Muslim Rage Against Film Maker Van Gogh
nan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered
By Theodore Dalrymple
City Journal | November 17, 2004
The slaughter of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam,
in broad daylight, by a young man of Moroccan origin bent on jihad,
has at last dented Dutch confidence that unconditional tolerance can
be on its own the unifying principle of a viable society. For
tolerance to work, it must be reciprocal; tolerance appears to the
intolerant jihadist mere weakness and lack of belief in anything.
Unilateral tolerance in a world of intolerance is like unilateral
disarmament in a world of armed camps: it regards hope as a better
basis for policy than reality.
Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a
brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
Most of us most of the time do not reflect much on the fact that such
freedom is an historical exception rather than an historical rule, a
reversible achievement rather than a free gift of God. There are still
many who would rather kill than brook any contradiction of their
opinions or beliefs, even while they live in the most tolerant of
societies.
But why kill Theo Van Gogh, of all the people who have expressed
hostility to radical Islam? Perhaps it was mere chance, but more
likely it resulted from his work's exposure of a very raw nerve of
Muslim identity in Western Europe: the abuse of women. This abuse is
now essential for people of Muslim descent for maintaining any sense
of separate cultural identity in the homogenizing solution of modern
mass society.
In fact, Islam is as vulnerable in Europe to the forces of
secularization as Christianity has proved to be. The majority of
Muslims in Europe, particularly the young, have a weak and tenuous
connection to their ancestral religion. Their level and intensity of
belief is low; pop music interests them more. Far from being fanatics,
they are lukewarm believers at best. Were it not for the abuse of
women, Islam would go the way of the Church of England.
The abuse of women has often, if not always, appealed to men, because
it gives them a sense of power, however humiliated they may feel in
other spheres of their life. And the oppression of women by Muslim men
in Western Europe gives those men at the same time a sexual partner, a
domestic servant, and a gratifying sense of power, while allowing them
also to live an otherwise westernized life. For the men, it is
convenient; interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, almost the
only openly hostile expressions toward Islam from British-born Muslims
that I hear come from young women, some of whom loathe it passionately
because they blame it for their servitude.
Religious sanction for the oppression of women (whether theologically
justified or not) is hence the main attraction of Islam to young men
in an increasingly secular world. This explains why a divide often
opens between brothers and sisters in the same European Muslim family;
the sisters want liberty, but the brothers enforce the old rules. They
have to, or the whole gratifying system breaks down.
This, I suspect, is the source of the rage against Theo Van Gogh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Topaz
>
>Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a
>brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
Here is a typical example of what Jews do:
JEWISH PRESSURE FROM PRO-ISRAELI LOBBY LEADS TO
CANCELLATION OF RICHMOND MEETING
Richmond, Virginia, February 19, 2003 E.U.R.O. National President
David Duke was scheduled to speak this Saturday, February 22nd
on the dangers of our pro-Israeli foreign policy and the coming war
against Iraq. Due to threats from Jewish terrorist promising
violence, and from what the hotel representative Sabrina Young
described as pressure from almost every Rabbi in town, the
Sheraton Richmond West Hotel (6624 West Broad Street)
canceled Saturday?s event.
One of the groups applying pressure is the Jewish Defense
Organization, an organization with ties to domestic terrorism.
?This is un-American and shows how the Israeli lobby and their
fanatical supporters will use any means to silence critics,? said
Virginia EURO President Ron Doggett. ?America?s foreign policy
is controlled by the powerful and ruthless Israeli lobby. They
want this war and are not going to let anyone stand in their
way.?
One reason for the choice of Saturday?s meeting was that the
location is in the Seventh Congressional District. Jewish
Congressman Eric Cantor, described by major publications
as a leading pro-Israeli advocate, represents this district.
EURO is working hard to find an alternative location for this
important event. The Virginia branch of the European-American
Unity and Rights Organization denounces any attempts by
Jewish supremacists to silence debate on this most important
issue.
For more information contact Virginia EURO President Ron
Doggett at (804) 357-5453 or at (804) 285-3917.
The European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO)
is the leading organization fighting against discrimination and
for the rights and heritage of European-Americans. Learn more
at www.whitecivilrights.com <http://www.whitecivilrights.com>.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Ranger00089
>Here is a typical example of what Jews do:
>
>JEWISH PRESSURE FROM PRO-ISRAELI LOBBY LEADS TO
>CANCELLATION OF RICHMOND MEETING
David Duke is a pathetic racist. I wouldn't want him preaching his special
brand of hate around my town either.
People like Duke make all other people think whites in america are ignorant, he
does not represent me.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Alex
news:8f49fa86.04111...@posting.google.com...
> from frontpagemag.com
Lie.
I'm not saying van Gogh had it coming, but in this new climate
of cultural uncertainty, the so-called "debate" has been very
onesided, and framed and directed mainly by the usual suspects
that inhabit our media enclave, Hilversum.
Why is it that the only angle of this debate is about Muslim
hostility towards homosexuals? As if orthodox jews,
and orthodox and ordinary christians have no such antipathies?
Could it be that muslims are a convenient "other" to hang
discussions about religion and social intolerance on?
When Theo van Gogh made his little movie and portrayed
naked "muslim" (were they?) women with fake makeup and
islamic texts scrawled on them, was he really making a
statement, or trying to provoke?
And if out of 1,000,000 muslims in Holland, 1 of them answered
the call, is this really such a shock and surprise?
People keep saying "van Gogh just wanted to provoke". Well
guess what: he did.
Look at it this way. If during the month of september in 2001, a
muslim film maker in the US had made a movie ridiculing the
people jumping from the twin towers, and went on Oprah or
Jeremy Springer with it, in the name of provocation of course,
what do you think would have happened?
Didn't several non-muslims get shot and killed in the US
because they looked middle eastern? I remember one
Sikh and an orthodox Christian from Egypt?
Look, we're living in crazy times. However, with all the
"diversity" we have in the media here, there is a sore lack
of representation of people of color. Most programs on
the issue are still "about", not "by", so to speak.
Alex
nan
> On 18 Nov 2004 14:46:07 -0800, nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) posted an article:
Excerpt:
"Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a
brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
freedom is an historical exception rather than an historical rule, a
reversible achievement rather than a free gift of God. There are still
many who would rather kill than brook any contradiction of their
opinions or beliefs, even while they live in the most tolerant of
societies."
Topaz quoted out of context:
> >Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a
> >brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
>
> Here is a typical example of what Jews do:
>
> JEWISH PRESSURE FROM PRO-ISRAELI LOBBY LEADS TO
> CANCELLATION OF RICHMOND MEETING
>
> Richmond, Virginia, February 19, 2003 E.U.R.O. National President
> David Duke was scheduled to speak this Saturday, February 22nd
> on the dangers of our pro-Israeli foreign policy and the coming war
> against Iraq.
David Duke is persona non grata - he is a racist.
> Due to threats from Jewish terrorist promising
> violence, and from what the hotel representative Sabrina Young
> described as pressure from almost every Rabbi in town, the
> Sheraton Richmond West Hotel (6624 West Broad Street)
> canceled Saturday?s event.
>
> One of the groups applying pressure is the Jewish Defense
> Organization, an organization with ties to domestic terrorism.
>
> ?This is un-American and shows how the Israeli lobby and their
> fanatical supporters will use any means to silence critics,? said
> Virginia EURO President Ron Doggett. ?America?s foreign policy
> is controlled by the powerful and ruthless Israeli lobby. They
> want this war and are not going to let anyone stand in their
> way.?
>
<snip>
America's foreign policy, as well as the majority of American
sentiment, supports Israel the sole progressive, democratic state in
the Near East.
The Israeli lobby is as ruthless as it has to be to counter its
ruthless
opposition.
Film maker Theo Van Gogh advocated against Muslim traditions which
suppress women. [KKK representative] David Duke agitates against
ethnic and racial groups.
It's a serious error to silence Duke which will only drive him and his
supporters underground to foment hatred and schemes. Keep Duke's
fanaticism in full view and within hearing distance.
How else can we recognize and reject fanaticism if we don't hear it?
Afterall,
that's what happened to the Democrat party's loud campaign of hate -
rejected!
from Nan
Alan Hope
>When Theo van Gogh made his little movie and portrayed
>naked "muslim" (were they?) women with fake makeup and
>islamic texts scrawled on them, was he really making a
>statement, or trying to provoke?
Van Gogh repeatedly referred to Muslims as "geitenneukers" --
goat-fuckers. And he did this in his published media columns.
His film Submission about the abuse of Muslim women was of a different
order, and in any case was essentially the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
the parliamentarian. That was her free speech, for which he was
laudably the vehicle.
When it came to his own freedom of speech, meanwhile, as anyone who
reads Dutch will know, he was no better than the saloon-bar racist. He
may have had some valid points to make about integration and cultural
diversity, but I'm afraid he wasn't smart enough to couch them in
terms people would take seriously. His published views were boorish
and oafish.
It's interesting to note, also, that his last project, finished
shortly before his murder, was a film about another provocateur, Pim
Fortuyn.
Fortuyn was a dilettante politician, a man of independent wealth who
decided to play politics, and found a platform that appealed to the
base instincts of the people of Rotterdam -- a very multi-cultural
city. He then tried to parlay that into a place on the national stage.
He was famous, like Van Gogh, for his outspoken views on Muslims.
Yet ironically he was murdered not by a Muslim, far less an Islamist,
but by a wacko animal-rights radical. This simple truth didn't prevent
people like Theo Van Gogh from lionising Fortuyn as a martyr to the
cause of free speech. He was no such thing. He died, as did Van Gogh,
because they were available and media-friendly targets.
It should be made clear that I don't see murder as a valid response to
anyone's speech, even those who are crassly attention-seeking and
oafish. Van Gogh's killer should and will be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, just as Fortuyn's was.
That won't please the American latterday converts to the cause: those
like nan and Cleopatra who clearly know nothing of Van Gogh or the
Netherlands in general, and who would, incidentally, be the first to
applaud any restriction on free speech that comes from their own
government (see cases of demostrators being arrested ad nauseam).
Their adoption of the Van Gogh case stems from two sources: their
hatred of Islam, and their hatred of Europeans. It absolutely goes no
deeper than that.
Muslims and Europeans alike can read their posts with a light heart.
Their utter ignorance of either subject, being as it is the source of
their hatred, should be seen as a consolation by both groups. You read
what they spew and you think to yourself, "Gosh, if I'm being hated by
fuckwits like this, I must surely be doing something right."
--
AH
Topaz
>Excerpt:
>"Like most people in Western democracies, Van Gogh, by all accounts a
>brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
>Most of us most of the time do not reflect much on the fact that such
>freedom is an historical exception rather than an historical rule, a
>reversible achievement rather than a free gift of God. There are still
>many who would rather kill than brook any contradiction of their
>opinions or beliefs, even while they live in the most tolerant of
>societies."
Guenter Deckert was arrested and served five years in prison in
Germany for translating a speech by Fred Leuchter into German.
Germar Rudolf
Accused, tried and convicted in Germany. Career and doctorate
dissertation ruined.
Driven into exile.
Background and contribution: This brilliant, German-trained chemist
re-examined Auschwitz, Birkenau and other installations and buildings,
testing
rocks, soil and other physical samples for traces of Zyklon B.
Following the
pioneering work of Fred Leuchter, he put the final nail into the
coffin of the
Auschwitz story. Even though he did scientific work and was utterly
apolitical,
Rudolf's home and office were raided, computers seized etc. He was
charged and
tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As
a scientist,
he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and,
therefore, absurd.
A modern day Galileo, Rudolf was found guilty and convicted because he
refused to
renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings.
He was facing jail
when he went into exile with his young wife and two babies. He now
edits and
publishes devastating refutations of the Allied Propaganda claims in a
German-language journal. The Holocaust Enforcers are dogging his
steps, and he
faces endless hassles and trials, should the "German" vassal
authorities ever get a
hold of him. Z|ndel expert witness in chemistry in the Munich trial in
1991 -
disallowed by the judge at the request of the prosecution.
Ahmed Rami
Tried, convicted and imprisoned in Sweden.
Background and contribution: Rami is a former Moroccan military
officer
living in exile in Sweden, where he used to run "Radio Islam", a radio
program that
was closed down due to Holocaust Lobby pressure. He was tried and
convicted in
Sweden for his Revisionist views and served a nine month prison term.
Now he runs
a much-visited, multilingual website famous the world over, which has
come under
repeated attack by French and Swedish Jewish sources. He won several
court
skirmishes, and for the moment seems to hold his own.
An outspoken German Nationalist was sentenced
Thursday to two
years in prison without parole for "denying"
the Holocaust. Manfred
Roeder, 70, was sentenced for having refered to
the Holocaust as
"humbug" during an August 1998 election rally
in the eastern
German city of Stralsund.
