If one can't afford children, one should not have children. (Edited)
RFHall
Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
responses.
The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children. I have chosen to use the
pronoun "one" in the predicate because it is a decision that should be
considered by each of the prospective participating parents.
This simple moral imperative seems extremely reasonable and rational,
yet it has the potential of causing considerable angst and is
generally not noticed. I am presenting it primarily in opposition of
the idea that one should "go forth and multiply and the Lord will
provide". This is the commonly promoted moral imperative. However,
apparently, the Lord doesn't always provide.
It would have been advantageous if this moral imperative were the
eleventh commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a
footnote in a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see this
statement then, or now.
The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation,
poverty, crime, and human suffering could be drastically reduced if
this simple rule were shouted from every religious and secular media
till it reached the mind of every human on earth and became "common
sense".
Some people will claim that the goal of this predicate is impossible
to achieve due to the question of biological imperatives and
practicalities. These doubters would suppose somebody who can barely
feed themselves will never have the discipline, or desire, to acquire
and use condoms or abstain. No food, no sex, and no children would be
too much to expect. This is only an assertion. The effect of
education can not be undersold.
Some people will think this moral imperative is somehow discriminatory
toward the poor. However, even though those who can't afford children
are usually poor; poor people can often afford to feed, clothe,
educate, and shelter their children.
Some people worry that this moral imperative is the "slippery slope"
toward forced sterilization of the poor? Vasectomies and tubal
legations should be available for everyone, poor or otherwise. There
have been condoms and abortions freely available to some populations.
There is evidence that many women would take advantage of tubal
legations if they were freely offered on a voluntary basis. Women,
much more than men, have a direct emotional reaction to watching their
children starve. Men are often absent and self-absorbed.
The principle does not preclude efforts to effect socio-economic
change toward a more equal and prosperous society where everyone can
afford children. Some affluent countries have achieved this.
Naturally when one can afford children it no longer applies. It
should be noted that there are a variety of conditions under which
people who can't afford children exist. One end of the continuum
takes place in some areas near the equator where children are born
into horrid squalor with no possibility of relief other than charity
for a few. The other end of the continuum is affluent countries where
single mothers are given housing, clothes, education, and food to
raise their children. The former end elicits empathy and sadness for
the condition of the children, while the latter end is upsetting to
some in that society is asked to take responsibility for their poor
decisions.
There will always be those who point out exceptional individuals who
were conceived in squalor and saved through charity. The point being
that they would not be alive if this moral imperative were in general
acceptance. In this retroactive thinking, there's always a question
as to whether so many children should suffer so horribly so one child
can thrive. This even opens the door to the rights of unconceived
children. This is irrational.
Eugenic aspects have been suggested in that this imperative would
diminish the population in specific ways. This might be the case if
one were to dissuade those who know they have heritable diseases from
having children. Other than that, no consistent genetic
characteristics can be specifically assigned to this population.
The only hope is that the rationality and enlightenment represented by
this moral imperative, as much as anything else, simply serves to
abate ignorance and suffering. If enough people in positions of
influence repeated it; then, it could eventually become the
politically correct view and its logical simplicity would become
broadly accepted.
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.
Julian
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>
> Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
> responses.
>
> The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
> shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children.
Thank God the Judeo-Christian heritage is not my heritage.
As for spamming websites... I can do that.
RFHall
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
Julian
> Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
LOL
Leona wouldn't have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!
Julian
> Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
ps. Congratulations on turning the old
"The Devil has the best tunes" adage on it's head.
Topaz
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..
Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down..
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
RaaN
This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Would you please just quit it?! No one but you is proposing a
regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you're trying
so hard to justify it's gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You're falling behind ;)
--
RaaN
Julian
> On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RFHall wrote:
>>> Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
>>> Here it is:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
>> LOL
>>
>> Leona wouldn't have made it as far a conception
>> under the regime propsed by you!
>
> Would you please just quit it?!
