Jewish agenda on race, for
as far back as 1935, Franz Boas - the Jewish godfather of race-denial
who inspired Montagu's efforts - approached two top scientists and
asked them to create an anti-racism/race-denial statement, which would
be signed by many other scientists and then publicized. Both of the
scientists that Boas approached - anthropologist and psychologist
Livingston Farrand and biologist Raymond Pearl - turned Boas down. Not
one to give up easily, Boas then approached yet another race expert,
anthropologist Earnest Hooton. Hooton agreed to create such a race
statement (he sent it to seven top scientists but only one signed
it)...
Other top experts who created race-denying/race-downplaying material
for the UN or UNESCO were also Jewish, including Melville Herskovits,
Otto Klineberg and Harry Shapiro. In fact, Jews virtually pioneered
the questionable-but-now-common 'official' theory that racial
differences between Whites and non-Whites do not really exist. The
teachings of the Jews mentioned above were used to drastically alter
Western culture, e.g. in arguing for the enactment of civil-rights
legislation...
The American political Left was built largely by Jews. For example,
Jewish Frankfurt School icon Herbert Marcuse laid the foundation for
the American 'hippie' counterculture via his popular book
"One-Dimensional Man" (1964). Other famous Jews who led the 1960s
hippie movement included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Paul Krassner.
Lesser Jews drove the counterculture movement behind-the-scenes by
publishing, writing for or editing leftist newspapers and magazines.
Anti-war and college activism groups were disproportionately filled
with Jews, for example Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), whose
top leaders were Jewish, e.g. Todd Gitlin, Mike Spiegel, Al Haber, and
Mike Klonsky.
Most of the leaders of the feminist movement were Jews as well, for
example Betty Friedan, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Lucy Komisar and Gloria
Steinem. Most of the leaders of the homosexual-rights movement have
been Jewish, too, such as Larry Kramer, Alan Klein and Arnie
Kantrowitz. Gun-control actions in the U.S. Congress have also been
dominated by Jews, such as Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Howard
Metzenbaum. Jews created two landmark anti-gun laws in the 1990s: the
Brady law, which came from Howard Metzenbaum and Charles Schumer, and
the assault-rifle-ban law, which came from Dianne Feinstein and
Schumer. In fact, America's first significant anti-gun legislation,
the Gun Control Act of 1968, came from Congressman Emanuel Celler's
House bill H.R. 17735.
Even the famous Woodstock rock-and-roll concert in 1969 - which was a
noteworthy counterculture event - was created by Jews: Michael Lang,
Artie Kornfeld, Joel Rosenman and John Roberts.
Jews guided almost every step of the American counterculture movement.
THE GROWTH OF HOLLYWOOD/THE U.S. MEDIA
Of major importance to America's culture is that the Hollywood film
community and the American media as well are dominated by Jews.
Indeed, Jews founded the major Hollywood movie studios, e.g. Carl
Laemmle (Universal Pictures), William Fox (Fox Film Corp.), Louis B.
Mayer (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) and Adolph Zukor (Paramount Pictures).
Some of the more well-known Jews in modern Hollywood and the media
include film directors Steven Spielberg and Woody Allen, the Disney
Co.'s Michael Eisner, actors Dustin Hoffman and Kirk Douglas,
comedians Milton Berle and Don Rickles and news journalists Mike
Wallace, Barbara Walters and Ted Koppel (more information about Jews,
Hollywood and the media can be found in the essay "Who Rules America?"
by National Vanguard Books, available on the web or in their book
catalogue).
As the 1960s hippie revolution was occurring, another revolution of
sorts was happening in Hollywood. Jewish network executives began to
churn out movies and TV shows featuring Black actors in leading roles.
Hollywood also produced a notorious movie - starring well-known actors
- that featured an interracial relationship. It seemed that the Jews
in Hollywood, believing that the pro-White attitudes of America's
Founders would never return, became much bolder during the 1960s.
(Regarding America's Founders, a law created in the Founders' era,
'Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104),' stated that only Whites
could become American citizens. In fact, non-Whites had no significant
rights in America until the XV Amendment was created in 1870).
As America entered the 1970s it became common for Americans to see
Blacks, Jews and even Asians in prominent vocations on TV shows and in
movies. Those minorities were now seen portraying judges, police
detectives and attorneys across large and small screens all over the
U.S.
Non-Hollywood media also flourished in America from the 1960s onward.
The news departments at most broadcasting companies were run by, or
heavily staffed by, Jews. Major U.S. newspapers also came under Jewish
control as small newspapers were bought out by big media conglomerates
which were dominated by Jews. Furthermore, as American culture was
being socially 'Jewified,' so were the cultures of other Western
countries being similarly Jewified via American movies and TV shows,
which became popular in many countries. America served as a base of
sorts for the exporting of Jewish-created movies and TV shows which
featured leftist and politically-correct messages, which served
various Jewish social objectives...
SUMMARY
The information above shows that the impact that Jews have had upon
the world and especially upon the West since 1776 is remarkable.
Important questions arise from the impact of the Jews: without their
actions, would WWII have occurred? Would America have had a 50-year
Cold War with the Soviet Union? Would the Soviet Union have even
existed in the first place? Would the Vietnam War have occurred? Would
America be as politically liberal as it is today? Those are questions
for Westerners to ponder at length.
Even more remarkable is how the Western public never hears about the
influence of the Jews upon their cultures. Words such as 'leftist'..
in the West but never the word 'Jew.' We suggest that the lack of
mention of the Jews in Western societies is itself mute testimony to
the tremendous power of the Jews. By using a) frequent mentions of the
Holocaust; b) the media; c) Hollywood; d) large amounts of money; and
e) significant political influence, Jews have rebuilt the West to
their ends. Gentiles who complain about that Jewish rebuilding - and
their own dispossession as a result - are labeled 'anti-Semitic' and
marginalized into ineffectiveness. Such Jewish behavior as outlined
above is, again, not a plot by Jews but is instead inborn, proactive
behavior which supposedly helps to offset the chance that Jews will be
oppressed again, or be expelled from Western countries (Jews have been
expelled from most Western countries at one time or another)...."
LIGHT FOR NATIONS:
A Short History of the Jews in the Modern World
stat...@lycos.com
>On Sep 9, 9:05 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The goal of America is to destroy the White race.
>Wrong. It's Muslim's goal. Although not the white race, but all
>infidels.
** No, you are wrong. Look at Black history month just for example.
If
**you don't know the USA government wants to destroy the White race
you
**don't know much about the USA. The USA is ruled by Jews who hate the
**White race.
Oh , cut out this stupid paranoid crap, you schizoid Muslim toady.
Look what Muslims have done to Europe - Euros are scared to open their
mouths to say a word against Islam. They are scared to draw cartoons
criticizing Islam. . They are scared to shoot movies critical to
Islam. In the former Soviet Union, criticism of the totalitarian state
doctrine of Marxism-Leninism would be punished with a jail term in
the Gulag. In the similar fashion, defying the code of belief of
multiculturalism in Western Europe, especially by criticizing Islam,
even just in cartoons, can now earn an offender the same punishment.