With no First Amendment to protect them,
Germans face legal
action for questioning the orthodox Holocaust
story. The rally at
which Roeder spoke part of his parliamentary
campaign as a
candidate for the National Party of Germany.
His imprisonment
clearly makes him a "political prisoner" in
Germany.
During his trial, Roeder said a tape of his
speech had been
"manipulated and falsified." Roeder asserted
that statements that
would have cleared him were edited out. The
judge, however,
agreed with three witnesses who said the tape
was genuine. The
Roeder case exemplifies the lack of freedom in
today's Germany.
Adapted from: The Associated Press
Thursday, Dec. 2, 1999; 12:52 p.m. EST
Udo Walendy
Convicted and imprisoned in Germany for 15 months, even though
already in his
seventies and in poor health with a serious heart condition.
Background and contribution: A prolific German researcher, writer and
publisher of numerous books and a series of popular booklets called
"Historische
Tatsachen"- ("Historical Truths") including the German version of
"Did Six
Million Really Die?" and the German language version of the Leuchter
Report #1 -
Walendy was dragged before the courts numerous times. His home and
offices were
frequently raided by the police. Business files, books, printing
plates and computers
were confiscated. Z|ndel advisor and witness in the 1985 and 1988
Great Holocaust
Trials.
Austrian engineer, Froelich, says gassings impossible as alleged
Posted by Hannover on June 14, 2000 at 20:57:56:
Deposition of Wolfgang Froelich during the recent trial of Swiss
revisionist Jurgen Graf (condemned to 15 months imprisonment and
18,000 SwF in monetary penalties for investigating the "Holocaust" in
Russian archives and publishing the results, as well as a booklet
titled "On the Decline of Swiss Freedom").
Froelich is an Austrian engineer and an expert witness whose field of
expertise are process engineering and gas applications. He
told the court he has carried out numerous gassings to exterminate
pests and infectious microbes. Here is how he answers the
questions by public prosecutor Aufdenblatten:
Aufdenblatten: "In your opinion were mass gassings with Zyklon B
possible?"
Froelich: "No".
Aufdenblatten: "Why not?"
Froelich: "The pesticide Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a
granular-shaped carrier substance. It is released though
contact with the air. The evaporation point of hydrocyanic acid is
25.7 degrees (Celsius). The higher the temperature, the more
rapid is the rate of evaporation. The delousing chambers in which
Zyklon B was used in NS (German wartime) camps and
elsewhere were heated to 30 degrees and higher, so that the
hydrocyanic acid would be released rapidly from the carrier
granules. However, in the half-underground mortuaries of the
Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories, where witnesses claim that mass
killings with Zyklon B took place, the temperatures were much lower.
Even if one allows for the warming of the spaces by the
body warmth of the hypothetical prisoners, the temperature would not
have been more than 15 degrees, even in summer time.
Consequently, it would have taken many hours for the hydrocyanic acid
to evaporate.
"According to eyewitness reports, the victims died very quickly. The
witnesses mention time frames of 'instantaneous' to '15
minutes'. To be able to kill the gas chamber prisoners in such a short
time, the Germans would have had to use ridiculously large
amounts of Zyklon -- I estimate from 40 to 50 kilograms for each
gassing. This would have made any work in the gas chamber
fundamentally impossible. The special detachment (Sonderkommando)
people, whom the witnesses say were assigned the task
of clearing out (dead bodies) from them (the gas chambers), would have
collapsed immediately upon entering the rooms, even if
they were wearing gas masks. Enormous amounts of hydrocyanic acid
would have streamed out into the open, and would have
poisoned the entire camp".
Froehlich's statement corroborates the investigations and declarations
of such specialists as gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter,
Austrian engineer Walter Lueftl, American research chemist William B.
Lindsay, German chemist Germar Rudolf, and German
engineer Wofgang Schuster.
Now comes another interesting bit. Immediately following Froelich's
statement, here is what public prosecutor Aufdenblatten
had to say to him:
Aufdenblatten: "I hereby ask the court to bring charges against you
for racial discrimination, on the basis of Article 261 (the
Anti-Racism Law) or otherwise I'll do it myself".
So this is how Zyklon B killed all the millions and why "Anti-Racism"
Laws are needed! Defence attorney Stehrenberger could
only inform the court that in view of this blatant intimidation of the
witness , he would withdraw from the case. He later
expressed again his objections to the amazing proceedings, and resumed
his duties as defence attorney. To no avail, of course:
Judge Andrea Staubli (to Graf): "Can't you imagine that Jews feel
offended by your books?"
Graf: "Yes, and many non-Jews as well. The brain-washing has been so
thorough that anyone who inadvertently stumbles upon
the truth would be completely upset".
Staubli: "And don't you care if Jews feel offended by your books?"
Graf: "Edgar Bronfman (the president of the Jewish World Congress)
said recently that Switzerland is like a man who has to
have his feet held in the fire before he sees reason. Can't you
imagine that a Swiss person would feel offended by that? Why is it
that only Jewish feelings are taken into account and never the
feelings of non-Jews?"
Graf got his 15 months and 18,000 SwF. His publisher Gerhard Foerster
-- a 78 years old man suffering from several illnesses,
who needs a wheel chair to go around -- got 12 months imprisonment and
53,000 SwF, assorted financial punishment.
From: David Duke's _My_Awakening_ [Free Speech Press: Covington,
LA, 1998,
pp. 418-419]
A prime example of the persecution of the Holocaust questioners is
the
story of historian David Irving. His books are found in almost every
library in the world. Irving has written more than thirty volumes on
the
Second World War published by a half dozen of the most prominent
publishers in the Western World, including: The Viking Press, Harper
&
Row, Little, Brown, Simon & Schuster, and Avon Books.
The most respected historians in the world, including A.J.P. Taylor,
Trevor Roper, Gordon Craig, and Stephen Ambrose have praised his
works.
He has researched in the German State Archives for more than thirty
years,
as well as in the U.S. National Archives, the British Public Records
Office, the government archives of Australia, France, Italy and
Canada,-
and even the former Soviet Secret State Archives. He was the first
historian to challenge the validity of the widely heralded (and later
debunked) _Hitler_Diaries_ [846] In the course of his wideranging
research, Irving has uncovered many documents that challenge parts of
the
Holocaust orthodoxy.
While he was in Germany, Irving quoted the videotaped admission of
the
head curator of the Auschwitz State Museum, Dr. Francizek Piper.
Piper
had admitted that the facility shown to the world (and more than 40
million visitors) for 40 years - as a genuine Nazi-built gas chamber
- is
not authentic. Polish Communists had actually built it after the
war.
For simply quoting Piper's admission, the governent charged Irving
with
"Defaming the memory of the dead."
Although he had clear evidence proving the truth of his statement,
Irving
was forbidden to present it at his trial or even to call Dr. Piper as
a
witness. For making his statements of historical fact, the German
government fined him 30,000 marks. In "the German State's interest"
they
banned him from using the German State Archives where he had labored
for
more than thirty years, and to which he had donated priceless
collections
of original documents.
The German government has now banned him from the country. Canada,
France, Austria, Italy, South Africa, Australia and many other
nations
have subsequently banned him at the behest of the Jews. His
publishers
have been harassed and intimidated into canceling contracts. He has
been
physically attacked and has had lectures broken up by pipe-wielding
thugs.
In Canada, at the request of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the
authorities
seized, shackled, and deported him from the country in handcuffs.
The
Toronto Globe & Mail asked why he had been handcuffed and then
answered
its own question, 'Did someone think he might use his typewriter?'
With the American tradition of First Amendment rights, few realize
that in
the so-called "Free World" it is possible for a historian to be
jailed
simply for voicing an opinion about a historical event of 50 years
ago.
Speaking inside his home near the U.S. embassy in London, Irving did
an
interview with a French television station, again repeating the fact
that
the main gas chambers shown to tourists at Auschwitz are fakes. For
making this statement in his own living room in London, he was
prosecuted
in the Paris courts. In France, it is illegal to challenge any of
the
crimes against humanity as alleged in the Nuremberg Trials Charter of
1945 - even if one does so in his own home and in another country.
There are those who say that we should not debate aspects of the
Holocaust
anymore than we should debate those who say the world is flat. Yet,
would
any knowledgeable person be afraid to debate an advocate of the flat
Earth
theory? Would he urge the passage of laws to prevent the advocate of
that
theory from speaking, writing or publishing? Would he try to have his
livelihood destroyed, have him fined thousands of dollars, and if
that did
not work, cast him into prison?
I believe in freedom of speech because I am not afraid. I believe
that my
ideas are well reasoned and that I can back up my opinions with logic
and
evidence. In an atmosphere of free and open discussion, I fear not,
for
there is not a truth that I dread. What do the opponents of David
Irving,
or of all revisionists, fear?
Our libraries and schools are extremely well stocked with Holocaust
literature. Newspapers and magazines surge with an endless stream of
related stories. Theater and television screens light up with drama,
commentary, interviews, and images of the Holocaust. It would seem
that
with this much overkill, there should be little to fear from the
David
Irvings of the world - unless of course, they think that his evidence
is
convincing, his reasoning sound and his presentation eloquent. Thus,
to
protect their popular version of the Holocaust, they seek to hound
this
man to the ends of the Earth.
What "historical fact" is so weak that it must be protected by
terror, by
jail, and deportation? What do the opponents of David Irving and the
other
revisionists fear? Are the revisionist arguments so convincing that
their
opponents must use naked political oppression to silence them?
http://www.duke.org
Most countries today do not have free speech. A group that is
doing something about it is the Canadian Free Speech league. They have
lawyers and fight for free speech in the courts. Their address is Box
101, 255 Menzies Street, Victoria, B.C. V8V 2G6, Western Canada.
>
>David Duke is persona non grata - he is a racist.
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
>
>America's foreign policy, as well as the majority of American
>sentiment, supports Israel the sole progressive, democratic state in
>the Near East.
NOT JOURNALISTS_ZIONIST PROPAGANDISTS
From: libb...@hotmail.com <mailto:libb...@hotmail.com> (libby)
Date: 9/4/02 6:46 PM Pacific Daylight
Sept.04/2002
It's important for the American people to know that all those
'American' journalists/talking heads that they see and read in the
Zionist controlled print and electronic mass media are not working for
America's interests. The very fact that they appear on CNN or write
for the Washington Post, for example, conveys the impression in the
minds of Americans that these 'journalists' are loyal Americans who
have America's best interests at heart. They are, in fact, leading
players in a huge deception and manipulation of the American people
that when attached to a cause such as, 'support of Israel', or
'attacking Iraq', is unrelenting in it's intenisty and scope... Fact
is, they
are part of the same ruling elites of mostly Zionists who by now have
a virtual stranglehold on power in America.
And even as I write this, there on CNN's TALKBACK LIVE is Daniel Pipes
of Middle East Forum, propagandizing in favor of a unilateral military
attack on a sovereign nation, Iraq. An act that if committed by any
country other than America, would be considered a war crime and
justification for America to go to war against the invading country.
The following is an excerpt from the foreword to Aldous Huxley's BRAVE
NEW WORLD.
=============
begin excerpt
=============
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by
doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is the truth, but
still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an 'iron curtain' between the masses and such facts or
arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable,
totalitarian propagandists have influenced [public] opinion much more
effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.
===========
end excerpt
===========
In plain English, propagandists don't necessarily need to lie to the
mass audience to control them. By not disclosing critical
facts/information, they ensure that no debate will ever take place on
these critical issues. This omitting of critical facts/information is
one of the very tactics used by CNN and the rest of the Zionist mass
media in America. There are many examples of this tactic and one that
comes to mind is the issue of Israel's weapons of mass
destruction(WMD's). The Zionist mass media in America does not discuss
this at all. They do not want public debate on this issue. One of the
reasons being, of course, that America's great 'ally' Israel stole
it's nuclear weapons program from America. Another issue that the
Zionists keep hidden from Americans is the $3,000,000,000 that goes to
Israel each year, payback from the 'Congress of traitors', no doubt,
for Zionist/Jewish election funding.
So Dear Americans: The next time you see/hear/read the 'work' of the
Zionist 'journalists', Kristol, Barnes, Krauthammer, Blitzer, Kagan
Zahn, Gaffney, Schneider, Limbaugh, Pipes, Kaplan, Lipsky, Zuckerman,
Goldberg and all the others, be aware that they and their bosses are
Zionists and their purpose is to serve the interests of
Zionism/Israel, AND NOT AMERICA. Take everything they say with a grain
of salt and a pound of critique.
=== =====
Roy Libby
=== =====
Truth and disclosure are a deceiver's greatest fears.