Possible but unlikely at this time..
>No one but you is proposing a
> regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you're trying
> so hard to justify it's gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
> and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
> already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
> children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
> faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
> chanting nonsense syllables already. You're falling behind ;)
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
tara
(in article <sLGdnRV00cHTWBbV...@bt.com>):
I understand Robert's point of view on this subject and I also understand
Raan's.
I have known intimately young mothers who 'work the system' and continue to
have kids because the government will support them. (this has nothing to do
about whether they love their kids ot not).
It's kind of like: "This is something I can do - have kids. Makes me
important somehow. The government thinks so, so must be so,
There is a certain mentality with these mothers that seems to continue thru
generation upon generation. Raan is right about this. They truly think that
society owes them.
Maybe we do. They are not the majority who receive mother's allowance
benefits.
But what do you do? In a democracy, there will always be those who abuse.
What other choice have we?
"The poor will always be with us"
ara
halfawake
Julian, your art rocks. Being reminded of your web address is the only
"spam" I've really appreciated in a while.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Julian
There maybe a few "local" issues in some developed countries, the UK for
example,
but I'd be very surprised is the "welfare mom" problem was statistically
significant
generally. I suspect the vast majority of children are born without such
facilities.
I didn't really catch much of an impression that Hall was particularly
concerned
with the "welfare mom" issue but he reeked of a far more vicious mindset.
brightshi...@gmail.com
tara wrote:
> ara
>
>
Hi Tara.
Well, I'd just like to re-emphasize that I never advocated young
single women having children. I *would* actually discourage that,
whether they were going to get government assistance or not. My
advocacy of the right to bear children was most centrally directed
towards poor couples who wanted to raise a family. I don't doubt that
others have rights to have children, but I don't feel as strong a need
to advocate for them. I most especially want to protect the right of
poor people to have *families,* not just to *have children.* I hope
that makes my view a little bit more clear. I do think it's
irresponsible to have a child without thinking about it, planning it,
and making sure that you are going to take on the responsibility of
raising that child with love and care. I just don't think that one's
income should be the main determining factor in making that decision.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = =
RaaN
> tara wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:46:04 -0400, Julian wrote
This quasi- discussion is already grown into two threads and as far as
I am concerned at this point that's two too many and I see no point in
further belaboring the obvious so argue without me.
--
RaaN
Evelyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
It sure does. I still have a color print of one of his pieces
hanging on the wall next to my computer. A series of descending
buddha faces, with wonderful rays of color in the background. Good
stuff, Julian.
Evelyn
Topaz
wrote:
No, it's a Jew thing.
Crusading 1990s paper was mercilessly attacked -- and destroyed --
when it led one crusade into forbidden territory; a personal story.by
Jack Killey
QUESTION: Do you really believe the Jews own the media?
Answer: Most of it, yes. But they don't have to own it to control it.
An object lesson in this distinction was the downfall of northeastern
Ohio's The Gateway Press, a general interest newsweekly to which I
devoted seven years of part-time work. A fierce smear campaign and
unremitting advertising boycott by Cleveland-area Jews -- many not
even in our circulation region -- caused the forced sale of a
newspaper that many readers trusted to deliver at least an
approximation of the truth about events in their communities...
But only 850 words on Clinton's appointments reduced our county, after
twelve years of an alternative, to its former bland diet of
one-newspaper pabulum. A barely measurable percentage of our
readership, none of whom ever refuted the commentary on its
particulars, managed to deprive some 48,000 readers of a reliable news
source in their communities. The Jews' "persecuted minority" mantle
is, I suppose, apropos for a race that showed a gift for the
theatrical long before they created Broadway and Hollywood...
The commentary in question was published, as all my many commentaries
were, as my personal opinion, not as the editorial position of the
newspaper. The piece can be easily synopsized. I pointed out the high
percentage of Jews among Clinton's appointees, hardly representative
of his stated goal to have an administration that "looks like
America." I wondered how this might affect American foreign policy
towards Israel, and (this was the part that brought in the big guns
against us) ventured the opinion that this facet of the Clinton
administration was being deliberately obscured by a Jewish-dominated
American media establishment.