Before Europeans saw religious and national identities as a threat to
democracy (especially when it comes to blaspheming Christianity).
Now, with Islam, their own democracy is at stake. If they won't wake
up and don't shake off their shameful yoke of dhimmitude , they are
finished.
*us*
stat...@lycos.com
> The USA is being harmed by Bush/Cheney treason.
The USA and the entire western world is being harmed by pathetic ,
suicidal, treasonous dhimmi-rats like yourself. Make a correction
to your remark.
Topaz
>Oh , cut out this stupid paranoid crap, you schizoid Muslim toady.
>Look what Muslims have done to Europe - Euros are scared to open their
>mouths to say a word against Islam.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11576
Jewish Terrorism in France
In its issue of June 1991, the French monthly Le Choc du mois ("The
Shock of the Month") published a rather lengthy report entitled
"Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years of Terrorism" ("Milices juives.
Quinze ans de terrorisme," pp. 7-13). Under the main headline, a
subtitle summed up:
'"Jewish Action Group," "Jewish Combat Organization," "Jewish Defense
Organization"... Under these various names, Jewish activists for 15
years have unceasingly sown terror [in France] with total impunity..
The report reviews 50 cases of physical aggression committed by
organized Jewish groups during the period from June 19, 1976, to April
20, 1991. Not mentioned, therefore, are physical attacks committed by
individual Jews (which are, in any case, rare).
The victims of the 50 cases listed by Le Choc du mois, who number in
the hundreds, suffered: loss of life, an eye put out, acid throwing,
numerous hospitalizations, injuries followed by deep coma, lifetime
disabilities, and serious post-traumatic conditions, "the commission
of barbaric acts," severe beatings in the presence of policemen who
refused to intervene, and numerous ambush attacks (in one case with
the complicity of the daily newspaper Lib'ration).
Most of these acts of aggression were passed over in silence by the
media or only briefly reported. Some were applauded by Jewish
publications or organizations which, in general, after a few pro forma
words of censure, suggested that the victims deserved their fate, that
such attacks are "only natural and normal," and that no one need
expect any leniency in future if he should ever again arouse Jewish
"anger."
It is worthy of note that not one Jew has been the victim of a single
attack in revenge by any "revisionist" or so-called "extreme right"
group. (Although the press routinely lumps "revisionism" and the
"extreme right" together, in reality historical revisionism receives
support from thinking persons of all possible political views, from
the ultra-left to the extreme right, and of all parties, except the
Communists. Paul Rassinier, regarded as the founder of Holocaust
revisionism in France, was a Socialist.)..
Francois Duprat
Francois Duprat, a member of the leadership of the National Front
party, and an author and distributor of revisionist writings, was
killed in his car on March 18, 1978, when it was blown up with a
sophisticated bomb. His wife was severely injured. A "Remembrance
Commando" claimed responsibility for the crime. In keeping with the
practice of "Nazi hunters" Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, Patrice Chairoff
had published in Dossier n'onazisme ("The Neo-Nazi File," 1977), the
name and address of Duprat, and of several other persons who were
suspected of fascism, neo-Nazism, or revisionism (Le Monde, March 23,
1978, p. 7; April 26, 1978, p. 9)..
On December 9, 1979, about a hundred individuals wearing helmets
attacked the 14th national conference of GRECE (Groupe d"tudes et de
recherches sur la civilisation europ'enne, "Group for the Study and
Research of European Civilization"). Wrecking the book stands, they
displayed banners bearing the name "Organisation juive de d'fense"
(OJD, "Jewish Defense Organization"). Fifteen or so of the conference
attendees were injured. One of them lost an eye. Several of the
assailants were arrested by the police, and then released that same
afternoon on the intervention of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch, the son of
Jean Pierre-Bloch and a friend of Jacques Chirac [currently President
of France]. Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch had been involved, and would also
later be involved, in other attacks and intercessions on behalf of
these same attackers.
On September 19, 1980, a commando group of the "Jewish Defense
Organization" (OJD) attacked sympathizers of Marc Fredriksen, an
executive of FANE ("F'd'ration d'action nationale et europ'enne," or
"National and European Action Federation"), at the Paris Palace of
Justice (court house). Six persons were injured, two of them
seriously. The Palace of Justice guards, although charged with
maintaining order, permitted the Jewish militants in this case, as in
all other similar circumstances, to act without or almost without
hindrance..
If a French "right wing" group had harmed a Jew, the media of the
world would have played up the attack, with shocking photographs of
the victim, gruesome details about the injury, follow-up interviews,
and outraged commentary..
A few days later, on October 7, Charles Bousquet, 84 years old, was
attacked in his home in Neuilly with sulfuric acid by a group of
unknown men who had apparently mistaken him for the militant
nationalist, Pierre Bousquet (no relation to Ren' Bousquet). He was
hospitalized for a month at Foch Hospital in the major burns ward, and
suffered after-effects from his injuries. He refused to press charges
because his son Pierre, a professor of history at the University of
Paris IV, has asked him not to "on account of the Israelites." He
said: "They'll be in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, the ones who did it. It
would all be useless. I want to forget it" (during a conversation with
R. Faurisson, May 2, 1984).
On October 12, 1980, Mark Fredriksen was beaten up and admitted to the
Rambouillet hospital in serious condition. His apartment was torn
apart in his absence. While under treatment at Berck-sur-Mer for
multiple fractures, he came close to suffering another attack: three
young men showed up and asked to see him; their description matched
that of the Aziza team that subsequently attacked Michel Caignat with
acid (see below).
On October 20, 1980, the writer Andr' Figu'ras was attacked at his
residence.
On the morning of January 29, 1981, Michel (Miguel) Caignet, a
26-year-old Sorbonne student who was preparing for a doctorate in
Anglo-German linguistics, had just left his residence in Courbevoie to
go to the university when he was accosted by four individuals. They
knocked him down and prevented him from moving. One of the four
attackers sprayed his face and his right hand with sulfuric acid.
Caignet had belonged to FANE, and he was a revisionist. He had been
denounced by the weekly VSD (Vendredi/Samedi/ Dimanche). Following the
attack with acid, his face looked so hideous that only two newspapers
ventured to publish his photograph. The principal perpetrator of the
attack, Yves Aziza, a medical student and the son of Charles Aziza (an
assistant pharmacist at Montreuil), was identified by the police
within an hour of the crime. But in this case, as in others, the
French police and courts scandalously permitted Yves Aziza to flee to
Germany and to Israel. At the Justice Ministry, an official named Main
at the criminal affairs bureau (headed by Raoul B'teille)
sarcastically evaded every question put to him with regard to the
14-day delay in opening a judicial inquiry. Among Yves Aziza's
correspondents was Daniel Ziskind, the son of Michele Ziskind, sister
of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch, who is himself the son of Jean
Pierre-Bloch.
On September 18, 1981, 200 members of the Organisation juive de combat
(OJC) or "Jewish Combat Organization" laid down the law at the Palace
of Justice in Paris, where the defamation trial brought by Pierre
Sidos, president of l'Oeuvre francaise, against Jean-Pierre Bloch was
taking place. As usual, Jewish thugs beat up several of the
spectators.