ZIONIST POWER STRUCTURE
IN AMERICA
Now that we have established the ruthless and criminal nature of
radical
Zionism, one more lesson needs to be understood before we return to
the five
dancing Israelis of 9-11 and other related stories. Even the Zionists
themselves have never denied that they have long exerted great
influence in
America. But what we must understand is that the Zionists do not
merely
influence United States policy....they dominate it! It is this
domination
that enables them to pull off monstrous crimes and then conceal them
from
the general public.
The observation that Zionists dominate the American media, government,
academia, and Hollywood has been made by many prominent Americans and
is
easily verifiable by public information.
Henry Ford said this:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered
to
the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and
"investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the
disobedient.
Usually a man with a "past" proves the most obedient instrument, but
even a
good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise
him.
It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American
election
campaigns have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which
candidate
was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to
discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him." 33
Charles Lindbergh said this:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership
and
influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our
government.
34
Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under
Ronald
Reagan said this:
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to
them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they
want.
The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American
people
understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they
would
rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes
on."
35
While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation, William Fulbright - US Senator
and
Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee - said this before a
national
television audience:
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned
about
the United States' interests." 36
Nationally syndicated columnist and former presidential candidate
Patrick
Buchanan said:
"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory." 37
And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once
had
the following exchange, which was caught on tape:
GRAHAM: The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or
this
country's going down the drain".
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it" 38
But enough of quoting others. Let's look at the facts of Zionist
control.
FACT: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, UPN, The Washington Post, The New York
Times, The
Wall Street Journal, The New York Daily News, Time Magazine, Newsweek,
People Magazine, US News and World Report and countless other media
and
Hollywood companies all have either a Zionist CEO, a Zionist News
Chief, or
are owned by a media conglomerate which has a Zionist CEO. 39 Have you
ever noticed how Hollywood movies always seem to portray Germans and
Arabs
as a bigoted fanatics or as terrorists? Now you know why!
FACT: AIPAC, the Israeli lobbying organization, is the most feared
lobby in
Washington DC. By their own admission, they are capable of unseating
Congressmen and Senators that do not carry out their requests. The
majority
of Congressmen from both political parties receive large donations
from
AIPAC. Writing for the Nation Magazine, journalist Michael Massing
explains:
"AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in
Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds
of
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Newspapers like the
New York
Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very
intimidating,"
said a correspondent at another large daily. "The pressure from these
groups
is relentless." 40 (emphasis added)
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53>
FACT: The Pentagon is under the control of a hard core Zionist named
Richard
Perle. The civilian Defense Policy Board actually wields more control
over
the military establishment than the Defense Secretary or the generals
and
admirals. There are a number of other Zionists who serve on the board
(Kissinger, Cohen, Schlessinger) as well as non-jewish members who
have
always supported Israel and the expansion of the "War on Terror". The
notoriously belligerent Perle, nicknamed the "The Prince of Darkness",
is
Chairman of the Board. 41
With Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Zionist Paul
Wolfowitz
as Undersecretary of Defense, and Zionist award winner Douglass Feith
as
Undersecretary of Defense Policy, the Zionist Pentagon gang controls 3
of
the top 4 civilian leadership positions of America's armed forces.
Careerist
scoundrels like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are either under
their
influence or unwilling to oppose their drive for WW III. The
Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith gang represent a fanatical and warmongering
"government-within-a-government". In league with these Zionist
Pentagon
conspirators are jewish Zionist and potential 2004 Presidential
candidate,
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and his Gentile partner in crime
Senator
John McCain (R-AZ).
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=706>
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments
that
his government dishes out to the Palestinians, made the following
observation in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:
" We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House
and
Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times,
the
lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not
count
as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now,
when we
have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the
Anti-Defamation
League, , we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight
hours
they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to rain
bombs on
their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the right
to kill
without any guilt." 42 (emphasis added)
And this only scratches the surface of Zionist power! With such
awesome
power to control and cover up events, is it any wonder why so many of
America's journalists and politicians are afraid to even talk about
this
issue? Is it any wonder why former President Bill Clinton would grovel
before a jewish audience and say something as ridiculous as the
following
statement:
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across
the
Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and
fight and
die." 43
I could go on and on at much greater length about this subject, but I
want
to get back to the dancing Israelis. Have I made my point yet?
Subject: THE ZIONIST WHORE
From: "Rasputin" a.se...@worldnet.att.net
<mailto:a.se...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 9/1/02 8:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
<edBc9.46977$Ke2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:edBc9.46977$Ke2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>
AMERICA BECOMES THE ZIONIST'S WHORE
We have reviewed how the Zionists used and discarded Germany. Then
they used
and discarded Great Britain. After World War II, it was clear that the
chief
remaining global power was the United States. Now the USA had never
had any
problem with the Arab people, and had no reason to quarrel with the
Arabs.
For the Zionists to maintain and expand the support they were
receiving from
America, it would benefit them greatly if the Arabs and the mighty US
could
somehow become enemies. Could the Zionists possibly stoop so low? Why
not?
Look at what they had already pulled off! Remember that the official
motto
of the Mossad (Israeli's intelligence organization) is "by way of
deception
thou shalt do war." 26
In 1955, one of these "false flag" operations was publicly exposed for
the
world to see. Israeli agents, impersonating Arab terrorists, were
caught
staging a series of bombings against American installations in Egypt.
27
When this conspiracy was exposed, it ultimately created such a
controversy
that it brought down the Israeli government. The long since forgotten
scandal became known as "the Lavon Affair".
Then again during a 1967 war with the Arabs, Israeli gunboats and
fighter
jets deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, an unarmed US
communications
ship. 28 Thirty five American sailors were murdered and 170 others
injured
in a prolonged Israeli onslaught - carried out in broad daylight and
with
the U.S. flag flying prominently. The intent was to kill all of the
Americans and then leave the Egyptians to take the blame. Israel
denied that
the attack was deliberate but the chilling stories of the lucky
American
survivors clearly contradicts that lie. To this very day, the U.S.
Congress
has never investigated the USS Liberty massacre.
In 1989, the Israelis once again succeeded in framing enemy Arabs in
order
to enrage America. Former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrosvky became
so
disgusted with the criminal behavior of his own government that he
defected
from the Mossad and tried to warn America of just how evil and
dangerous
they were. Ostrovsky revealed exactly how the Israelis framed Libya
for the
bombing of a German night club which killed American servicemen. 29 It
was
this frame up job that caused President Reagan to bomb Libya, killing
the 4
year old daughter of Libyan leader Muamar Qadaffi. France refused to
allow
US bombers to fly over their air space and bomb Libya because French
intelligence knew that Libya was unjustly framed by the Israelis.
Among some
of Ostrovosky's other amazing revelations are: that the Mossad often
uses
Arab agents to carry out missions, that Israeli agents are skilled at
impersonating Arabs, that Mossad had a plan to turn American public
opinion
against Iraq, and that wealthy Zionists in America are often called
upon to
help carry out Mossad missions. Ostrovsky, whose tell all book, By Way
of
Deception, infuriated the Mossad and made him the target of numerous
death
threats. 30
In 2001, the Washington Times ran a story about a 68 page research
paper
issued by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The
research
was compiled by 60 US Army officers as an attempt to predict the
possible
outcomes of deploying a US force to maintain peace between the Israel
and
Palestinians. Here's what SAMS had to say about the Israeli military
machine:
"a 500 pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in
both
Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to
accomplish
mission" 31
Of Israel's Mossad, the officers issued this warning:
"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces
and make
it look like a Palestinian Arab act." 32 (emphasis added)
Why does the US, which is trillions of dollars in debt, gives away
billons
of taxpayer dollars to a foreign government whose military violates
international laws and whose Mossad is capable of murdering US troops
in
order to frame Arabs? Have we lost our minds?
Subject: Bush Must Say 'No' To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail
From: xdange...@aol.com <mailto:xdange...@aol.com>
(XDangerousDNA)
Date: 9/20/02 4:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020920193931...@mb-mc.aol.com
<mailto:20020920193931...@mb-mc.aol.com>>
LaRouche Says: Bush Must Say 'No'
To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail
Statement by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
September 18, 2002
Sept. 18 - I am warning President George W. Bush and European leaders:
If weapons inspectors return to Iraq and an otherwise-certain
Iraq-centered new Middle East war by the U.S. is thus averted, the
governments of the United States and Western Europe must be prepared
to forcefully intervene, to prevent an increasingly more desperate and
psychotic Ariel Sharon's nuclear-armed regime in Israel, the world's
third-ranking strategic nuclear-weapons power, from blowing up the
entire Middle East region, and beyond, with those weapons!
Therefore, I issued the following statement on behalf of my 2004
candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
At an international webcast, before a live audience in Washington on
Sept. 11, 2002, I identified three hurdles that had to be overcome to
avert an Iraq war that would trigger a perpetual "Clash of
Civilizations" religious conflict and a New Dark Age: First, the
United Nations Security Council had to become the venue for dealing
with the Iraq situation, and a reasonable resolution had to be
drafted, that would be agreed to by President Bush, overriding the
Sharon-influenced "war party" within his own Administration's senior
ranks. Second, the resolution had to be accepted by Iraq's Saddam
Hussein, as well as by President Bush. With those two conditions met,
LaRouche warned, the gravest, remaining danger to overcome would be a
berserker move by Sharon in Israel to sabotage the peaceful resolution
and blow up the region.
It was the threat of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iraq in 1991 that
blackmailed the first Bush Administration into launching Operation
Desert Storm. Today's Israel, under the insane Sharon regime, is the
only nation on Earth that genuinely fits the profile of a "rogue
state" armed to the teeth with "weapons of mass destruction." Israel
has the third largest nuclear weapons arsenal on Earth, and a triad of
submarine, missile, and bomber delivery systems, capable of
obliterating the entire Persian Gulf. Israeli scientists have recently
threatened that they now have the capability of launching an
intercontinental ballistic missile, meaning that no place on
Earth--including the United States--is exempt from an Israeli
preemptive nuclear attack. LaRouche asks you: Do you dare dismiss this
threat from Sharon?...
Since the 1956 attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel, until
the 1989-1991 break-up of Soviet power, Israel's access to nuclear
weapons had made it the third "tilt" power in the global strategic
equation.
Already in 1956, it took an experienced military man, President Dwight
Eisenhower, to force Israel to back down from the Suez invasion, after
both Britain and France had withdrawn under American pressure.
Eisenhower not only threatened to cut off all U.S. military and
civilian aid to Israel; he also threatened to remove the tax-exempt
status of all American organizations that provided aid to Israel. An
even more resolute action will now be required from a far-less
qualified President George W. Bush, to stop Sharon from carrying out
either a false-flag "Islamist" terrorist attack against an American
target, or a nuclear attack on Iraq or Iran. This is deadly serious
stuff, and your personal involvement in the effort to stop it is
vital.
Are you prepared to have the Sharon regime in Israel once again
blackmail an American President into starting a war in the Persian
Gulf, out of fear of an Israeli weapons of mass destruction attack on
Baghdad? Do you have any idea what the consequences will be for the
U.S. and world economy, if a new Persian Gulf War, costing American
taxpayers between $2-3 trillion, is launched today, under the current
conditions of a collapsing U.S. economy and a thoroughly bankrupt
world financial system?
I warned that the toleration for the swamp of Sharon agents inside the
Bush Administration, is another grave impediment to the President
taking the urgently required action, in concert with our European
allies and Russia, to stop Sharon from provoking this perpetual war.
In a recent mass-circulation LaRouche in 2004 release, "The Pollard
Affair Never Ended," I named the names of the leading Sharonists
inside the Bush Pentagon and State Department--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
Perle, Doug Feith, David Wurmser--some of whom literally prepared the
foreign policy doctrine of perpetual war for then-Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 1996. These Netanyahu-Sharon Likud
moles inside the Bush foreign policy and national security
establishment are still suspected, now with more and more evidence of
involvement with the convicted Israeli spy, the American-born Jonathan
Pollard.
Since the release and circulation of a million copies of the "Pollard
Affair Never Ended" campaign document, new, even more damning evidence
has surfaced. Therefore, I must intensify my demand for a thorough
national security investigation into key staffers in the Office of
Vice President Dick Cheney, beginning with his chief of staff and
national security advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Libby, a protégé of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for the
past 30 years, has assembled a "shadow national security council" in
the Vice President's Office, which has protected the Israeli agents
nest inside the Pentagon and State Department--and blocked an urgently
needed purge of these Likudniks. Libby has his own longstanding deep
ties to the Sharon circles, including to the Pollard spy ring.
While out of government, Libby served between 1985-2000 as the
personal attorney for fugitive swindler Marc Rich. Rich was indicted
by the U.S. Justice Department in 1983 for tax evasion and for trading
with the enemy, and he fled the United States, establishing a
luxurious hide-away in Zug, Switzerland.