You'd think I'd written a glowing reconsideration of Mein Kampf. My
editor's phone started jumping off her desk. Sales reps were screamed
at and thrown from premises by red-faced merchants who had previously
described us as an asset to the community. One of the more prominent
Jewish businessmen in the area wrote the editor a venomous letter
(specifying, of course, that it was not for publication) telling her,
"You can't say whether or not you're an anti-Semite. Only we can
decide that."
Do you think the surrounding media establishment came to the defense
of one of their own embattled members as the pot began to boil beyond
the boundaries of Portage County, Ohio? Do you suppose that perhaps
they'd defend the First Amendment right of a 12-year-old mainstream
newspaper to publish controversial opinion articles? Think again.
It took the Newhouse-owned Cleveland Plain Dealer about ten working
days to run a lead editorial titled "One For the Fish," written by
Plain Dealer staffer Carolyn Davis, a Jewess who in a personal whine
piece once stated her wish that every gun be wiped off the face of the
Earth (no liberal bias here). Carolyn was mad, and maybe a little
jealous that I could write circles around her. She at least quoted the
commentary's best sentence, which was that Clinton "seated enough
white European males to ensure that America will be ruined in a
competent, intelligent, and well-organized fashion." Otherwise it was
the stock denunciation of "anti-Semitic . . . crap," seething with
horrified disbelief that anyone could suggest that Jews control
America's media. Let's see, a Jewess writer for Ohio's largest - and
Jew-owned --newspaper attacks a rural Gentile-owned weekly in a lead
editorial . . . doesn't sound like control to me.
The Cleveland Jewish News was even more generous, allotting a full
page to editor Cynthia Dettelbach herself rather than an underling. An
equally unexceptional attack it was, bristling with weasel words and
broad smears, but contradicting none of the commentary's content with
opposing facts regarding Clinton's appointees. I imagine the Jewish
News, like most of the other Jewish organs in the country, ran
bannered praise of Clinton's favoritism towards Jews in his
administration. I guess it's only impolitic for Gentile publications
to notice it, another point I made in the commentary.
This sort of notice by large media organs goes beyond "coverage" of a
hot topic. Neither publication took any interest in the community
served by The Gateway and probably cared even less who we, the paper
covering it, were.
The Newhouse-owned Akron Beacon Journal ran no editorial hate pieces,
but they stayed on top of the unfolding events around that
"anti-Semitic" newspaper in Streetsboro. The Plain Dealer nominally
covered our county, but we beat them regularly in an area they usually
assigned to worn-out hacks in their Summit County bureau. The point
is, the sudden interest and overbearing coverage of a heretofore
unnoticed region of their circulation area was looking mighty
selective. We had touched on a topic that was . . . unpermitted. A
Jewish topic. And they were going to make sure that the publication
impertinent enough to raise the thorny issue of Jewish power in the
American oval office and the American media wouldn't publish for long.
The point man in the effort -- the visible one, anyway -- was Jerry
Brodsky, a Jewish principal in the largest and most affluent public
school district in our county. His most recent claim to fame had been
his opposition to the display of a Christmas tree at the predominantly
Gentile school he governed.
Also an attorney and a resident of Beachwood, a heavily-Jewish and
affluent Cleveland bedroom suburb, "Jerry the Jew," as he became
less-than-affectionately known in the Gateway office, mounted a
secondary advertising boycott against us, sending high-minded letters
to many of our advertisers warning them of the business to be lost if
they continued to advertise with us. He wrote the letters under his
legal letterhead, though he took care to remind recipients this wasn't
official business (although he did remind them of his important
position in the school district).