On November 25, 1981, the premises of the tudes et documentation
bookstore were set on fire by a commando group.
On May 8, 1988, at Saint-Augustin Square in Paris, OJC commandos used
iron bars to attack l'Oeuvre francaise supporters who were taking part
in the traditional parade in honor of Joan of Arc. Some 15 supporters
were injured, two of them very seriously. Four of the victims were
hospitalized. A septuagenarian remained in a coma for several weeks.
Ten OJC members were questioned by the police. That same afternoon
Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch interceded with the criminal police
investigation unit (police judiciaire) on their behalf. Legal
proceedings were instituted against some of the attackers. Some
attackers were released with the following notation by the examining
magistrate: "preliminary examination inopportune." Other attackers
were tried, though not without pressure "from the highest political
level" being brought to bear on the public prosecutor's office. In
total, only three of the attackers were tried. Each received a
two-year suspended (!) prison sentence.
On February 6, 1990, millions of viewers witnessed the brutal attack
against Olivier Mathieu during a television broadcast emceed by
Christophe Dechavanne. Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch came on to the stage
with a group of OJC militants. Mathieu had just time enough to
exclaim: "Faurisson is right." Then ten or so of the thugs severely
beat him, his fiancee, and Marc Botrel. Among those present was an
important figure among Jewish militants: Moshe Cohen, a former second
lieutenant of the Israeli army and an officer at the time of the Tagar
organization, the student branch of the Betar (59 boulevard de
Strasbourg, Paris Xe). The attacks continued off stage and out into
the street. One attacker was questioned by the police, but released a
few hours later on the intercession of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch.
Pierre Guillaume, a leftist, is in charge of the Vieille Taupe ("Old
Mole") publishers, which has issued a number of revisionist works,
including those of Professor Faurisson. He has been the victim of a
number of serious attacks, both against his person-at the Sorbonne, in
his Paris bookstore, and at the Palace of Justice in Paris (where the
guards did not intervene) -- as well as against his property (book
warehouse, video equipment, bookstore). In 1991, groups of
demonstrators, most of them Jews, laid siege to his bookstore in the
rue d'Ulm on a regular basis. As a result of various acts of violence
(breaking shop windows, spraying chemical products, physical
intimidation, etc.), they finally succeeded in closing it.
On April 20, 1991, at the "Maison des Mines" building in Paris, about
50 individuals claiming to be members of the Groupe d'action juive
(GAJ), or "Jewish Action Group," and armed with iron bars and baseball
bats, attacked the attendees of a meeting of the "Friends of
Saint-Loup" ("Les Amis de Saint-Loup"), named after a deceased writer
whose real name was Marc Augier. Thirteen persons, most of them
elderly, were injured, two of them very seriously. Juliette Cavali',
67 years of age, was taken to Beaujon Hospital where she lapsed into a
coma that lasted three months. After regaining consciousness, she was
condemned to spend the rest of her days unable to walk or even to feed
herself. Alain L'authier, a journalist for Lib'ration and a relative
of the socialist deputy and Jewish zealot Julien Dray, witnessed the
attack from beginning to end, and provided a smug and ironical report
of it ("Zionist commando unit invites itself to the neo-Nazi meeting,"
Liberation, April 22, 1991, p. 28).
Europe's most prominent Holocaust revisionist scholar, Professor
Robert Faurisson, was the victim of ten physical assaults between
November 20, 1978, and May 31, 1993 (two in Lyon, two in Vichy, two in
Stockholm and four in Paris). Seven of these attacks were at the hands
of French Jewish organizations or militants-two in Lyon, one in Vichy,
one in Stockholm (by Swedish Jews together with French Jews who had
come from Paris by plane), one at the Sorbonne, and one at the Palace
of Justice in Paris.
The first of these seven attacks took place on November 20, 1978. It
was lauded in Lib'ration-Lyon by the Jewish journalist Bernard
Schalscha, who reported the day, the place, and the hour of the
professor's courses. Members of the Jewish Students Union who had come
by first-class train from Paris attacked the professor at the
University, while Dr. Marc Aron, a cardiologist and president of the
liaison committee of the Jewish institutions and organizations of
Lyon, was present.
The second attack occurred a few weeks later when Faurisson attempted
to resume his courses. On that day as well, Marc Aron was again at the
university.
At the Sorbonne, on September 12, 1987, members of a Jewish group of
militants attacked Henry Chauveau, Michel Sergent, Pierre Guillaume,
Freddy Storer (a Belgian), and Professor Faurisson, all of whom were
injured. (Chauveau was seriously injured.) The Sorbonne guards
apprehended one of the attackers. A plainclothes policeman ordered the
attacker released and used the violence as an excuse to expel the
professor from the university. (Prof. Faurisson had once taught at the
Sorbonne.)
On September 16, 1989, three men set a trap for Faurisson in a park
near his residence in Vichy as he was out walking his poodle. After
spraying a stinging gas into his face, temporarily blinding him, the
assailants punched him to the ground and then repeatedly kicked him in
the face and chest. If a passerby had not intervened, the attackers'
kicks to the head would have been finished off the 60-year-old
scholar. Badly injured, Faurisson had to undergo a lengthy surgical
operation. The crime investigation unit inquiry confirmed that the
attack could be attributed to "young Jewish activists from Paris."
On the eve of the attack, Faurisson had noted with surprise the
presence near the park of a certain Nicolas Ullmann (born in 1963). On
July 12, 1987, Ullmann had violently struck the professor at the Vichy
Sporting-Club. When he was questioned at the criminal investigation
department about his presence in that area, he denied having been
there. Moreover, Ullmann claimed that on the very day of the attack he
had taken part in a masked ball ("bal masqu'") in Paris, so that it
would be impossible for anyone other than his host and friend to vouch
for his presence in Paris that day. It should be noted that the
examining magistrate of Cusset, near Vichy, never summoned Faurisson
to hear his testimony. Instead, judge Jocelyne Rubantel merely
received him in her office in Cusset to inform him that she would ask
for a dismissal of the charges-which she obtained. No search was made
of the Paris headquarters of Betar/Tagar. Such a search would have
incited too much "anger" in the Jewish community.
On October 16, 1989, precisely one month after the attack in Vichy, a
bomb exploded at the door of the offices in Paris of Choc du mois,
which were then ransacked. Credit for the attack was claimed by the
"Jewish Combat Organization" (OJC) and some far left groups. Eric
Letty, who had devoted an article in Choc du mois to Professor
Faurisson, would have been killed had he not, by a miracle, detected
the imminence of the explosion.
We do not have space here to cite the other attacks against Professor
Faurisson.
Many other cases could be cited of attacks by Jewish groups: in
addition to the incidents during the years 1976-1991 listed in the
Choc du mois article, there are other, unlisted, cases, as well as
attacks that have occurred since 1992. To repeat: the total number of
victims of Jewish terror amounts to several hundreds, even though, in
contrast, not a single Jew has been the victim of a concerted or
organized attack in France.