Today, according to Israeli sources, Rich is under investigation, for
illegal contributions to Ariel Sharon's last political campaign. He
has been involved in Russian Mafia operations in Africa, and, through
his Marc Rich Foundation in Israel, has openly financed international
operations of the Israeli Mossad. Libby's law partner and mentor,
Leonard Garment, was a pivotal player in the Israeli government's
damage control effort, following the Pollard arrest in November 1985,
and he served as the attorney for Israeli Air Force Col. Aviem Sella,
the man who recruited and deployed Jonathan Pollard.
Now, Ariel Sharon's regime is Hell-bent on provoking a regional war in
the Middle East, a war pivoted on an Israeli pre-emptive attack on
Iraq. The threat is that, if President Bush does not virtually
exterminate Iraq, and neighboring countries, too, Israel will. This
means the likely use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. All
the while, Sharon's Washington moles are operating under the shadows
of the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense of the United
States. If Sharon is to be stopped from launching World War III in the
Middle East, this entire Pollard stay-behind apparatus must be
thoroughly investigated, exposed, and removed from government--now!
It is time for these Israeli agents and spies to be kicked out of
government, and the Israeli government to desist from its nuclear
blackmail. I demand it. I can not believe that any sane and patriotic
American would not back me up "100%" on this specific issue.
Support me actively on this issue. If you are serious about the
security of our nation and its people, I should be able to count on
you.
<http://www.larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2002/020918isrblackmail>_
prt.htm
the following is the israeli black propaganda article:
<http://www.mediamonitors.net/gillespie1.html>
Israel is the third largest arms dealer in the world. They have
violated
hundreds of UN resolutions and they constitute a threat to the entire
Middle
East, having occupied three countries, Syria (www.ussliberty.org
<http://www.ussliberty.org>) Lebanon, and
Palestine.
So, why not bomb Israel?
<http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=334318>
ISN'T IT INTERESTING HOW THE ABOVE ARTICLE BY FISK IS THE ONLY
PRESS/MEDIA THAT
I HAVE SEEN SO FAR THAT MENTIONED THAT RITTER WAS MAKING REGULAR TRIPS
TO
ISRAEL TO BRIEF THE ISRAELIS AS TO WHAT HE WAS DOING WITH THE UNSCOM
WEAPONS
INSPECTIONS TEAMS IN IRAQ WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
RICHARD BUTLER.
NO WONDER IRAQ WANTED THEM OUT BACK IN 1998 AS I CAN EASILY UNDERSTAND
SUCH
(ESPECIALLY AFTER ISRAEL HAD VIOLATED IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY WITH THE
EARLIER
BOMBING OF THE NUCLEAR REACTOR).
I HOPE SUCH SPYING DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN IF PEACE IS GIVEN A CHANCE BY
ALLOWING
WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ... HOWEVER, I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO
PREVENT A
US ZIONIST-DRIVEN INVASION WOULD BE TO FLOOD BAHGDAD WITH US AND
EUROPEAN PEACE
ACTIVISTS... IRAQ COULD PUT THEM UP FOR A YEAR TO LEARN ARABIC OR
SIMILAR.
OUR BIASED PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA ONLY SOMETIMES MENTIONS SPYING BUT NOT
THAT IT WAS
ISRAELI SPYING VIA UNSCOM... THE BRITISH PRESS/MEDIA PROVIDES MUCH
BETTER
COVERAGE...
Subject: ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE UN WEAPONS INSPECTIONS AS WELL
MANY AMERICANS ARE WAKING UP TO ISRAELI TREACHERY LIKE WITH THE USS
LIBERTY
ATTACK IN WHICH ISRAEL MURDERED 34 SAILORS AND WOUNDED 171 MORE JUST
TO STEAL
EVEN MORE LAND IN THE GOLAN IN SYRIA:
israel should be made to accept UN weapons inspections as well FOR ITS
NUKES
AND CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS:..
Not In Our Name... <http://www.nion.us/> Petition against a war with
Iraq.
<http://www.itsforums.co.uk/zone0/viewforum.php?f=10>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=668>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=643>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=706>
>The Israeli lobby is as ruthless as it has to be to counter its
>ruthless
>opposition.
Charles E. Carlson
Israeli official sources claim that suicide bombers from Palestine
have killed 248 Israeli under the age of 18 years since the Intifada
began in 1987. Human rights groups say 2931 Palestinians have been
shot or bombed to death, including 541 children, in just the last
four years. Men in uniform deliberately fractured the arm of a 10-
year old boy named Kamal, and the life was crushed out of an American
girl named Rachael under a Caterpillar bulldozer. "SUICIDE BOMBERS"
ARE BLAMED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR NEARLY EVERY DEATH IN ISRAEL.
This writer has consistently argued that it is far more accurate to
lay the responsibility for deaths on both sides on the doorstep
of "Christian-Zionist" leaders of American churches and "celebrity
media Christians" who, we find, are more bloody handed than a handful
of young adults with crude homemade bombs. Were it not for these
failed religious men of peace there would be no suicide bombers,
there would have been no Day 911, Iraq would not have been destroyed
and 600 dead American military would still be alive, as would
countless Iraqis who been killed. See ENDING OUR PLAGUE:
( http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/EndPl.htm )
Without Christian-Zionist influence there would be an uneasy peace
between the Muslims and secular Jews who were forced long ago to
share Palestine, and the Christian-Zionist followers who enable war
are proud of what they have done. They are the crucifiers of the
Palestinian people. To see why, we must examine the issues-suicide
bombers, torture and assassinations-in context.
AN EXCUSE FOR MURDER
Israel needs an excuse for its public assassinations policy, which it
claims has killed 327 Palestinians. It is not acceptable before the
eyes of other world leaders to execute a crippled and aged religious
leader, even if he is politically active. Other politicians cannot
help but wonder if one of them might be next. World revulsion is
rising. The excuse offered is that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, 66, founder
and political leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), was
involved in the "suicide bombings." (http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?
rpr/Yassin.htm)
Israel must also have an excuse to build a thirty-foot concrete wall
around three million people. It is not enough to call it a "fence."
Again, the excuse is the "suicide bombers."
Israel's policy of torturing detainees could not exist without an
excuse. Israel's excuse for each and every brutal act is always the
same. But do the acts of the human bombs validate assassination and
torture? The statistics and logic say no.
OBSERVATIONS IN GAZA
I will refer to the Gaza Strip because I have contacts there and
first-hand observations to rely on, having personally witnessed a
missile attack against civilians and interviewed persons and agencies
that specialize in the impact of mass terror on an imprisoned
society. In Gaza I studied the motivation behind the suicide bombing.
Are the acts of the human bombers a valid reason for the murder of
Sheikh Yassin and those who were with him at prayer on a Friday
dawn? Statistical reports from American and Israeli media and
testimony from mental heath agencies in Gaza City say they are not.
Human bombs are a result, not a cause of Israel's ongoing aggressions.
THE TERM "SUICIDE BOMBER" IS ITSELF ORWELLIAN. There is nothing
suicidal about these humans who carry the bombs. It is doubtful that
a single bomber ever "committed suicide" in the sense of carrying out
a bombing for the deliberate purpose of killing himself or herself.
According to the Israeli government, most "suicide bombers" are
unsuccessful and never detonate a bomb. If the motive was to end
their lives, a Palestinian man or woman could hardly pick a less
certain way to do it. They face extreme physical challenges and a
terrible risk of being taken prisoner. There are easier ways to kill
oneself, such as drowning in the nearby Mediterranean or jumping off
a three-story building. The bomber's purpose is to end the lives of
others, which is also the purpose of every "smart bomb" fired by the
Israelis. The bomber's own life is a sacrifice. Suicide bombers are
soldiers without uniforms.
WHERE ARE THE BOMBERS WHO LIVED?
Based on the Israeli claims, the vast majority of human bombs are
killed, captured, or arrested in advance. It is reasonable to
wonder, based on Israel's human right record, if they die a terrible
and lonesome death, for as best I can tell, they are never heard from
again. One must ask, what becomes of them?
People in Gaza have told me the Israeli spy system is the best in the
world; anyone can be watched at any time. Israel no doubt does
discover most bombers before they get started, since the bombers are
operating from within a closely guarded prison. They must first make
a jailbreak in order to carry a bomb out of Gaza into Israel. Theirs
must be a most frightening mission, requiring determination and
extreme courage far beyond what I can even imagine.
The thought of being taken alive by the Israelis while in possession
of a bomb must be terrifying, given the knowledge that capture will
probably lead to a slow, agonizing death far worse than instant
incineration or decapitation. Israeli interrogators are capable of
inflicting suffering more painful than even Mel Gibson was able to
portray in his movie of Christ's death on the Cross. Based on
Israel's record, known to every Gaza child, the Israelis do things to
extract information that Gibson could not dare portray on the screen!
If most human bombers are caught, as Israelis claim, what becomes of
these prisoners? Why do we never hear about them again? I have yet
to hear of a trial of an "attempted suicide bomber." What is done to
the hundreds of young adults Israel says it intercepts? It is time
we found out.
It is also time we found out about the tens of thousands who have
been arrested and who remain in custody, sometimes for years without
charges, simply because they were suspected of something. Sheikh
Yassin lost an eye in a beating he sustained during interrogation
before his release from an Israeli prison in 1991. Israelis did not
spare a quadriplegics in a wheel chair.
Israel uses incidents it brings upon itself to justify its policies.
Thus, when a youth, a man or a woman bomber destroys a bus on which
dozens of Israeli soldiers are probably riding, Israel accelerates
its daily air raids against the civilian population of Gaza. It
never stops bombing, invading, molesting, assaulting, humiliating and
detaining. It only increases or decreases the pressure and the
viciousness of the attacks, all of which are characterized as
reprisals.
GREATLY EXAGGERATED
In the entire 17-year history of the uprising against the occupation,
generally referred to as the Intifada, there have only been about one
hundred human bombs exploded; Israeli government reports are somewhat
confusing as to exact numbers when it comes to the "suicide
bombers." Ariel Sharon reported in a speech during the 2003 Jenin
occupation that there had been 58. Our count is taken from Israeli
Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports. The Israeli Defense Force also
produces slightly conflicting reports in a monthly bar chart
listing "attempts" versus "successful suicide bombings." In February
2004 its charts show a total of 136 explosions from September 2000
through December 2003. Whichever number is correct, 58 or 136, it is
a small number indeed. We will use 100, because we have the name,
age, and rank of every person killed in those 100 reported bombings.
Each human bomb carries a very small charge of explosives--only the
amount one person, sometimes a woman, can carry. Incidents of mass
terror by Israelis using warplanes, tanks and helicopters are much
greater in number and limited in killing power only by how much US
taxpayers will finance. These attacks go on somewhere every night
and probably number in the thousands. The attack I witnessed was one
of three I could hear in the distance in a single week. Mercifully,
it stopped at 4:00 AM after 40 missiles were fired. I photographed
about 20 of them before my camcorder battery went dead.
Shootings and beatings at checkpoints and in homes, detainments and
harassment never end and do not even make print unless a foreign
reporter or photographer happens to be on hand. Palestinian hospital
records and records of humanitarian organizations indicate that as
many as 2000 of their children have been killed by Israeli since the
beginning of the First Intifada in October of 1987, and many more
have been wounded and maimed. It is children of this war who have
grown up to be the human bombers.
Torture of Palestinian prisoners
Torture in Israel is no secret; it is acknowledged at the highest
level of its government, the Supreme Court. Alexander Cockburn,
author of THE POLITICS OF ANTI-SEMITISM, states, "every government
tortures prisoner; Israel is the only one that admits it."
The barbaric practice of extracting confessions from "detainees" by
torture has always been used in Israel and was legitimatised in
Israel by the 1994 Landau Decision. Human rights groups have fought
against the use of torture for some 50 years, and it has been the
subject of many UN resolutions, including one that declared Israel to
be a "terrorist state."
For a few years Israel forbade the practice, probably to get
the "terrorist" sanction lifted, but the Landau decision legalizes
what has always been practiced. * The Landau Commission Report
(CAT/C/16/Add.4) permits "MODERATE PHYSICAL PRESSURE" as a lawful
mode of interrogation. See committee against Torture: Israel. 12/6/94
Any Israeli military or policeman may torture detainees as long as it
can be passed off as "moderate pressure." The problem is, nobody is
allowed to watch to see how "moderate" the torture really is.
Extreme pressure can be applied as long as no one is officially
watching and the pressure does not leave extreme and obvious marks on
the victim. Israel has developed torture methods that do not show
much, but some signs can be clearly seen anyway.