I don't think Jerry the Jew really scared anyone off, but he kept up
the momentum; the big advertisers who dropped us did so on their own
hoof. Jewish Rite Aid CEO Alex Grass suddenly took a personal interest
in the ad account of his rundown shop fifteen miles from us and pulled
their ads, declaring his offense at the article in a letter to us; Jew
Albert Klaben of Klaben Auto Stores, one of the region's
biggest-volume auto-supply chains, was equally miffed and yanked his
ads. Both were important accounts. Several smaller but regular
advertisers pulled one by one, and a large Cleveland-area grocery
chain, Gentile-owned but with stores in heavily Jewish Cleveland
suburbs, began shuffling their feet and "reconsidering" their account
in phone calls and letters to my editor. Nervous local Gentile bankers
and realtors called with weak offers of continuing support, but whined
about all the "bad publicity" we were getting...
I thought back to a mysterious anonymous caller, a not-unfriendly
and apparently Gentile woman with a patrician accent who contacted me
early in the fray. She calmly told me the history of "the boycott,"
meaning not the current one against us but the
historical prototype of it, and said, "Your paper will be out of
business in eighteen months." It took, I think, fourteen.
What I found significant throughout this process was the outsized
influence wielded by a small clique, and a clique who would normally
have had no special interest in our paper or in our region, which is
largely rural and probably 99 percent Gentile. Even had a genuine
boycott been carried out its effect would have been negligible. Bad
publicity seems to have been the boycott's purpose; since the largest
advertisers who pulled were Jews, a phone call to them from Brodsky or
the Jewish News or the Cleveland ADL probably would have sufficed.
Another feature of the boycott that struck me was the powerlessness of
our Gentile readers, many of whom were outraged by the attack on us.
We weren't lacking in support from our readership, some of whom were
courageous enough to register their agreement with the commentary in
our letters column. I found encouraging the number of readers who told
me privately their feelings on Jewish power in U.S. politics.
Unfortunately, they didn't wield the power the Jews do among U.S.
merchandisers, bankers, car dealers, and realtors, the people whose ad
dollars support small (and large) newspapers. It shouldn't have
surprised me.
I had to laugh at Carloyn Davis's description of "Jewish media power"
in the Plain Dealer editorial as a "bigoted buzz phrase that goes back
decades." One doesn't have to sample overtly "racist" writings to
encounter references to Jewish media control, and they date back much
farther than decades. When I see past allusions to Jewish press power
from the pens of such august and "establishment" figures as historian
W.E.H. Lecky, Winston Churchill, Hillaire Belloc, or Sir Richard
Burton (among many others), two things cross my mind.
One is the casual manner of its mention, as though these writers are
noting that the sky is blue. Lecky, for example, in his late
nineteenth-century masterpiece "Democracy and Liberty," devotes a
paragraph or two to Jewish domination of the Russian press under the
Czars (he attributes at least some of the resentment the average
Russian felt for the Jews during the pogroms to this influence). No
earnest attempt is made to convince the reader of a doubtful precept,
no long lists of proofs are proffered: not because they couldn't be
produced, one senses, but because it simply isn't necessary to
document what appears to have been a commonly-known fact among the
less-numerous, but better-informed, literate members of earlier
generations.
A more troubling thought that strikes me about this situation is that
contemporary authors of comparative standing could not publish similar
observations, or at least not without sudden relegation to vanity
presses and maybe community college jobs. Probably only the eminence
and the solid corpus of work produced by earlier authors, and perhaps
less fear among Gentile publishers, allowed them to make such
references without destroying their careers.
At any rate, Jewish press control is hardly a malicious myth that's
been propagated for decades (centuries?) by anti-Semites; it is rather
a truth that has been relentlessly obscured by increasingly powerful
Jewish interests within and outside the press. No one who has closely
studied the pertinent history at any length can convincingly argue
otherwise, even if the student limits himself to "permitted" books and
authors rather than documents some find inherently questionable (i.e.,
the Protocols. ) The extent to which an offending author is pushed to
the margins or isolated from the public by a self-interested Jewish
minority probably depends on a variety of factors, but one thing is
certain: he won't emerge from the process quite intact.