On January 14, 1988, in Lyon, Professor Jean-Claude Allard was
hospitalized following a group attack against him for which the OJC
claimed responsibility. The attackers ambushed him in the parking lot
of the University of Lyon III. In June 1985, he had presided over the
examining board of the thesis of revisionist scholar Henri Roques on
"The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein," which have been widely regarded
as key evidence for Holocaust gassings. (In an action without
precedent in French academic history, the thesis' defense was annulled
under pressure by "angry" Jews. [The English-language edition of The
'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein is published by the IHR.])
Armed Jewish militants carried out new acts of violence on April 13,
1994, during a break in the trial of the "hooligans of the Parc des
Princes," a Paris soccer stadium. (At least one of the hooligans was a
Jew.) In this case the victims were policemen. The militants entered
the Palace of Justice with weapons and iron bars, and one of the court
house guards was attacked. "An interesting detail," one Paris paper
noted. "No investigation was made to clear up the affair, and the only
arrest made was that of one of the 'nationalist militants' who had
been attacked and ventured to defend himself." ("Jewish militants make
the law," Le Libre Journal, April 27, 1994, p. 9. See also: "The Betar
makes the law in the Palace of Justice," Rivarol, April 22, 1994, p.
5).
On April 28, 1994, the German citizen Ludwig Watzal, an official guest
of the University of Nanterre (near Paris), was struck by members of
Jewish or leftist organizations.
Many bookstores have been wrecked. In addition to the
Bleu-Blanc-Rouge, Ogmios, Librairie Francaise, and Librairie de la
Vieille Taupe stores, we may mention the Librairie de la Joyeuse
Garde. (In the last-named case, shop windows were broken, steel safety
shutters were glued shut, and excrement was strewn around.) Further
targets of attacks, for which Jewish organizations claimed
responsibility, have been offices, buildings, exhibitions, a book
warehouse and a church (Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris, on
December 21, 1978).
For those who have been targeted for attack by the Jewish militants,
the most dangerous city in France is Paris. Within Paris, one of the
most dangerous districts is the first district, and within that
district the most dangerous place is the Palace of Justice-the central
courthouse-and the surrounding area. Paradoxically, this area is under
particularly good police surveillance because the Palace has its own
"military command" consisting of hundreds of armed guards, and because
next to the Palace building is the "Quai des Orfvres," headquarters of
the police crime investigations department. As it happens, though, in
recent years the guards and police have permitted many acts of
violence to be carried out, especially against revisionists who have
been summoned to court or who come to attend the trials.
When a group of Jewish militants decide to burst into the court
building, the scenario is invariably as follows: the thugs, whose
demeanor betrays their bellicose intentions, are in no way restrained
by the guards from their intended victims. No officer attempts to
inform these shock troopers that violence will not be tolerated. The
assailants are permitted to insult, to provoke, and then to strike
their victims. Sometimes guards will make an effort to protect
victims. If a militant calls special attention to himself by extreme
violence, three guards quickly take him away, but then let him go.
Once the militants have completed their brutal work and have
disappeared, the guards hasten to the bloody or swollen victims,
fussing over them like concerned nannies. The victims are never able
to get the police to interrogate the attackers, or even to learn their
identities.
In 1986, when Laurent Fabius was Prime Minister of France, his wife,
Mme. Francoise Castro, revealed that the Jewish militants and the
Interior Minister were working hand in hand. She stated: "An
extraordinary novelty in political behavior: the Left has allowed
Jewish militants to establish themselves in some quarters of Paris and
also in Toulouse, Marseille, and Strasbourg [and to have] regular
contacts with the Interior Minister." (Le Monde, March 7, 1986, p. 8).
Castro and Fabius are both Jewish.
By a sort of consensus it seems to be generally agreed that the Jews
must be treated in France as a privileged minority whose "anger"
(colre) must be excused. (This word crops up in the press with nagging
persistence.) By law, private militia groups are not legal in France.
But the authorities allow one exception to this law. Jewish militants
are the only ones permitted to bear arms in France. (See the
photograph of a Jew armed with an automatic pistol on the roof of a
building in the rue de Nazareth. Lib'ration, Oct. 14, 1986, p. 56.)
France's criminal police investigators are thus paralyzed in their
investigations of crimes committed by these militants, who are
euphemistically called "young Jewish activists of Paris." These
militant groups enjoy at least a partial guarantee of impunity in
France. The worst thing their members have to fear is having to go
into exile in Germany or Israel for a spell..
A list of incendiary statements by French Jews in positions of
responsibility calling for physical violence would be a long one. Jews
do not shrink from political assassination. On this subject, one may
read the recent work of Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Political Assassination by
Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice (New York: State Univ. of New
York Press, 1993). We know the considerable role played by Jews in the
Bolshevik revolution. [See: M. Weber, "The Jewish Role in the
Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime," Jan.-Feb. 1994
Journal.] In France, the song of the partisans was written by two
Jews, Joseph Kessel (1898-1979) and Maurice Druon, both of whom were
later members of the French Academy. The song's refrain is well known:
"Hey there! Killers by gun or blade. Kill swiftly!" ("Oh'! Les tueurs
.. la balle et au couteau. Tuez vite!")..
During a 1986 interview with the Chicago Tribune (June 29, 1986),
Beate Klarsfeld told "how she haunted at least three former Nazis
until they committed suicide or died; how she organized attempts to
kidnap others; how she used headline-making gimmicks to bring to trial
or to ruin the careers of many who were convinced the world had
forgotten them." She related how she slapped the face of German
Chancellor Kurt-Georg Kiesinger in public in 1968. "Once, she and
several friends tried to kidnap Kurt Lischka" but the operation failed
because the car they were using had only two doors. As for Ernst
Ehlers, "harassed by Klarsfeld-organized demonstrations outside his
home, he first resigned his position [as judge] and then committed
suicide."
After picking up the trail of Walter Rauff in Chile, the Klarsfelds
organized demonstrations in front of his house and broke his windows.
"He died a couple of months later," Beate Klarsfeld told the American
daily. "I was glad, because as long as these people are alive, they
are an offense to their victims." "My husband and I are not fanatics
... Once my husband held a pistol to the temple of Rauff, just to show
that we could kill him, but he didn't pull the trigger."
In 1988, Serge Klarsfeld stated: "No one has really gone after Le Pen
in dead earnest. We ought to have provoked confrontations with him so
that ... he'd take the most extreme position possible." (Le Soir
[Brussels], quoted in Rivarol, July 1, 1988, p. 5).
In 1991, Beate Klarsfeld entered Syria with fraudulent papers to go
after Alois Brunner (who was already disfigured and missing most of
his fingers as the result of letter bombs). In front of his presumed
residence, she wanted to repeat the kind of demonstration that had
been staged in front of the home of Paul Touvier in 1972 (which was
broken into, looted, and laid waste). [See: "Alois Brunner Talks About
His Past," in the Spring 1990 Journal, pp. 123ff.]