"Torture" is a terrifying word in the English language, too horrible
to contemplate. It is truly an instrument of terror. It is a word
we associate with the sadist Henry the 8th. It is the kind of
terrorism perfected in the Russia gulag by the Bolsheviks. Millions
have migrated to Israel. Alexander Solzhenitzyn's books on life in
the gulag have sections devoted to the interrogation methods used.
Israel has adopted the same methods.
Among the common forms of extreme torture used by Israelis is the
breaking of bones of boys caught throwing rocks. We reported one
such incident three years ago. A 10 year old boy named Kamal Ali
As'idah who lives with his parents and four sisters in Jerusalem was
caught throwing rocks on April 6, 2001 and was "detained" by Israeli
defense forces.
Young Kamal happened to be photographed by a Reuters photographer
while being dragged away by six soldiers much larger than him. So
frightened was the boy that his jeans were visibly soaked with his
own urine. Israelis contemptuously referred to Kamal as "the piss
child."
KAMAL IS ONE OF MANY
What is unique about Kamal's detention is that some Americans
actually went to the trouble to see what happened to Kamal in
detention. His father later told the Editor of Washington Report
that his son was released after eight hours, badly beaten to the head
and legs and with his throwing arm was broken. But this brutality
against the child was not the end of it. As retribution for his
son's act, Kamal's father was fired from his job with an Israeli tour
bus company when the employer learned of the incident.
See the stories of Kamal with vivid photos:
http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/011123pw.htm and
http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/010725pw2.htm
Israelis beat and break the bones of 10 year olds all the time and
the media ignores it. Mid-eastern doctors have told me that men are
often raped with sharp instruments and beaten on every body part,
particularly the genitals. Electric shock leaves few outward marks.
Women prisoners are not excluded from torture.
Selective execution is another form of the systematic physiological
torture inflicted on the entire population of Gaza. Israel's
admitted assassinations of some 327 suspected persons all rely on the
same justification: "suicide bombings." But statistics reveal this
is a flimsy excuse. Physical and mental torture (terrorism) is an
everyday fact of life in Gaza. Civilians are bombed, burned,
incinerated and buried. Everyone knows victims, and reprisals
against families are and always have been standard fare in occupied
Palestine.
Bombing where least expected is a form of psychological torture that
implants fears in the minds of innocent civilians, especially the
children, who learn their parents cannot hide or protect them.
Bombings and the constant threat of bombings are forms of torture
inflicted on every Gazan mother, father and child. They live with the
knowledge that a bomb or tank shell could come through a wall any
time. Children in the camps are killed on their doorsteps by rubber-
coated zinc bullets shot by soldiers who will be held blameless
regardless of circumstances.
I did not feel "awe" at the enormous show of American firepower as I
watched hovering Apaches pounding away from over my rooftop; I felt
anger and frustration that there was no way to resist it. It did not
make me want to leave Gaza; it made me want to be a Palestinian,
maybe even a human bomb if there was no other way.
I began to resent the Israelis at the checkpoints and the American
government's ongoing gifts of guided bombs to be fired from Apaches
and F-16s supplied and paid for by American taxpayers. I resented
the night vision magic that allow the men in the Apaches to see me on
my rooftop without me being able to see them. I resented the
churches back home for their blind enabling of the genocide they
support and faun over but refuse to look at. There is no room for
disbelief in Gaza. When you are there you see the mass torture.
The effect on the people of Gaza was explained to me vividly by Dr.
Eyad R. El Sarraj, founder of the GAZA COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH
PROGRAMME. Dr. Sarraj told me of the epidemic of bedwetting that
plagues the families, who are living in amazingly tight quarters,
sometimes eight or more in a single room. As seen with Kamal, the
brave little rock thrower who the Israelis insulted after breaking
his arm, bedwetting comes from terror.
Dr. Sarraj also stated that his organization systematically tracks
down the families of "suicide bombers," whose homes are always
immediately destroyed. He stated that in every case, without
exception (this was in March 2002) every bomber had witnessed one or
more acts of abuse against his father by the Israelis, such as a
severe beating or a long period of imprisonment. What father's son
cannot understand such an emotion? It made me wanted to go out with
them and throw rocks.
According to a 1993 British Medical Journal study of 1500 Gaza
children, 90% had been tear-gassed, 52% had been beaten, 11.2% had
been detained, 97% had seen their homes raided, and 1.1% had seen
their homes destroyed.
In another study of 477 former "detainees" it was found that 29.14%
required psychiatric intervention, 24.72% had some form of organic
brain damage, and 41.9% had trouble adapting to family life. This
study went on to say, "70% of the children in the Gaza Strip had been
exposed to 4 or 5 traumatic experiences."
(Source: PALESTINE IN TRANSITION, GAZA COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMME)
TORTURE OF DETAINEES
"Detainee" is an Israeli euphemism for someone who is taken away
without arrest or charge, to be tortured and held indefinitely
without contact with the outside world. The detainee disappears just
as the Russians described by Solzhenitzyn disappeared into the "Black
Mariahs" (prison vans) of the gulag. The detainee is allowed no
lawyer or phone call. Some are never seen again, and of those who
are, most report they were questioned and systematically tortured
both mentally and physically.
By torture I do not mean the mild inconvenience and discomfort one
might encounter in any police station in America if you are
arrested. I once experienced painful overly tight handcuffs clamped
on me by a person who wanted it to hurt. It did. My arms may not
have been quite the same for a while, but this is not torture, as the
detainee experiences it. I was not terrorized because I knew the
surly cop would not kill me. I was never afraid, just
uncomfortable. Terror is the fear that comes from knowing you might
be killed and there is no one to protect you. That is what the Gazan
faces when he is detained.
Everyone in America knows that torture is illegal and he will only be
pressed to the point of discomfort. Not so in Israel where tight
handcuffs that cut off the blood and leave little scars and bruises
would be a picnic for a detainee. He faces unchecked deliberate
brutality called "moderate pressure." Israeli style torture has been
carried to the point of death in more than a few well-documented
cases, and permanent physical and mental impairment that cannot be
measured is a routine result of the Israeli policy of violent shaking
considered "moderate force." Abuse that can be detected, like
Kamal's broken arm, is just shrugged off as an accident resulting
from resistance. This is clearly seen in interviews with the Israeli
military in the award winning film, People and the Land (link)
Israel justifies all torture by blaming it on the "suicide bombers."
No matter what it does or how many people it maims and kills, its
acts are always laid at the feet of those few who go on impossible
raids to bomb Israeli targets with a few pounds of explosives by
walking into their very lair and exploding the bomb by hand. Israel
makes no other effort to justify reprisals, detention, assassination
or torture; it offers no explanation for why it executes entire
families because one member is "suspected."
If you debate an Israeli about the bulldozer driver who purposely
mashed an American college student named Rachel Corrie to a pulp,
your opponent will invariably respond that she was defending
suspected "suicide bombers" and deserved her punishment, as did the
homeowners of the house being bulldozed. If you ask about the
deliberate starvation of Gazan children by locking down the Gaza
Strip, just as the USSR locked down the gulags, the answer will be
that the "bombers" cause it.
The separation "wall" that is a functional replica of the Berlin Wall
is, we are told, in response to the "bombers." The raping of men
with sharp instruments while under interrogation, or the crushing of
reproductive organs with batons and boots are all needed because of
the "bombers." Never mind that there were no "suicide bombers" for
the first 39 years of the Israeli conflict and that torture was at it
worst in those early years because there was so little international
interest or concern.
Torture is carried on against mothers and dads by the constant din of
nighttime bombings and the hunger that threatens many. Every act of
brutality, be it the breaking of 10 year old Kamal's arm, the murder
of aged religious leader Sheik Yemeni, the assassination of human
rights protesters or photographers who photograph the wrong scenes,
the building of a wall that encroaches on and cuts up still more
Palestinian land and deprives Palestinians of still more water--all
are excused as responses to the acts of less than 100 young people
who knew they and their people had little or no future.
Israel is perhaps the only country in the world where torture is
legal, and it is not denied. What is denied is that the practice of
brutalizing prisoners is carried out far beyond the allowable limits,
as thousands have reported. Israel practices terrorism
against "detainees" as a method of deterrence. It breaks the arms of
children caught throwing rocks, imposes indecent humiliation and pain
to extract the names of family and friends, and shakes men almost to
death to destroy their brain cells, making some incapable of being an
enemy -all to deter them from standing up against Israel.
The people living in the cantons of Gaza and the West Bank have been
subjected to crucifixion for 54 years. It is documented and
undeniable. Compare this to the frail acts of 100 human bombers who
all died at the end of their mission.
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS (www.whtt.org)
Strait Gate Ministries
P.O. Box 14491
Scottsdale, AZ 85267
480 947 3329 (cec...@whtt.org)
To be added to our list, type "Subscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Film maker Theo Van Gogh advocated against Muslim traditions which
>suppress women. [KKK representative] David Duke agitates against
>ethnic and racial groups.
Exposing the Real Racists
Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been
sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian
Duma (parliament).
----------------------------------------------------------
In 1905, a new book was catalogued in the British Library. Its title
was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it claimed to be
the secret minutes of Jewish elitists who planned to dominate the
world. Most authorities now view The Protocols of Zion as an elaborate
forgery concocted by agents of the Russian Czar.
Over the last century since the book's release, thousands of other
books have been written on what is called the 'Jewish Question'. The
vast majority of them defend the Jewish people from the forces of
'Anti-Semitism', yet still the best selling book on the Jews since
1905 has been The Protocols, which has been published in most of the
world's languages. According to prominent Jewish leaders in Russia,
the popularity of 'The Protocols' has now been eclipsed by a new book
titled Jewish Supremacism. Unlike The Protocols, this book is no
forgery, for its author is proud of his work. He is the controversial
American politician David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House
of Representatives.
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.
If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Richard
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-
separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I
attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign
flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign
national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the
superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.
'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.
In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-
Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very
effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-
Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-
Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects.
But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders
of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up
in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.
While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.
INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT
In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled 'anti-
Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define that
term.
In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.
Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-
'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'
With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.
ON ISRAELI TERROR
Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.
Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.
Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.
In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.
It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.
After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."
>
>It's a serious error to silence Duke which will only drive him and his
>supporters underground to foment hatred and schemes. Keep Duke's
>fanaticism in full view and within hearing distance.
>
>How else can we recognize and reject fanaticism if we don't hear it?
>Afterall,
>that's what happened to the Democrat party's loud campaign of hate -
>rejected!
>
>from Nan
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
nan
Alex, a perspective or viewpoint or opinion cannot be a "lie."
Untruth is a "lie" or a made-up fact is a "lie" or false witness is a
"lie." It is futile to dismiss an opinion you disagree with by
pronouncing it a "lie."
> I'm not saying van Gogh had it coming, but in this new climate
> of cultural uncertainty, the so-called "debate" has been very
> onesided, and framed and directed mainly by the usual suspects
> that inhabit our media enclave, Hilversum.
"...new climate of cultural uncertainty..."
Would you explain what you mean? I see cultural conflict. I am
concerned how cultural conflicts can be resolved peacefully and fairly
for all. At the sad heart of conflict is Israel vs Palestine.
>
> Why is it that the only angle of this debate is about Muslim
> hostility towards homosexuals? As if orthodox jews,
> and orthodox and ordinary christians have no such antipathies?
> Could it be that muslims are a convenient "other" to hang
> discussions about religion and social intolerance on?
Good question. Passive antipathies (bias & prejudice)are not the same
as antipathies that act out in violence and in persecution...and in
murder.
>
> When Theo van Gogh made his little movie and portrayed
> naked "muslim" (were they?) women with fake makeup and
> islamic texts scrawled on them, was he really making a
> statement, or trying to provoke?
Well, we cannot ask him now, can we? How many Americans have seen Van
Gogh's film? Just about EVERYONE is the world knows, or believes,
that the Muslim religious culture severely suppresses women and
imposes tyrannical controls over women, and that Muslim women have
absolutely no means for recourse or redress.
> And if out of 1,000,000 muslims in Holland, 1 of them answered
> the call, is this really such a shock and surprise?
> People keep saying "van Gogh just wanted to provoke". Well
> guess what: he did.
>
> Look at it this way. If during the month of september in 2001, a
> muslim film maker in the US had made a movie ridiculing the
> people jumping from the twin towers, and went on Oprah or
> Jeremy Springer with it, in the name of provocation of course,
> what do you think would have happened?
Oprah and Springer would be assassinated???
> Didn't several non-muslims get shot and killed in the US
> because they looked middle eastern?
Not that I've heard - please CITE!
>I remember one Sikh and an orthodox Christian from Egypt?
Please cite.
>
> Look, we're living in crazy times. However, with all the
> "diversity" we have in the media here, there is a sore lack
> of representation of people of color. Most programs on
> the issue are still "about", not "by", so to speak.