So what has this to do with the experiences of a small-time writer for
a little newspaper in Streetsboro, Ohio? Only that I saw firsthand
what happens and has happened to many writers who dare to write and
publish on the fact of Jewish media and political influence. It was in
one sense a privilege to be in courageous company living and dead: to
be allocated the ire bestowed on people like Hillaire Belloc, G. K.
Chesterton, William Pierce, Douglas Reed, and Wilmot Robertson was a
badge of honor of sorts.
In other senses, not least the sacrifice of a good newspaper on the
altar of Jewish sensibilities, it was a tragedy. But not for me.
Although it's virtually certain that despite fifteen years of some
pretty good journalism on my part, I'll never work again for a
"respectable" journal, given the litmus tests and the rules imposed by
such publications, who would want to? If anything my experience in
fifteen years in the field has been one of progressive distaste for
the media, and in that sentiment at least I join a growing number of
Americans.
Unfortunately, most readers and television viewers will probably
continue to be guided by a thirst for entertainment and stimulation
despite their stated disgust for the mainstream media. But there's no
doubt that awareness of the true nature and agenda of America's
"mainstream," i.e., Jewish, media is growing, and perhaps we can take
a page from the Chosen Ones themselves when it comes to the
retribution a committed and aligned minority can impose.
2005 NationalVanguard.org.
RaaN
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
So what if the Jews were conspiring to take over the world anyway?
What's it to you? Are the people now in charge of the world doing
such a great job? You think the Jews could do worse? What bloody
difference would it make? Less Neo-Nazi fruitcakes? Great!
--
RaaN
halfawake
'Twill be a pleasure....in fact, I am sure we are all ready to drop off
the argument along with you, as all possible things have been already
noted at least thrice on all sides of this issue. etcetera,
etcetera......etc........
Topaz
wrote:
>
>So what if the Jews were conspiring to take over the world anyway?
>What's it to you?
The Jewish Agenda
By Phaedrus
Here's what they're up to:
The progressive elimination of all national borders world-wide.
Elimination of foreign currency exchange controls world-wide to aid
unimpeded capital flight.
The imposition of the preferred Jewish method of control - so called
'democracy' - around the world then engineering the installation of
compliant governments who are nothing more than puppets of Zionist
control.
Total control of television, radio, newspapers, periodicals, magazines
and advertising.
The promotion of inter-breeding between disparate races through
pervasive media suggestion and political dogma.
The encouragement of unsustainable levels of immigration in Europe and
the United States, whether legal or not and regardless of the worth of
the immigrants involved or their likely contribution to Western
economies.
Direct control of international finance and banking.
The formation of ever-larger eco-political blocs and free-trade
regions with uniform rules and standards that will one day all be
merged to form the One World Government, which they of course will
control.
The propagation of the mind virus that 'political correctness' is the
enlightened, modern way to go and its rejectionists as in some way
wicked and bigoted or at the very least woefully old-fashioned.
The crushing of any form of dissent against the implementation of the
New World Order.
Stricter gun control measures in the United States with the aim of
eventually disarming the people altogether.
The promotion via their media holdings of homosexuality, mixed-race
relationships and any other forms of aberrant and socially damaging
behavior.
Engendering the idea through media control that blacks are superior to
what they really are and that whites are in fact, inferior to what
they really are.
The idea that homosexuals and lesbians should be proud of what they
are and AIDS is nothing to be ashamed of any more.
The restriction of free expression on the Internet.
The propagation of the concept of 'Hate Crime' - reminiscent of George
Orwell's 'Thought Crime' in his prescient, dystopian novel, Nineteen
Eighty-Four.
The encouragement of under-age sex preferably between children of
different races through their numerous teenage magazine titles (theft
of childhood and innocence).