In 1992, the Klarsfelds organized what Le Monde (Oct. 21, 1992, p. 4)
called "the savage escapade of the Betar at Rostock ... spreading
terror in the central square of the Rostock town hall, with French and
Israeli flags displayed, calling passersby 'dirty Germans, dirty
Nazis!'." A short time later Beate Klarsfeld expressed approval of the
Betar attack against the Goethe Institute (German cultural center) in
Paris, calling it an act of "legitimate violence" because the Rostock
police had briefly held and questioned a few of the Jewish attackers.
(Der Standard [Vienna], Oct. 23, 1992). Nine of the policemen had been
injured, among them several who required hospitalization after being
beaten with baseball bats and iron bars, and sprayed with "defensive"
gas.
On June 8, 1993, Ren' Bousquet, former secretary general of the police
in the wartime Vichy government (and who was later deported by the
Germans), was struck down in his Paris residence by a fanatic. The
attacker, who spewed out verbiage la Klarsfeld, explained his action
as that of a lover of justice who had already tried to kill Paul
Touvier. Writing in the French daily Le Monde (June 10, 1993, p. 28),
Annick Cojean referred to Serge Klarsfeld: "Was he not the slayer of
Bousquet? The one who had tracked him down, pursued him, attacked him,
forced him to resign from his every position from 1978 to 1989? And
was he not [by this killing] robbed of a long awaited trial? The
lawyer [Klarsfeld] quietly smiles: 'Why deny it? What I feel today is
relief above all. And if that runs counter to the interests of the
trial, so be it! I can't be worrying about what those people want.
That's too much for me'."
Full article
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n2p-2_Faurisson.html
2006 NationalVanguard.org.
> They are scared to draw cartoons
>criticizing Islam. .
"In France, Criticizing Jews, Or Interpreting History in Ways Jews
Don't Approve, Equals "Crime Against Humanity"
[The neocons and the Coulters who lick their ass never end remarking
on PC covering for Muslims in France - this below is the other side of
that coin, which they NEVER mention. Jews, as ever, as everywhere, are
the prime beneficiaries of political correctness - after all, jews
were the ones who invented it. Wherever jews appear, immediately flow
demands to privilege the jewish version of history, i.e., a common
narrative lie, departure from which is grounds for firing, ridicule -
even murder. Jews set themselves against the truth, and this is why
they buy up media as quickly as they can. It is the only way to make
their lies stick.]
France's Le Pen to stand trial for Nazi remarks
Reuters Wednesday, 12 July 2006
PARIS- French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen will face trial for
saying the Nazi occupation of France during World War Two had not been
"particularly inhumane", a judicial source said on Wednesday.
The conservative government, anti-racism organisations and
Jewish groups sharply condemned Le Pen's comments last year, when they
were published in an interview with right-wing weekly magazine
Rivarol.
"In France, at least, the German occupation was not particularly
inhumane, although there were some blunders, inevitable in a country
of 550,000 sq km," Le Pen had said.
French anti-racism laws have made denying the Holocaust a crime,
punishable by fines or prison.
Le Pen would be tried for "complicity in contesting crimes against
humanity and complicity in justifying war crimes", the judicial source
said, without giving a date for the trial. Le Pen, who in 1987
dismissed the Holocaust as a "detail" of history, alarmed Europe in
2002 by reaching the second round of France's presidential election on
an anti-immigrant and anti-Europe platform.
[ed note: "anti-immigrant and anti-Europe" means that he does not
support the globalist New World Order]
Le Pen is seeking to run again in the 2007 presidential poll. If the
court convicted him and he lost his eligibility, Le Pen would still be
able appeal the verdict - postponing a final ruling until after the
poll and allowing him to run.
Paris prosecutors and a group representing the children of Jews
deported from France during World War Two had called for judicial
investigations into Le Pen's comments last year."
tristan
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12072006/325/france-s-le-pen-trial-nazi-remarks.html
>They are scared to shoot movies critical to
>Islam.
By Luke O'Farrell
"We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the
internet that could incite racial or religious hatred." When it was
claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister,
totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what
George W. Bush meant when he said: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Staunch in defense of freedom, Britain's conservative commentariat
rushed to condemn the MCB. "Free speech is the bedrock of a free
society!" they thundered. "Any group that seeks to undermine it has no
place in a democracy. If Muslims don't like Britain's proud,
centuries-old tradition of free speech, they know what they can do:
get out!"
Shamefully, however, many defenders of Western freedom against
Islamist tyranny seem to have forgotten what the MCB said in 2006. If
you're one of them, here's an extract from The Times to refresh your
memory:
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was set up last
year. None of the 14 members of the panel is Jewish, but evidence was
taken from across the Jewish community. The report proposes that it be
made an offence to download material from the internet that could
incite racial or religious hatred. Drawing on the view of the
Macpherson report that a racist act is defined by its victim, not by
whether a perpetrator considers himself racist, anti-Semitism is
defined in the report as "any remark, insult or act, the purpose or
effect of which is to violate a Jewish person's dignity or create an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for him". (Loc. cit., 7th September 2006)
Oh dear, so it wasn't the MCB who wanted to turn us into a
police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who
conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.
Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free
speech, that's who. If Jews have power and influence, they start
working to take away free speech. It's no use arguing that some Jews
support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect
of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free
speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there
any popular support for Britain's race laws, introduced in the 1960s
and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn't, but what does the
will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies
wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League
would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the
evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn't gotten
them. Canadians haven't been so lucky, as the neo-con Mark Steyn has
discovered. He's gotten into trouble for saying things Muslims don't
like, but let's give him his due: he's admitted that Jews aren't
entirely blameless:
Submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews
The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes the opportunity to make
this submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences. The
Board is the representative body and voice of the British Jewish
community. It was founded in 1760. The Jewish community is covered by
the provisions of the Race Relations Acts. The Board is generally
satisfied with the format of the current legislation following the
amendments to Part 3 of the Public Order Act in the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Malicious Communications Act
1998 and its subsequent amendment offer further protection. Together
these have removed the legal and linguistic barriers which previously
had hampered prosecutions.
The UK is now faced with a growth in inter-religious friction, sparked
in large measure by conflict in the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. This has led to the dissemination of propaganda
deliberately attacking Jews qua Jews by Muslims. The Sikh and Hindu
communities have similarly been targeted. We are in touch with
representative bodies within these communities and can provide
examples of such incitement. The Board of Deputies welcomes the
proposal to introduce new laws to combat incitement to religious
hatred, but notes that this must be matched by the political will to
prosecute offenders. Otherwise any new powers risk becoming as
ineffective as the existing laws against incitement to racial hatred.
"It's not enough, already! Ve vont more laws! No free speech for ze
vicked goyim!" And Mark Steyn isn't tackling another vital question:
that of how Muslims got into the West in such large numbers to join
the Jew-initiated, Jew-continued assault on free speech. Was there any
popular support for mass immigration by Muslims in Britain, for
example? No, there wasn't: there was massive popular opposition. But
what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? Britain is run
for the benefit of those who fund its political parties: men like
"Lord" Levy, his pals from Jewish Care, and David Abrahams, whose
excuse for conspiring to make secret payments to New Labour was that
he wanted to avoid the appearance of "a Jewish conspiracy". That's
what democracy means in Britain: Jews pay, pols obey. Want thought
crime laws? You got 'em! Want mass immigration? You got it! Want war
in Iraq? You got that too!