>
> Alex
"People of color"??? What "color"? Skin colours, or races and
ethnicities?
Indeed, "we're living in crazy times" echos back to primal man's first
utterance. You write "...we have in the media here...lack of
representation of people of color." Alex, where are YOU? And WHY the
"lack"?
from Nan
nan
> Alex goes:
>
> >When Theo van Gogh made his little movie and portrayed
> >naked "muslim" (were they?) women with fake makeup and
> >islamic texts scrawled on them, was he really making a
> >statement, or trying to provoke?
>
> Van Gogh repeatedly referred to Muslims as "geitenneukers" --
> goat-fuckers. And he did this in his published media columns.
>
> His film Submission about the abuse of Muslim women was of a different
> order, and in any case was essentially the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
> the parliamentarian. That was her free speech, for which he was
> laudably the vehicle.
>
> When it came to his own freedom of speech, meanwhile, as anyone who
> reads Dutch will know, he was no better than the saloon-bar racist. He
> may have had some valid points to make about integration and cultural
> diversity, but I'm afraid he wasn't smart enough to couch them in
> terms people would take seriously. His published views were boorish
> and oafish.
>
> It's interesting to note, also, that his last project, finished
> shortly before his murder, was a film about another provocateur, Pim
> Fortuyn.
>
> That won't please the American latterday converts to the cause: those
> like nan and Cleopatra who clearly know nothing of Van Gogh or the
> Netherlands in general,
Clearly, we intend to know more about film maker Van Gogh, Rotterdam,
and the Netherlands in general from available sources.
> and who would, incidentally, be the first to
> applaud any restriction on free speech that comes from their own
> government
Listen, Merde Monger, you know very well it is NOT TRUE that Cleopatra
and me would ever applaud restrictions on free speech. Hear this,
Profane Provocateur, there is no evidence to substantiate your "oafish
and boorish" aspersion.
John Kerry's campaign and the Democrat party are fully guilty of
attempts to suppress free speech, to control the media info output,
and oppress the alternative free press as well as the new independent
media. In America, there is NO doubt that all assaults on free speech
and free thought, all attempts to deconstruct the U.S. Constitution
are waged by LEFTISTS. (Don't bring up the idea of an amendment to
define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. There is no need for it.
However, the idea of such an amendment is fair warning to extreme gay
activism.)
As a very defiant libertarian, I condemn "politically correct" speech
as dictated by pseudo-liberals. If someone is a goat-fucker or like
you, a propaganda-hack camel-humper in the tertiary stage of syphilis,
I prefer to use precise earthy attributions instead of dissembling
euphemisms to express my contempt you. For instance, John Kerry is
not an anti-war activist - Kerry is an anti-American traitorous
pro-Maoist activist. His record speaks for itself.
Antagonistic pseudo-liberals (neoMarxist operatives)threaten free
speech. They demand that everyone conform to their singularly
depressant ideology and to their egocentric worldview, and to embrace
their thought controlling NEWSPEAK. Pseudo-liberals stereotype and
revile their enemies with ad hominem warfare. HATE is their Opiate and
their tactics are deplorable.
When you, Mephisto, pompously and "boorishly" cast aspersions upon
Cleo and myself, you earn the contempt of which you are most worthy.
from Nan
Alan Hope
Be my guest. Learn some Dutch. Live there for a while. Get to know
some people.
Reading press reports for expats by expats is not going to get you
very far.
>> and who would, incidentally, be the first to
>> applaud any restriction on free speech that comes from their own
>> government
>Listen, Merde Monger, you know very well it is NOT TRUE that Cleopatra
>and me would ever applaud restrictions on free speech.
Yes, you do.
>Hear this,
>Profane Provocateur, there is no evidence to substantiate your "oafish
>and boorish" aspersion.
You provide it in every post.
>John Kerry's campaign
[snip]
I don't give a fuck about John Kerry, idiot.
>As a very defiant libertarian,
My arse. You're no libertarian. You're a Bushsucker, more than Laura
ever was.
>I condemn "politically correct" speech
>as dictated by pseudo-liberals. If someone is a goat-fucker or like
>you, a propaganda-hack camel-humper in the tertiary stage of syphilis,
>I prefer to use precise earthy attributions instead of dissembling
>euphemisms to express my contempt you.
Insults are not the prime concern of freedom of speech. Van Gogh had
little or nothing to say of any importance, but he took his shallow
views and clothed them in provocative language because it made his
columns saleable.
>For instance, John Kerry is
[snip]
Don't care about Kerry. I just said so.
>When you, Mephisto, pompously and "boorishly" cast aspersions upon
>Cleo and myself, you earn the contempt of which you are most worthy.
From you. BFD.
--
AH
nan
1. I've known three people who have Nazi Germany tattoos on their wrists
and they are NAZI concentration camp survivors - one was a teenaged
escapee.
2. David Duke was the recent head of the KKK.
3. Per capita, American Jews predominate in all professions, the ARTs and
Writing, businesses, entertainment, academia, and other advanced careers.
4. Disraeli was Queen Victoria's favorite Prime Minister.
5. The Bank of Rothschild saved England in World Wars.
6. Joe Lieberman and his wife are my favorite Democrats.
7. I love/hate Noam Chomsky. I despise Marxist Theories and its Manifesto -
Karl Marx was Jewish.
8. The music legacy Leonard Bernstein gave to America and the World.
9. Reference Life Magazine photos, 1945, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
from Nan
nan
Correction: "Cleopatra and I would never..."
from Nan
Topaz
>Topaz:
>
>1. I've known three people who have Nazi Germany tattoos on their wrists
> and they are NAZI concentration camp survivors - one was a teenaged
> escapee.
Only three? I'm surprised you have not met more because there are so
many. There probably were about six million survivors of the camps. By
the way no one denies that there were camps.
>2. David Duke was the recent head of the KKK.
Not recent, but what is your point?
Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"
"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"
"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"
"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"
"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."
>3. Per capita, American Jews predominate in all professions, the ARTs and
> Writing, businesses, entertainment, academia, and other advanced careers.
That is a big part of the problem.
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
>4. Disraeli was Queen Victoria's favorite Prime Minister.
>5. The Bank of Rothschild saved England in World Wars.
They caused the wars.
>6. Joe Lieberman and his wife are my favorite Democrats.
>7. I love/hate Noam Chomsky. I despise Marxist Theories and its Manifesto -
> Karl Marx was Jewish.
>8. The music legacy Leonard Bernstein gave to America and the World.
>9. Reference Life Magazine photos, 1945, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
>
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
Alex
news:hrs1q01ehhbdu735l...@4ax.com...
> When it came to his own freedom of speech, meanwhile, as anyone who
> reads Dutch will know, he was no better than the saloon-bar racist. He
> may have had some valid points to make about integration and cultural
> diversity, but I'm afraid he wasn't smart enough to couch them in
> terms people would take seriously. His published views were boorish
> and oafish.
The quality of debate is very low in my opinion, which is why
I started avoiding the Dutch media about 20 years ago, when
they started going downhill.
There seems to be a very cozy and corrupt relationship
between all the columnists, media "personalities", etc.
Dutch media are very insular, because they are still
divided along political/religious lines, especially television,
which means that everyone who falls into those divides
may be represented, but it also means that there is very
little money for original programming.
That means lots of imported tv series (especially on the
commercial channels, which is great) and lots of talking
heads shows (which really belong to radio) and game shows.
The divisions really haven't changed. VARA (social democrat,
or nowadays, neo-liberal), Tros/Avro (conservative), EO
(evangelical/conservative christian), NCRV (centrist protestant),
KRO (catholic), VPRO (libertarian) and so on.
With the introduction of commercial stations (RTL4/5, SBS6,
Veronica/Fox, Yorin, Net 5) there has been an increase in
commercial serials from the US, which is great. But they
of course don't contribute much of their own programming
except the before mentioned low cost formats (game and
talk shows).
One problem is that psychologically, they never seem
to venture beyond the confines of Hilversum. Which
is why they became so confused at the turn of the century
and gave such a huge amount of attention to egotripper
and self-promoter Pim Fortuyn and his nationally
televised midlife crisis. To quote Hannibal The Cannibal:
"Tedious. Veeery tedious." ;-)
Alex
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> schreef in bericht
>news:hrs1q01ehhbdu735l...@4ax.com...
>> When it came to his own freedom of speech, meanwhile, as anyone who
>> reads Dutch will know, he was no better than the saloon-bar racist. He
>> may have had some valid points to make about integration and cultural
>> diversity, but I'm afraid he wasn't smart enough to couch them in
>> terms people would take seriously. His published views were boorish
>> and oafish.
>The quality of debate is very low in my opinion, which is why
>I started avoiding the Dutch media about 20 years ago, when
>they started going downhill.
>There seems to be a very cozy and corrupt relationship
>between all the columnists, media "personalities", etc.
>Dutch media are very insular, because they are still
>divided along political/religious lines, especially television,
>which means that everyone who falls into those divides
>may be represented, but it also means that there is very
>little money for original programming.
>That means lots of imported tv series (especially on the
>commercial channels, which is great) and lots of talking
>heads shows (which really belong to radio) and game shows.
I've often thought that Dutch TV hasn't yet taken on board the
difference between TV and radio. A lot of programmes have no need of
cameras whatsoever.
>The divisions really haven't changed. VARA (social democrat,
>or nowadays, neo-liberal), Tros/Avro (conservative), EO
>(evangelical/conservative christian), NCRV (centrist protestant),
>KRO (catholic), VPRO (libertarian) and so on.
>With the introduction of commercial stations (RTL4/5, SBS6,
>Veronica/Fox, Yorin, Net 5) there has been an increase in
>commercial serials from the US, which is great. But they
>of course don't contribute much of their own programming
>except the before mentioned low cost formats (game and
>talk shows).
I'm familiar with them.
>One problem is that psychologically, they never seem
>to venture beyond the confines of Hilversum. Which
>is why they became so confused at the turn of the century
>and gave such a huge amount of attention to egotripper
>and self-promoter Pim Fortuyn and his nationally
>televised midlife crisis. To quote Hannibal The Cannibal:
>"Tedious. Veeery tedious." ;-)
I think that's correct. The whole LPF adventure was an absurdity, as
if the British suddenly started taking Benny Hill seriously as an
alternative prime minister.
--
AH
Alex
One reason is that these divisions spread the money really thin.
Holland isn't a big market for media because of the language
(Flanders, Suriname, the Antilles are the only other places
where Dutch is spoken, and they have tiny populations).
This political/religious division is a leftover from the dispensation
that tried to keep the peace in Holland by making sure every
faction had it's own social institutions. This was simply translated
to radio and then television when they made their entry in the
thirties and fifties.
Dutch Reformed, Catholics, Socialists, Conservatives etc. all
had their own soccer clubs, chess clubs, etc. and this simply
translated to the media.
This is of course also the system that was imported into South
Africa under the name "Apartheid" - but without the consensus,
with any democracy taken out and implemented by an Amsterdam
Nazi, Hendrik Verwoerd. But I digress.
> >The divisions really haven't changed. VARA (social democrat,
> >or nowadays, neo-liberal), Tros/Avro (conservative), EO
> >(evangelical/conservative christian), NCRV (centrist protestant),
> >KRO (catholic), VPRO (libertarian) and so on.
> >With the introduction of commercial stations (RTL4/5, SBS6,
> >Veronica/Fox, Yorin, Net 5) there has been an increase in
> >commercial serials from the US, which is great. But they
> >of course don't contribute much of their own programming
> >except the before mentioned low cost formats (game and
> >talk shows).
>
> I'm familiar with them.
>
> >One problem is that psychologically, they never seem
> >to venture beyond the confines of Hilversum. Which
> >is why they became so confused at the turn of the century
> >and gave such a huge amount of attention to egotripper
> >and self-promoter Pim Fortuyn and his nationally
> >televised midlife crisis. To quote Hannibal The Cannibal:
> >"Tedious. Veeery tedious." ;-)
>
> I think that's correct. The whole LPF adventure was an absurdity, as
> if the British suddenly started taking Benny Hill seriously as an
> alternative prime minister.
Kilroy Silk, anyone? Arnold, maybe? (Which may be a little
unfair, because Arnold seems to be a competent politician,
which Fortuyn and his strange band of crooked merry men
and women never were.)
Alex
formica63
Alex:
>>One problem is that psychologically, they never seem
>>to venture beyond the confines of Hilversum. Which
>>is why they became so confused at the turn of the century
>>and gave such a huge amount of attention to egotripper
>>and self-promoter Pim Fortuyn and his nationally
>>televised midlife crisis. To quote Hannibal The Cannibal:
>>"Tedious. Veeery tedious." ;-)
Alan:
> I think that's correct. The whole LPF adventure was an absurdity, as
> if the British suddenly started taking Benny Hill seriously as an
> alternative prime minister.