Elimination of trade barriers and the creation of a global,
business-friendly trading environment giving rise to massive job
losses in Europe and America.
The debasement of traditional family values and the destruction of the
family unit.
To ridicule and debase Christianity and anyone who dares uphold moral
values.
To campaign for the intolerance of 'racism' and 'homophobia.'
The promotion of "Affirmative Action" type programs that put the
interests of hopelessly incompetent blacks ahead of struggling, hard
working white people.
The stimulation of inter-tribal violence between Arabs.
The generation of inter-cultural tensions in countries that have
adopted Jew-promoted 'multiculturalism.'
The expansion of a 'Greater Israel' into what remains of Palestine.
And we allow these poisonous rodents to shape our perceptions for us??
We MUST be mad. In the future, after the forthcoming struggle is won,
no Jew must ever be allowed within a million miles of a transmitter or
a printing press - NEVER - for as long as mankind survives.
http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/2007/12/that-jewish-agenda-in-full.html
> Are the people now in charge of the world doing
>such a great job?
The Jews are the people now in charge.
> You think the Jews could do worse? What bloody
>difference would it make? Less Neo-Nazi fruitcakes? Great!
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
possum
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpqs841cpgso25r64...@4ax.com...
you still posting?
you'll like this.
http://twitter.com/Borat
>
RaaN
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:16:24 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
I was thinking free speech was the worst thing threatened but after
reading this I'm not so sure anymore.
--
RaaN
Noel Friesen
halfawake
Hi Tara.
Well, I'd just like to re-emphasize that I never advocated young single
women having children. I *would* actually discourage that, whether they
were going to get government assistance or not. My advocacy of the
right to bear children was most centrally directed towards poor couples
who wanted to raise a family. I don't doubt that others have rights to
have children, but I don't feel as strong a need to advocate for them.
I most especially want to protect the right of poor people to have
*families,* not just to *have children.* I hope that makes my view a
little bit more clear. I do think it's irresponsible to have a child
without thinking about it, planning it, and making sure that you are
going to take on the responsibility of raising that child with love and
care. I just don't think that one's income should be the main
determining factor in making that decision.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = =
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Topaz
By LUKE O'FARRELL
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are
two types of people in the world and people who don't. I'm among the
first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize
the Jewish problem and people who don't.
In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb
people. If you've got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a
can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you're smart. If you've
got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don't
recognize the Jewish problem, you're dumb.
I've been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to
recognize the Jewish problem. I didn't think for myself, I just
accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good
people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad.
But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.
Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an
article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British
liberal. I didn't like liberals then, so I didn't like her for that
(and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her
Jewishness wasn't something I particularly noticed. But as I read the
article I came across something that didn't strike me as very liberal:
she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this
threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman
sits on all sorts of "multi-cultural" committees and is constantly
being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and
the evils of racism. She's all in favor of mass immigration and
there's no way she's worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because
"Race is Just a Social Construct" and "We're All the Same Under the
Skin". She's a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and
healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying
Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?
Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn't apply the same rules
to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was,
in short, a hypocrite. But not just that - she was a Jewish hypocrite.
And that's a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just
thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way
about a Jew because of her Jewishness.
After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or
to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what
had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in
politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those
Jews - like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact - gave me the creeps. There
was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it
wasn't just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.
Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect
of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was "The Iron Lady".
Ronald Reagan was "Teflon Ron". Bill Clinton was "Slick Willy". But
these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least
half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind
of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of
Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed "Hannibal Lecter".
Peter Mandelson, now Britain's Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair's
suspected former lover, is "The Prince of Darkness". Michael Howard
(né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is
"Dracula".
When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What
was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why
had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way
into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of
repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens
when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic
"anti-Semitic" stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren't always
wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren't always wrong, then there's
an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are
sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.