Stone is president of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality
Stone wants to keep "racism" high on the agenda because he wants to
keep bashing whites. How racist is Britain? Very racist - against
whites. When you trace the sources of the "Hammer Honky!" religion,
you find that Jews are there every time, controlling, "advising",
passing laws to suppress white dissent. Free speech is indeed the
bedrock of a free society, which is why free societies and Jews don't
mix. Those are the joys of Judeocracy and they'll keep on coming until
we take our societies back.
Full article at
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/joyim.html
> In the former Soviet Union, criticism of the totalitarian state
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
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."
>doctrine of Marxism-Leninism would be punished with a jail term in
>the Gulag. In the similar fashion, defying the code of belief of
>multiculturalism in Western Europe, especially by criticizing Islam,
>even just in cartoons, can now earn an offender the same punishment.
>Before Europeans saw religious and national identities as a threat to
>democracy (especially when it comes to blaspheming Christianity).
>Now, with Islam, their own democracy is at stake. If they won't wake
>up and don't shake off their shameful yoke of dhimmitude , they are
>finished.
Europe should be for White people. But we should also have other
goals such as stamping out homosexual perversion. Islam does that.
Movies such as "Brokeback Mountain" would not be shown in and Islamic
country. And people respect Islam. No one fears Christianity because
the know Christians are a bunch of pussies. Christians only pretend to
have balls when they serve the Jews and fight small countries like
Iraq. They fight the ones who agree with them on many issues while the
serve the evil Jews.
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
By 1992, lesbian and gay activists had succeeded in getting the
Knesset to amend Israel's Equal Workplace Opportunities Law to outlaw
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In 1993, the Israeli military rescinded its few regulations
discriminating against gays and lesbians. And in 1994, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered El Al Israel Airlines to grant a free plane
ticket to the partner of a gay flight attendant, as the airline had
long done for heterosexual partners of employees.
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/020220_gay_israel_history.html
Topaz
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 they 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."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Day Brown
stat...@lycos.com
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:15:07 -0700 (PDT), state...@lycos.com wrote:
> >Oh , cut out this stupid paranoid crap, you schizoid Muslim toady.
> >Look what Muslims have done to Europe - Euros are scared to open their
> >mouths to say a word against Islam.
>
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11576
> Jewish Terrorism in France
What a moron, Muslims in France riot , destroy property , set cars on
fire, crime rates and rapes committed by Muslims have gone through the
roof but this paranoid idiot blithing about "Jewish terrrism".
Paranoid cretin , for the last 15 years, the Muslim immigrant areas
around France's large and medium-sized cities have been out of
control. According to the Renseignements Généraux, a division of
the police, 70,000 violent crimes have been recorded in urban
settings occupied by mid Easterners since the beginning of 2005 . They
include the torching of more than 28,000 cars and 17,500 trash
bins. According to the Interior Ministry, some 9,000 police cars
have been stoned by Muslim youths in 2005 . There are 751 no-go zones
in France. These are places where the police, medical rescue crews,
and other government agents will not venture into. The areas are
viewed as just too violent and/or risky to enforce rules. Many of the
zones are governed under Islamic Sharia law. From these no-go zones
Muslims are waging guerrilla warfare against French police. One
police-union leader, wrote to then Interior Minister Sarkozy, "A
civil war is unfolding in Clichy-sous-Bois. We cannot handle the
challenge any longer. Only the Army, trained and equipped for this
type of mission, can intervene to stabilize the situation. So much
about " Jewish terrorism in France ".
Educate yourself , paranoid Nazi fool.
http://www.strategyunit.net/2006/11/751-no-go-zones-in-france-the-gap-societies/
> warehouse, video equipment, bookstore). In ...
>
> read more »
Topaz
>
>What a moron,
This is how far I read into your post. You might have had some good
points. Who knows.
Tiptoeing around Our Problems
By Dr. William Pierce
"We've been talking about the very dangerous situation in the Middle
East recently, just because so much is happening there, and
undoubtedly we'll be talking about it much more in the future. For
that reason I want to make very clear what my motives and sympathies
are, lest I lead anyone astray and be thought a hypocrite for doing
so. First, regarding Palestine: although my sympathies definitely lie
with the Palestinians rather than with the Jews, it is not horror at
what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians that motivates me. What
motivates me is horror that my country is being used by the Jews in
their war against the Palestinians. If America were not involved at
all in the Middle East I still would sympathize with the Palestinians
and I would wish that they could be successful in driving the Jews
into the sea and annihilating the abomination that is Israel, but that
conflict between Jews and Palestinians would not be a major concern
for me. At least, my
concern there would be dwarfed by my concern for problems more
directly involving my own people in America and in Europe and in
southern Africa.
Even now, with money and weapons being supplied by America and used to
slaughter Palestinians, my concern is much less with monsters like
Ariel Sharon who are doing the slaughtering than it is with the filthy
creatures among my own people in America who are collaborating with
Jews here to keep the weapons and money flowing to Sharon -- and are
ready to do whatever else the Jews require of them here or abroad.
So when I tell you about Jews in occupied Palestine shooting
Palestinian children, and disapproval and anger are evident in my
voice, what I really am angry about is that the American people, my
people, are being used for this murderous activity. I am angry that
America's whole foreign policy has been perverted to serve Jewish
interests at the expense of American interests. I am angry that
America's political system has been perverted to ensure that we always
have so-called "leaders," whether Democrat or Republican, who are
dependent on the Jewish media or Jewish money or both for their
election and consequently will do the bidding of the Jews. I am angry
that our whole government is riddled with Jews -- Jews in our Defense
Department, Jews in our State
Department, Jews in our Immigration and Naturalization Service, Jews
in our Justice Department, Jews in the President's speech-writing
staff - who really set the policies of our government behind the
scenes, while the politicians are out front in the spotlight making
speeches and kissing babies - and doing as they're told by the Jews
behind the
scenes.
Did you know that it was a Jewish speechwriter, David Frum, who put
the phrase "axis of evil" in George Bush's mouth to justify America's
ongoing war against Israel's enemies? Did you know that a clique of
Jews in the Defense Department and among George Bush's foreign policy
advisers are the people actually running the so-called "war on terror"
in Afghanistan: a war that they intend to expand to Iraq and any other
Middle Eastern country that gets uppity, in order to make that part of
the world safe for Israel at American expense? Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld is a front man for his nominal subordinates, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; and George Bush's official foreign
policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, helps him meet his Black quota for
the Cabinet, but it is the Jew Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's
Defense Policy Board, who gives him his foreign policy directives.
As I've said on more than one occasion, George Bush is a feckless
nincompoop who couldn't come up with a defense policy or a foreign
policy on his own if he had to -- which is why he's President. The
real policymakers behind the scenes certainly don't want a man in the
White House who has ideas of his own, because those ideas might
conflict with theirs.
And it is nothing but empty sophistry to make a distinction between
Jews in Israel, such as Ariel Sharon and Simon Peres, and the Jews in
Mr. Bush's administration formulating his policies or the Jews
controlling our mass media. They all are Jews, and that's what really
matters.