It can happen. You may remember that a few years back we had one such rogue
politician around: Pauline Hanson. Hanson had been a member of the Liberal
Party (conservatives) but got chucked out over her comments about
aborigines, and stood in her seat, and won, as an Independent. She captured
media attention for a time, making a maiden speech to parliament which
expressed a certain popular paranoia about Australia being swamped by asian
immigrants, and otherwise was a fairly unavoidable and obnoxious media
presence for some years. She was best known, probably, for running a fish
and chip shop, and for various utterances which became symbolic of either
her ignorance, or her "straightforwardness," most notoriously the phrase
"please explain" which peppered her interviews whenever she was asked
something she pretty much just couldn't follow.
This wretched woman formed a political party with a bunch of others who
were, it seemed, rather more virulently extreme than her; dubbed "One
Nation," it attracted a rather startling proportion of the electoral vote in
Queensland, her home state. Pauline herself was charged with electoral
fraud (shenanigans with party membership stuff), convicted, and actually
went to gaol. However, her conviction was overturned on appeal. When in
gaol she befriended a notorious murderer, a woman who'd been involved in
sadistic sex murderers with her partner (husband?), and when she got out she
attempted for a moment to speak as an advocate of this woman, although she
pulled her head in on that one after it became abundantly clear that Pauline
had succumbed to the prisonhouse version of a advertorial pitch, yet another
of the many indications that this woman is thick as a brick. But wait,
there's more!
Vowing never to return to the treacherous domain that is political life,
Pauline returned to political life shortly after. She stood for a senate
seat in the recent federal election. She didn't get one. But at the same
time, she joined the cast of an abysmal reality tv show, "Dancing with the
Stars." And although she is an abysmal dancer, she has won the popular vote
each week, and I believe this week is going to contest the "dance off"
final. My television died on the weekend so I won't be sitting in front of
this spectacle fuming, as I have in the past few weeks. She is dragged
around by some unfortunate professional dancer who does all this incredible
twiddly stuff around her masking, somewhat, her natural inelegance. Anyway,
it's been quite a nauseating return, and what's most disturbing is that the
woman is winning the popular vote for essentially the same incapacities that
won her attention back in the 90s, though this time they are given slapstick
expression. The moral of this story is, I suppose, that reality tv may
provide the nation with an untapped safety valve when it comes to the
lunatic fringe and their electorate. I suggest a "They Shoot Horses, Don't
They" dance off to quench similar appetites in Holland.
--
Formica
email me at formica63atgmaildotcom
OzzieAnnie
who watched that! Of course Pauline used to be a scary, um, girl,
but now that she's just after celebrityhood and stardom, who cares?
(remarks still intact, below)
OA
"formica63" <formica...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:tdvod.45268$K7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
formica63
> You watch Dancing with the Stars?! lololol!! hahahaha!
I'm not proud of it. I watch it to fume at Pauline. And anyway, my tv went
bung and I'm not replacing it until the end-of-the-year work gets done, so I
won't be fuming over her winning the damn thing tonight (if, God save me,
she wins)
I don't usually watch that stuff though, having said that, I'm very pleased
for young Casey Donovan.
>I wondered who watched that! Of course Pauline used to be a scary, um,
>girl, but now that she's just after celebrityhood and stardom, who cares?
I care! How can it be that this wretched woman isn't shunned by mainstream
media? I found the whole One Nation episode to be deeply shameful and the
sight of her galumphing around the studio as some kind of faux celebrity
gives me the creeps. It seems entirely indicative of this country right now
that a racist goon can become a media "identity."
Alex
Yesterday evening I caught the last moments of "Changing Rooms"
on BBC 2 (yes, another "makeover program"). Guess who the
endcredits listed for producer/sponsorship.
ENDEMOL - the company of Joop van de Ende and John de Mol.
The same people who are responsible for the commercial
stations in Holland, which are basically vehicles for commercials.
It's a small world and getting smaller.
Alex
OzzieAnnie
> Ozzie:
>
>> You watch Dancing with the Stars?! lololol!! hahahaha!
>
> I'm not proud of it. I watch it to fume at Pauline. And anyway,
> my tv went bung and I'm not replacing it until the end-of-the-year
> work gets done, so I won't be fuming over her winning the damn
> thing tonight (if, God save me, she wins)
>
> I don't usually watch that stuff though, having said that, I'm
> very pleased for young Casey Donovan.
(me too) (but her win is the first episode I've ever watched, I
swear!)
>>I wondered who watched that! Of course Pauline used to be a scary,
>>um, girl, but now that she's just after celebrityhood and stardom,
>>who cares?
>
> I care! How can it be that this wretched woman isn't shunned by
> mainstream media? I found the whole One Nation episode to be
> deeply shameful and the sight of her galumphing around the studio
> as some kind of faux celebrity gives me the creeps. It seems
> entirely indicative of this country right now that a racist goon
> can become a media "identity."
>
> --
> Formica
Pauline will be become mainstream pc when such a change serves to
elevate her celebrity once again, IMO. Now, John Laws - he's been
famous and icky for eons down here. Whatcha think's gonna happen to
him btw? Anything? (Between him and Alan Jones - man, when I first
moved to Australia I just didn't know how I was going to cope!)
OA
ronniecat
> Vowing never to return to the treacherous domain that is political life,
> Pauline returned to political life shortly after.
*Applause* What a brilliant summation. I laughed out loud. I'd been
wondering what had happened to that utter loon, whose antics made the news
way over here in Canada. Glad to hear she is currently serving in a role
befitting her talents and intelligence.
ronnie
Gray Shockley
(in message <qdg4q0d1o7cts3i71...@4ax.com>):
> I've often thought that Dutch TV hasn't yet taken on board the
> difference between TV and radio. A lot of programmes have no need of
> cameras whatsoever.
That's far superior to much of American teevee and radio.
A lot of the programs have no need whatsoever of audio or video; they just
confuse things. /gray//
Gray Shockley
(in message <41a258fd$0$30596$abc4...@news.wanadoo.nl>):
> One reason is that these divisions spread the money really thin.
> Holland isn't a big market for media because of the language
> (Flanders, Suriname, the Antilles are the only other places
> where Dutch is spoken, and they have tiny populations).
In 1965/66, I was dating a woman whose brother was scurrying around Europe
getting a Ph.D. in Flemish.
He did so and, thus, became one of only two in the U.S.
Undersanding the time and trouble he spent getting this degree and the years
of study, needless to say, we were all immensely proud of him when - after
wading ashore to his homeland - he became a Volkswagen mechanic.
Gray Shockley
Alex
news:0001HW.BDC9A54A...@news.giganews.com...
What's Flemish? Usually it refers to the regional dialects, but I've
met quite a few people who think it is the national language of
Flanders.
Their official languages are Dutch and French.
Flanders and The Netherlands used to be one country. I even
have a great-great-great (I think) uncle who went to war trying
to stop them breaking away in the 19th century.
Alex
Gray Shockley
(in message <41a454c3$0$45957$a344...@news.wanadoo.nl>):
> What's Flemish? Usually it refers to the regional dialects, but I've
> met quite a few people who think it is the national language of
> Flanders.
> Their official languages are Dutch and French.
> Flanders and The Netherlands used to be one country. I even
> have a great-great-great (I think) uncle who went to war trying
> to stop them breaking away in the 19th century.
>
> Alex
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
<http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/F/FlemishLan.html>
------------------------------------------------------
Flemish language, member of the West Germanic group of the Germanic subfamily
of the Indo-European family of languages (see Germanic languages). Generally
regarded as the Belgian variant of Dutch (see Dutch language) rather than as
a separate tongue, Flemish is spoken by approximately 5.5 million people in
Belgium, where it is one of the official languages, and by a few thousand
persons in France. So closely are Flemish and Dutch related that the
difference between them has been compared to the difference between American
and British English; however, some scholars hold that they have diverged
sufficiently since the 16th cent. to be described as separate languages.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright Š 2003, Columbia University
Press.
Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------
Alan Hope
>The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2003, Columbia University
>Press.
>Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
>------------------------------------------------------
That's wrong in a number of ways, the main one being that the national
languages of Belgium, as Alex said, are Dutch and French, and in their
own cantons German. Flemish has no official existence in Belgium.
It would be hard for a linguist to descrive what Flemish actually is.
Nobody speaks it. What people in Flanders speak is Antwerp, or Ghent,
or Brugge dialect. Each of those has the characteristics of a dialect.
Flemish is sort of the umbrella term under which they're all grouped,
but it has no features of its own. It's very much the sum of its
parts.
Your relative or friend or whatever must have been studying Dutch,
which again as Alex says seems to be taken by a lot of people to be
synonymous with Dutch, but in a Belgian context.
It's not. Neither is Walloon a Belgian language, although it is a
dialect. Belgians who are not Flemish, and thus Dutch-speaking, are
Francophone, and speak French. Many of them, in Brussels for example,
don't even live in the Walloon region.
It's all very confusing. I do hope nobody thinks I'm taking them to
task over this. You couldn't be expected to know.
--
AH
formica63
> >
> >> You watch Dancing with the Stars?! lololol!! hahahaha!
Form:
> > I'm not proud of it. I watch it to fume at Pauline. And anyway,
> > my tv went bung and I'm not replacing it until the end-of-the-year
> > work gets done, so I won't be fuming over her winning the damn
> > thing tonight (if, God save me, she wins)
> >
> > I don't usually watch that stuff though, having said that, I'm
> > very pleased for young Casey Donovan.
Ozzie:
> (me too) (but her win is the first episode I've ever watched, I
> swear!)
I can't pretend as much. It's the only election my team's won this
year, so I'm grateful.
Ozzie:
> >>I wondered who watched that! Of course Pauline used to be a scary,
> >>um, girl, but now that she's just after celebrityhood and stardom,
> >>who cares?
Form:
> > I care! How can it be that this wretched woman isn't shunned by
> > mainstream media? I found the whole One Nation episode to be
> > deeply shameful and the sight of her galumphing around the studio
> > as some kind of faux celebrity gives me the creeps. It seems
> > entirely indicative of this country right now that a racist goon
> > can become a media "identity."
Ozzie:
> Pauline will be become mainstream pc when such a change serves to
> elevate her celebrity once again, IMO. Now, John Laws - he's been
> famous and icky for eons down here. Whatcha think's gonna happen to
> him btw? Anything? (Between him and Alan Jones - man, when I first
> moved to Australia I just didn't know how I was going to cope!)
As icky as John Laws and Alan Jones are -- and I grant you there's a
substantial ick factor -- they were not elected representatives
purporting to speak on behalf of my country. And neither comes close
to Hanson and her cohort in terms of intolerance and hateful speech.
I'm not talking about the Lawsian "piss off, pansy" kind of thing, but
deeply unsettling ignorance and prejudice affecting public policy.
Head to head, I prefer John Laws to Alan Jones. I find him less
pompous. I can't imagine what it would be like to encounter it all as
a foreigner. Urk. I doubt anything will happen to them. After all,
they pretty much got away with the "cash for comment" stuff, didn't
they?
Form.
Alex
> Gray Shockley goes:
> >------------------------------------------------------
> ><http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/F/FlemishLan.html>
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >Flemish language, member of the West Germanic group of the Germanic subfamily
> >of the Indo-European family of languages (see Germanic languages). Generally
> >regarded as the Belgian variant of Dutch (see Dutch language) rather than as
> >a separate tongue, Flemish is spoken by approximately 5.5 million people in
> >Belgium, where it is one of the official languages, and by a few thousand
> >persons in France. So closely are Flemish and Dutch related that the
> >difference between them has been compared to the difference between American
> >and British English; however, some scholars hold that they have diverged
> >sufficiently since the 16th cent. to be described as separate languages.
>
> >The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2003, Columbia University
> >Press.
> >Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
> >------------------------------------------------------
>
> That's wrong in a number of ways, the main one being that the national
> languages of Belgium, as Alex said, are Dutch and French, and in their
> own cantons German. Flemish has no official existence in Belgium.
What's more, the dialects spoken in Belgian Brabant and Limburg
sound similar enough to the accents/dialects as they're spoken in
Dutch Brabant and Limburg.
I'd say the biggest linguistic division isn't the Belgian/Dutch border,
but the Rhine river.
The weirdest language I ever heard is Luxembourgish or
Lėtzebuergesch.
They speak it on RTL sometimes during morning programming.
It sounds like a mixture of Swiss-German, French and Dutch.
Alex
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hotel_claravallis/lingua.htm#about
OzzieAnnie
"formica63" <form...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:2b775a08.04112...@posting.google.com...