After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive
over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and
journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very,
very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds
at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan "Greed is
Good" Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale,
Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he
was coming down with Alzheimer's, that well-known incurable brain
disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to
confound medical science and recover from it.
Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn't take the
final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until
I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I'm
not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity,
but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical
campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international
campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of
the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical,
crooked Jews around the world. They didn't like something and they
were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.
And what was it they didn't like? A movie about an event at the heart
of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ.
So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art,
literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization
and the White race who created it.
After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews
weren't just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous
too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the
survival of the White race - mass immigration, feminism,
multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights - I realized that Jews were
behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and
had been doing so for decades.
Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and
recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles
subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like "Hannibal
Lecter" and "Prince of Darkness" and "Dracula" to Jewish politicians.
Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our
blood, and it's about time we started firing a few silver bullets.
Topaz
By Luke O'Farrell
"We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the
internet that could incite racial or religious hatred." When it was
claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister,
totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what
George W. Bush meant when he said: "They hate us for our freedoms."
Staunch in defense of freedom, Britain's conservative commentariat
rushed to condemn the MCB. "Free speech is the bedrock of a free
society!" they thundered. "Any group that seeks to undermine it has no
place in a democracy. If Muslims don't like Britain's proud,
centuries-old tradition of free speech, they know what they can do:
get out!"
Shamefully, however, many defenders of Western freedom against
Islamist tyranny seem to have forgotten what the MCB said in 2006. If
you're one of them, here's an extract from The Times to refresh your
memory:
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was set up last
year. None of the 14 members of the panel is Jewish, but evidence was
taken from across the Jewish community. The report proposes that it be
made an offence to download material from the internet that could
incite racial or religious hatred. Drawing on the view of the
Macpherson report that a racist act is defined by its victim, not by
whether a perpetrator considers himself racist, anti-Semitism is
defined in the report as "any remark, insult or act, the purpose or
effect of which is to violate a Jewish person's dignity or create an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for him". (Loc. cit., 7th September 2006)
Oh dear, so it wasn't the MCB who wanted to turn us into a
police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who
conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.
Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free
speech, that's who. If Jews have power and influence, they start
working to take away free speech. It's no use arguing that some Jews
support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect
of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free
speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there
any popular support for Britain's race laws, introduced in the 1960s
and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn't, but what does the
will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies
wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League
would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the
evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn't gotten
them. Canadians haven't been so lucky, as the neo-con Mark Steyn has
discovered. He's gotten into trouble for saying things Muslims don't
like, but let's give him his due: he's admitted that Jews aren't
entirely blameless:
Submission from the Board of Deputies of British Jews
The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes the opportunity to make
this submission to the Select Committee on Religious Offences. The
Board is the representative body and voice of the British Jewish
community. It was founded in 1760. The Jewish community is covered by
the provisions of the Race Relations Acts. The Board is generally
satisfied with the format of the current legislation following the
amendments to Part 3 of the Public Order Act in the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Malicious Communications Act
1998 and its subsequent amendment offer further protection. Together
these have removed the legal and linguistic barriers which previously
had hampered prosecutions.
The UK is now faced with a growth in inter-religious friction, sparked
in large measure by conflict in the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. This has led to the dissemination of propaganda
deliberately attacking Jews qua Jews by Muslims. The Sikh and Hindu
communities have similarly been targeted. We are in touch with
representative bodies within these communities and can provide
examples of such incitement. The Board of Deputies welcomes the
proposal to introduce new laws to combat incitement to religious
hatred, but notes that this must be matched by the political will to
prosecute offenders. Otherwise any new powers risk becoming as
ineffective as the existing laws against incitement to racial hatred.