There are many knowledgeable Americans besides me who think that it's
not a good thing to have Jews using America to advance Israel's
interests at the expense of America's interests. They know how the
system works: how the Jews exert their control through money and media
and a well-entrenched network of Jewish operatives, such as Wolfowitz
and Feith and Perle. And many of these knowledgeable Americans also
understand how Jewish subterfuge and deceit work: they understand that
the Jews throw up a lot of smoke to conceal their control and make it
appear that they have much less influence than they actually do.
Despite this degree of understanding that many knowledgeable Americans
have, there seem to be very few who are willing or able to draw the
necessary conclusions. What I keep seeing are comments about the need
to get the so-called "peace process" going again in the Middle East,
and how there are hardline supporters of Israel who are obstructing
the "peace process" because they think that it will give too much to
the Palestinians or will compromise Israel's security, or whatever.
These knowledgeable Americans seem to believe that if we could just
get around the Jewish hardliners somehow -- if we could just
neutralize Jews such as Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle; if Ariel Sharon
could be replaced by a "moderate" Jewish prime minister -- then the
"peace process" could proceed, America could gradually reduce its
involvement in helping the Jews keep the Palestinians repressed, and
eventually Israel no longer would be using America, and everything
would be rosy. And so these knowledgeable Americans expend all of
their wit and energy in these trivial pursuits.
Listen! Do you know what the most hopeful aspect of the conflict
between Jews and Palestinians is now? It is the ongoing radicalization
of the Muslim masses throughout the whole Middle East. The
collaborator governments in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia are
terrified of the reaction they see among their own people to what
Ariel Sharon is doing to the Palestinians. When Sharon's Jewish troops
shoot Palestinian children, Muslim mobs riot, and governments that now
collaborate with the United States quake. Ariel Sharon is the best
thing that has happened in the Middle East in the last 54 years.
The Palestinian tactic of suicide bombing is being denounced by every
politician and every media spokesman over here now. It's nothing but
terrorism, they all say. There's no justification at all for suicide
bombing, they tell us. Of course, whenever you hear that sort of
unanimity from the politicians and the media people you should be
suspicious. In fact, suicide bombing is the best tactic for the
Palestinians to use now, because it provokes the Jews to step up
reprisals. And the reprisals radicalize the masses in every country in
the Middle East. If just one of the collaborator governments falls,
the spines of all the rest will be stiffened, and the Bush government
will be far less likely to find collaborators for building its
so-called "coalition" to do the will of the Jews in the Middle East.
Suicide bombers now hardly put a dent in the population of five
million Jews in occupied Palestine, and Sharon's bloody reprisals
hardly put a dent in the overall Palestinian population. But if
conflict of this sort continues until just one collaborator government
is overthrown, that ultimately will be worth more than ten thousand
successful suicide
bombings in which only 20 or so Jews are killed each time. In the long
run there can be no real peace in the Middle East and no end to
America's shameful role there -- and no future for the Palestinian
people -- as long as there is an Israel. There seems to be a better
understanding of these things among knowledgeable Palestinians than
among knowledgeable Americans.
Shallow thinking and the pursuit of trivial goals is even worse among
knowledgeable Americans when it comes to domestic problems. They
really do not want to grasp these problems with both hands and deal
with them in a forthright way. Look, for example, at what uncontrolled
immigration has done and is doing to America. And what do
knowledgeable Americans propose to do about that? Very little, really.
They make much of the fact that several of the al-Qaeda hijackers who
carried out the September 11 attack were in the United States only
because of very lax immigration policies, and so that's a good reason
for tightening up the policies.
How about simply rounding up all illegal aliens immediately -- all 12
million of them -- and booting them and all of their offspring out of
the country without further ado?
Oh, no, no, no! We can't do that! Why not? Well, the media never would
stand for it. The media would be all over anyone who even proposed a
mass expulsion of illegal aliens. They would denounce any political
leader who tried to do that as a "racist" and a "neo-Nazi." And so
knowledgeable Americans, who understand the immigration disaster quite
well, continue tiptoeing around it, afraid to do or even say anything
really significant about it: terrified even to think about really
radical solutions that might actually end the problem. And it's the
same with the rest of our domestic problems. Lots of people understand
these problems and are worried about them, but they won't tackle them
in any
significant way. They let the Jews -- the Jewish media and Jewish
money and the entrenched Jewish network -- have their way, for all
practical purposes.
Why? Why are the Jews permitted to get away with all of their
destructive policies and activities without being challenged or
opposed in any significant way? Part of the reason is that the Jews
are very powerful, and therefore many people are afraid to cross them.
They're afraid of the sort of media reaction I just mentioned in
connection with immigration. Everyone understands that the Jews stick
together and will viciously attack anyone who opposes them. It's the
old story, so aptly expressed by the late-16th-century writer, Sir
John Harington. Harington wrote: "Treason doth never prosper: what's
the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Today the
Jewish power structure is
prospering, and none dare oppose it or even call it what it is. Well,
that's only part of the reason Jews are permitted to get away with so
much. There's more to it than that. There's a mystique the Jews have
built very carefully around themselves and nurtured diligently. It is
a mystique of piety and injured innocence. It is a mystique that says
to the Gentile world: "We are a gentle and inoffensive race, and
because of this everyone hates us. We're smart and we work hard and
achieve success, and because of this everyone hates us. We are a
highly moral and ethical race, and because of this everyone hates us.
We are a very talented race, with many gifted members, many geniuses,
and because of this everyone hates us. We are a very altruistic race,
a race of philanthropists who only want to make a better world for
everyone, and because of this everyone hates us."
Many simpletons among the lemmings simply accept these claims at face
value. Many knowledgeable people, however, who can see through these
claims to the real Jews hiding behind them, still hesitate to
challenge them. Part of the Jewish mystique is the so-called
"Holocaust." In its most simpleminded form the "Holocaust" story is
the claim that the
Germans hated the Jews for the reasons I just mentioned -- for their
gentleness and their success and their morality and their talent and
their altruism -- and because of this hatred roasted six million of
them during the Second World War in "gas ovens," to use one of the
Jews' favorite "Holocaust" phrases.
Actually, the "Holocaust" is a very powerful part of the Jewish
mystique. The Jews crafted the "Holocaust" story with great care and
great effort -- well, actually not with as much care as they might
have used: it's as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, but still it is
sufficient to make most people, even those who understand what Jews
are really like, hesitate to attack them. People don't want to be seen
as bullies. They don't want to be seen as so insensitive that they
would criticize the Jews, who already have suffered so much, poor
dears, at the hands of anti-Semites.
In several past broadcasts we've looked at a number of the lies and
exaggerations and distortions that make up the "Holocaust" story.
There are a number of good books available on the subject from the
sponsor of this broadcast, National Vanguard Books, including Norman
Finklestein's excellent book The Holocaust Industry, which I discussed
in an earlier broadcast. The point is that despite the lies, despite
the fact that many knowledgeable Americans are aware of the lies, the
"Holocaust" still serves its purpose for the Jews. People are afraid
of the image conjured up by the "Holocaust."