The cash for comment stuff was fine by me - they're paid
entertainers afterall - but it was the *Aussie public* that was
shocked about that, because they'd taken those same comments to
somehow be "official and true". I don't see how they "got away with"
anything. The public conferred some weird authoritative status on
those guys. I also
have always preferred Laws to Jones (IIRC - haven't listened to
either in years), but I forget why. My question (above) about Laws
was about - didn't someone sue him for defamation or something
recently, vis a vis his pansy talk? I thought he still might be in
trouble for that, legally speaking. I didn't hear any of his talk
firsthand though. Anyway,
Pauline did not ever speak on behalf of the country nearly as much
as Laws and Jones, IMO (elected or not). Granted, her ignorance
surpassed almost anyone's anywhere. I have hope for her though. I
think she has already wised up some, as much as she is able, and
someday she will change her tune big time. What was frightening to
me is that
I have contact with some long-term Alan Jones fans (who is much more
influential than Pauline can ever hope to be) who LOVED Pauline
Hanson and all she stood for. I mean, these were/are people who -
well, they ought to know better. It was shocking to me at the time;
I was gobsmacked.
Anyway.
OA
nan
//maarten.typepad.com/brusselsblog/2004, "Live from Brussels":
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 05, 2004
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" = racist
UPDATES HERE
(via LVB: Tolerantie (1).) In the Netherlands, artist Chris Ripke
reacted to the murder on Theo Van Gogh by an islamic fundamentalist by
painting a mural with the text "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not
Kill"), one of the ten commandments of the Christian religion.
But because the head of the nearby mosque complained to the police
that this was 'offensive' and 'racist', the cops came and sent in city
workers to sandblast the mural. A local journalist, Wim Nottroth, who
wanted to protest against this by standing in front of the mural was
arrested. His story, in Dutch, here. Video of the event, here.
It has come to this.
In my opinion, free speech is something absolute. "Thou Shalt Not
Kill" or "All infidels must die" both deserve equal protection. Mind
you, as speech. Not as actions. I firmly believe that if everybody
is free to shout out his opinions as loudly as possible, it becomes a
whole lot easier to spot the dangerous people.
And then, via more free speech, it becomes possible to make them see
the error of their way, or at least drive away supporters by exposing
their 'funny' ideas.
Also, the moment they make a move to put ideas into practice that harm
others, it's a whole other ballgame. Talking about killing somebody
is okay, buying a gun to do it and staking out his house is not.
And it would be a whole lot easier for the cops to arrest some loon on
a stakeout if he has been allowed to loudly trumpet his intentions
before that. I'm just saying...
November 05, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1373532
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
= racist:
» They Still Haven't Learned Anything from inadmissible evidence
In this country the Ten Commandments (or maybe in this day and age we
should call them the Ten Suggestions) were removed from a courthouse
for the purpose of the separation of church and state (even though
that phrase appears [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 06:46 PM
» The War for Europe Continues with one side fighti from The Pink
Flamingo Bar Grill
Should anyone be wondering if the war continues, wonder no more. Look
to the Netherlands where an artists wall mural of a Dove with the
words Thou Shalt Not Kill was sandblasted after the head of a local
Mosque protested that it was racist, look and ... [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 07:52 PM
» Speechless in the Netherlands from Foolippic
Live From Brussels: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" = racist In the Netherlands,
artist Chris Ripke reacted to the murder on Theo Van Gogh by an
islamic fundamentalist by painting a mural with the text "Gij zult
niet doden" ("Thou Shalt... [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 08:51 PM
» CLUELESS IN ROTTERDAM from Peaktalk
Roger has asked me to translate what happened here. I checked the
various Dutch online news sources and apparently Dutch police forces
have been given instructions from high up the command chain to take on
any expression that could lead [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 10:13 PM
» CLUELESS IN ROTTERDAM from Peaktalk
Roger has asked me to translate what happened here. I checked the
various Dutch online news sources and apparently Dutch police forces
have been given instructions from high up the command chain to take on
any expression that could lead [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 10:27 PM
» More self-delusion in Holland from DANEgerus Weblog
Terrorist acts prevented are defeats in that the danger is
dismissed... One death isn't enough... a 311 isn't enough...
self-delusion serves the agenda and so it will take a 911 to awake the
Dutch. Sadly... [Read More]
Tracked on November 6, 2004 12:31 AM
» "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is racist? from Rajan Rishyakaran
Who knew? What else commandments of the Bible is racist, BTW? Just
need to know just in case I make an offensive bookmark or the like.
And I haven't commented on Theo van Gogh's murder. Perhaps hi... [Read
More]
Tracked on November 6, 2004 03:27 AM
» Saturday reading from Darleen's Place
I realize that the Left would take Kerry's loss hard and the last few
days of whipsawed emotionalism from the usual moonbat quarters -- from
depressed whining to seething anger -- was not entirely unexpected. I
had hoped a few... [Read More]
Tracked on November 6, 2004 05:49 PM
» Thou Shalt Not... from Common Sense and Wonder
The commandment 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is apparently rascist and
offensive to Muslims. In the Netherlands, artist Chris Ripke reacted
to the murder on Theo... [Read More]
Tracked on November 6, 2004 06:04 PM
» Theo Rests His Case from The Tears of Things
"Nobody wants to shoot the village idiot." -- Theodore van Gogh,
filmmaker, shot dead at 47. "If someone puts a bullet through your
brain, I'll complain." -- Cole Porter by Jerome du Bois Popular media
blogger Greg Allen of greg.org... [Read More]
Tracked on November 7, 2004 02:42 PM
» Muslims and Pink Bunnies from Vessel of Honour
Hmmm, it came to my attention that Michael "I'm Already Super Sized"
Moore has nothing on his website regarding the recent murder of Dutch
filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Islamic terrorists. So what does he have
up? Yep, more Bush... [Read More]
Tracked on November 7, 2004 06:29 PM
» Dhimmitude: Coming Along Nicely from Mean Mr. Mustard 2.0
Via LGF, read this article about Dutch Muslim reaction to the Van Gogh
murder. One man responded to an imam who said that the killing was
wrong: This man (the imam) has given his personal response. He's not
expressing everyone's... [Read More]
Tracked on November 8, 2004 07:29 AM
» Round 1 in Holland: Islamofascists 1, Western Civilization 0. from
Alarming News
A Dutch artist, Chris Ripke, reacted to the murder of Theo Van Gogh by
putting up a mural, on the wall of his studio, with the words 'Thou
Shall Not Kill'. The head of a nearby mosque proclaimed the mural...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 8, 2004 06:16 PM
» http://www.uncorrelated.com/archives/2004/11/sometimes_it_is.html
from UNCoRRELATED
Sometimes it is the "small news" that reveals most about larger
events. In response to the murder of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch artist
named Chris Ripke painted a mural featuring the words, "Thou Shalt Not
Kill". However, city workers... [Read More]
Tracked on November 8, 2004 06:49 PM
» "Thou Shalt not Kill" Update from Live From Brussels
LVB has updates on the story: Tolerantie (3) (in Dutch). [Read More]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gray Shockley
(in message <rl6aq0h1nqdr65n35...@4ax.com>):
> Your relative or friend or whatever must have been studying Dutch,
> which again as Alex says seems to be taken by a lot of people to be
> synonymous with Dutch, but in a Belgian context.
>
Um,m,m - One of the very specific points made that this particular Ph D was
only the second in the United States.
But and however <grin>, I just e-mailed said old girlfriend and asked for
update so we shall see.
> It's not. Neither is Walloon a Belgian language, although it is a
> dialect. Belgians who are not Flemish, and thus Dutch-speaking, are
> Francophone, and speak French. Many of them, in Brussels for example,
> don't even live in the Walloon region.
>
> It's all very confusing. I do hope nobody thinks I'm taking them to
> task over this. You couldn't be expected to know.
Oh, no; it's great! As we'all say down chere in Mississippi, that thar
larnin' - specially that thar buch learnin' - it just be all kinds of good.
Gray
nan
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:8f49fa86.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > from frontpagemag.com
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered
> > By Theodore Dalrymple
> > City Journal | November 17, 2004
> >
> > The slaughter of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam,
> > in broad daylight, by a young man of Moroccan origin bent on jihad,
> > has at last dented Dutch confidence that unconditional tolerance can
> > be on its own the unifying principle of a viable society. For
> > tolerance to work, it must be reciprocal; tolerance appears to the
> > intolerant jihadist mere weakness and lack of belief in anything.
> > Unilateral tolerance in a world of intolerance is like unilateral
> > disarmament in a world of armed camps: it regards hope as a better
> > basis for policy than reality.
> >
> > brash and combative man, took his freedom of expression for granted.
> > freedom is an historical exception rather than an historical rule, a
> > reversible achievement rather than a free gift of God. There are still
> > many who would rather kill than brook any contradiction of their
> > opinions or beliefs, even while they live in the most tolerant of
> > societies.
> >
> > But why kill Theo Van Gogh, of all the people who have expressed
> > hostility to radical Islam? Perhaps it was mere chance, but more
> > likely it resulted from his work's exposure of a very raw nerve of
> > Muslim identity in Western Europe: the abuse of women. This abuse is
> > now essential for people of Muslim descent for maintaining any sense
> > of separate cultural identity in the homogenizing solution of modern
> > mass society.
>
> Lie.
>
NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR EXPATS
IN THE NETHERLANDS - 30 NOVEMBER 2004
MP vows follow-up to film 'Submission'
Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is working on a follow-up project to
Submission, the controversial film made with murdered filmmaker Theo
van Gogh.
Arabic interpreters to yield terror tips
The Dutch crime stopper telephone line has employed Arabic
interpreters to cope with the flood of calls over suspected Islamic
terrorism.
Landmark unmasking of Van Gogh suspect
A photograph of the man accused of killing Theo van Gogh will be
broadcast on Dutch television on Monday night, following a landmark
decision to waive the normal prohibition on identifying suspects.
Cocaine seized in tomb foundations
Police arrested people last week and seized 70kg of cocaine that was
hidden in foundations for tombs originating from Mexico, the public
prosecutor revealed on Monday.
Dutch news in brief, 29 November 2004
EUR 4.5 million in extra security for Schiphol; Leiden to gain world's
largest wireless network; 600 asylum seekers disappear in 12 months;
Greens urge scrapping of environment ministry; Builders hurt in shed
collapse; Sinterklaas 'at risk' from Santa.
Dying for a fair trial
British expat Kevin Sweeney says he is prepared to die on hunger
strike in a Dutch jail to prove he isn't a murderer. The prosecution
describes him as a clever manipulator who killed his wife for her life
insurance money.
Also:
A place of prayer or violence?
Tolerance in the face of terror?
The Netherlands needs you!
Arson attacks and vandalism against mosques and churches in the wake
of the murder of Theo van Gogh threatens to undermine social harmony
in the Netherlands. What will you do to help quell the crisis?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Little brother's watching you
A new survey has found that over three quarters of computers in
Belgium and the Netherlands are infected with spyware, viruses or
other malicious programmes. We find out more.
Also:
We won't be scapegoats for Van Gogh killing
[poll]The Netherlands needs the new anti-immigration party being
formed by independent MP Geert Wilders?
Yes
No
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex, it's important for the world to be informed about Holland's
reaction to the Van Gogh murder, to terrorism and immigration as well
as the political aftermath. With 1 million Muslims in Holland, nearly
the same number in France and in England, how Holland deals with
roiling culture conflicts is relevant.
USA has its own anti-immigration issues.
from Nan
> I'm not saying van Gogh had it coming, but in this new climate
> of cultural uncertainty, the so-called "debate" has been very
> onesided, and framed and directed mainly by the usual suspects
> that inhabit our media enclave, Hilversum.
>
> Why is it that the only angle of this debate is about Muslim
> hostility towards homosexuals? As if orthodox jews,
> and orthodox and ordinary christians have no such antipathies?
> Could it be that muslims are a convenient "other" to hang
> discussions about religion and social intolerance on?
>
> When Theo van Gogh made his little movie and portrayed
> naked "muslim" (were they?) women with fake makeup and
> islamic texts scrawled on them, was he really making a
> statement, or trying to provoke?
> And if out of 1,000,000 muslims in Holland, 1 of them answered
> the call, is this really such a shock and surprise?
> People keep saying "van Gogh just wanted to provoke". Well
> guess what: he did.
>
> Look at it this way. If during the month of september in 2001, a
> muslim film maker in the US had made a movie ridiculing the
> people jumping from the twin towers, and went on Oprah or
> Jeremy Springer with it, in the name of provocation of course,
> what do you think would have happened?
> Didn't several non-muslims get shot and killed in the US
> because they looked middle eastern? I remember one
> Sikh and an orthodox Christian from Egypt?
>