Perhaps it's that American life is too soft... Whatever the reason,
many otherwise knowledgeable and hardheaded Americans just can't
entertain the idea of rounding up the Jews and getting rid of them,
even when the situation is as urgent as it is in America today. And
really, in the long run that is the only way to solve the Jewish
problem.
The Germans understood that, back in the 1930s, and they had the
courage and the foresight to act on their understanding. Unlike
Americans today, they had an honest government concerned above all
with the survival, welfare, and progress of the German people, and
they began doing what was necessary, forcing the Jews to emigrate
wholesale from Germany beginning in 1933. And because of that the
Jewish propaganda machine has attacked the Germans so viciously, has
so blackened and demonized their image, that today even knowledgeable
people are afraid to be associated with that image. They are afraid to
say that the Germans were right, that the Germans were justified, and
that we need to do the same if we are to survive. So, as I said, the
"Holocaust" story, despite its
glaring discrepancies and lies, still serves as a shield for the Jews;
it still protects them from criticism.
Well, mostly. In parts of Europe not quite as poisoned by Jewish
propaganda as America is, the shield has slipped a bit. A large
British department store chain, Selfridges, has yielded to demands
from anti-Israel demonstrators and has removed from its shelves
products marked "Made in Israel." Last week the second largest
supermarket chain in Norway, Coop Norge -- which is to say, Norway
Coop, announced its decision to boycott all Israeli imports. That
decision was not the result of pressure from anti-Israel demonstrators
but was based on the feeling by Coop Norge management that it would be
immoral to continue supporting the Israeli economy by selling Israeli
imports under the
present circumstances. That is a step forward, though it is a long way
from what is needed.
The Jews, of course, immediately began waving their "Holocaust" story
around, and now, as the boycott movement catches hold in Scandinavia,
they are trying to portray themselves as injured innocents being
attacked once more by "anti-Semites." They are comparing the growing
Scandinavian boycott of Israeli products to the German boycott of
Jewish merchants in the late 1930s. Certainly, a boycott of Israeli
products is a good thing, and the fact that such a boycott is even
thinkable by big businessmen today is a sign that the Jewish mystique
-- and in particular the Jewish "Holocaust" story -- is becoming a bit
shopworn. It no longer has the hypnotic power that it once had -- at
least, in some parts of the world. And I suppose that we should be
happy about that. The unfortunate fact remains, however, that in
America the Jews still have their money and
their media and their entrenched network of bureaucrats, and even if
the "Holocaust" story has lost some of its charm in Europe, it still
keeps most knowledgeable Americans intimidated.
Knowledge isn't enough. Courage and boldness also are necessary.
Honesty and forthrightness are necessary also. Tiptoeing around the
critical issues of our time isn't enough. Tiny reforms in our
disastrous foreign policy and in our disastrous immigration policy and
in a dozen other disastrous policies aren't enough. We need to stop
apologizing to the people who are destroying us and go full bore at
destroying them instead.
Instead of being hypnotized by the "Holocaust" story we need to look
with clear eyes at why there was a need for action against the Jews in
Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews' claim today that the Germans
were suffering from collective insanity and had no reason for trying
to get the Jews off their backs is as phony as George Bush's claim
that
Osama bin Laden had no reason for attacking America on September 11.
Wherever Jews go they corrupt and destroy. That is their nature,
always and everywhere. Let us be thankful to the Palestinians who now
are making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the
Jews are like. And I suppose we also should be thankful to Ariel
Sharon for demonstrating so forthrightly to the world what Jews are
like.
Let us hope that the conflict between Jews and Palestinians
intensifies and lasts long enough to wake up many more of our people
around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing
support for the Jews. Let us hope that it lasts long enough to bring
about the overthrow of every collaborationist regime in the Muslim
world. Let us hope that it brings about an airtight oil embargo
against the United States and shuts off the lights in every shopping
mall and every sports stadium in America long enough for the lemmings
to become restless and begin asking questions. Let us hope that it
makes the efforts of every fool and every traitor who is striving for
a resumption of the so-called "peace process" so obviously futile that
these efforts no longer have the power to deceive anyone.
Ultimately, of course, we must not depend on the Palestinian suicide
bombers or on Ariel Sharon's murder squads to do for us what we should
be doing for ourselves. Ultimately we must stop tiptoeing and begin
marching boldly and forthrightly toward solving our own problems."
*us*
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT), pathetic treasonous stat...@lycos.com wrote:
>... pathetic ,
>suicidal, treasonous ...
Well, you're more than pathetic and treasonous enough, anyway.
*us*
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT), moron stat...@lycos.com wrote:
>...a moron...
>...this paranoid idiot blithing [sic] ...
No one had asked for you. No one ever does.
stat...@lycos.com
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT), state...@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >What a moron,
** This is how far I read into your post. You might have had some
good
**points. Who knows.
Because you have no thoughts of your own. It's much safer to leave
just two words from posts of your opponents and overwhelm everyone
with tons of irrelevant neo- Nazi garbage. Loser.
stat...@lycos.com
> The USA is being harmed by Bush/Cheney treason.
>
> >...a moron...
> >...this paranoid idiot blithing [sic] ...
>
> No one had asked for you. No one ever does.
Speak for yourself , demented cretin . No one elected you to speak for
anyone.
Topaz
"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government
spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do
with America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by
the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked
us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks
before Congress
"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really
believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would
give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge
ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr.
President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes
crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge
costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers
of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we
deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our
support for Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they
want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional
support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is
our support of Israel really worth it?"
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly
people who hated freedom and democracy!
Many Americans suspect that Jews have disproportionate influence in
the press, but their actual power is more than most people imagine. If
you want documented proof of their enormous media power, just go to my
web page, www.davidduke.com and read the "Who Runs the Media?" chapter
from my book, My Awakening. (Located at
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every
American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the
service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish
Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this
all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in
American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the
Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed
American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could
cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon
responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." (2)
The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama
Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has
put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating
America. Bin Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard
the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and
on Sudan as a direct result of Israel's control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive
wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all
these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,
as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct
result of Jewish control of America.
The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign
policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all
understand it; and they hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he
seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web
sites. Here are excerpts of bin Laden's own words.
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government that looks out for their interests and does not attack
other people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American
journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their
government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their
lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government
that will look after their interests and not the interests of the
Jews."
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe that this administration represents Israel inside America.
Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the
upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans
for the world.
In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So,
now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he
"hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses
America to attack his people."
David Duke
(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.
Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml
IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS
Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
*us*
Bush and Cheney.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:36:45 -0700 (PDT), stat...@lycos.com wrote:
>... have no thoughts ...
Your fascist masters don't permit you to think,
even if you could, bushfilth.
*us*
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:50:07 -0700 (PDT), moron stat...@lycos.com wrote:
>...a moron...
>...this paranoid idiot blithing [sic] ...
No one had asked for you. No one ever does.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:39:52 -0700 (PDT), cretin stat...@lycos.com wrote:
>... demented cretin ...
No one had asked for you, bushfilth.