"It's not enough, already! Ve vont more laws! No free speech for ze
vicked goyim!" And Mark Steyn isn't tackling another vital question:
that of how Muslims got into the West in such large numbers to join
the Jew-initiated, Jew-continued assault on free speech. Was there any
popular support for mass immigration by Muslims in Britain, for
example? No, there wasn't: there was massive popular opposition. But
what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? Britain is run
for the benefit of those who fund its political parties: men like
"Lord" Levy, his pals from Jewish Care, and David Abrahams, whose
excuse for conspiring to make secret payments to New Labour was that
he wanted to avoid the appearance of "a Jewish conspiracy". That's
what democracy means in Britain: Jews pay, pols obey. Want thought
crime laws? You got 'em! Want mass immigration? You got it! Want war
in Iraq? You got that too!
Stone is president of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality
Stone wants to keep "racism" high on the agenda because he wants to
keep bashing whites. How racist is Britain? Very racist - against
whites. When you trace the sources of the "Hammer Honky!" religion,
you find that Jews are there every time, controlling, "advising",
passing laws to suppress white dissent. Free speech is indeed the
bedrock of a free society, which is why free societies and Jews don't
mix. Those are the joys of Judeocracy and they'll keep on coming until
we take our societies back.
Full article at
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/joyim.html
Topaz
by Kevin MacDonald
The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
display of Jewish power and influence. People who are very strongly
identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and
military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli
lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in
the defense and foreign policy establishment. These same people, as
well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the
most prestigious media outlets in the United States. People who
criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional
abuse.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is
the surreal fact that in this entire discourse Jewish identity is not
mentioned. When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin,
William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent
media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or
opine on the Fox News Network, there is never any mention that they
are Jewish Americans who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank; is on
the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper; maintains close
personal ties with prominent Israelis, especially those associated
with the Likud Party; has worked for an Israeli defense company; and,
according to credible reports, was discovered by the FBI passing
classified information to Israel - when, despite all of this, he is a
central figure in the network of those pushing for wars to rearrange
the entire politics of the Middle East in Israel's favor, and with
nary a soul having the courage to mention the obvious overriding
Jewish loyalty apparent in Perle's actions, that is indeed a
breathtaking display of power.
One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to
maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven
years, despite Israel's seizing land and engaging in a brutal
suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories - an
occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete
subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During the same period Jewish
organizations in America have been a principal force - in my view the
main force - for transforming America into a state dedicated to
suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging
massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a
legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to
the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities - the
culture of the Holocaust. All this is done without a whisper of
double standards in the aboveground media...
RaaN
> By Luke O'Farrell
>
> Snipped Antisemitic Hate-Mongering Propganda <
RFHall
wrote:
Walter:
Thanks for giving us a peek at a part of Nazi Germany that not many of
us know.
RFHall
RFHall
wrote:
You mean it isn't just the Muslims and the Blacks?
Haines Brown
> "We propose that it be made an offence to download material from the
> internet that could incite racial or religious hatred." When it was
> claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) made that sinister,
> totalitarian proposal in September 2006, you could understand what
> George W. Bush meant when he said: "They hate us for our freedoms."
I've not been at all following this thread, which seems inappropriate in
this newsgroup, but since it has gone on at length, perhaps I may be
permitted to inject a comment.
To characterize the Council for proposing a ban on downloading offensive
material from the Internet as totalitarian and sinister strikes me as
simplistic.
Freedom of choice may have been an ideological absolute when it was
invented during the Enlightenment, but it has never been an absolute in
practice. There are many choices you can't make without punishment:
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; saying that someone should shoot
George Bush as pass through the airport check in; distributing child
porn to your friends; etc. I pick obvious examples, but constraints on
personal choice always exist and permeate the ordinary activity of daily
life. You are not free to go through the red light at a traffic
stop. You can't promote Nazi propaganda in France; you couldn't be a
communist during the McCarthy era.
The policy everywhere has always been to strike a balance that favors
the greatest options for our choices that is compatible with public
safety and welfare. Public safety and welfare always come first.
This balance is highly variable and delicate, not only located in
different places and in different cultures, but also tending to shift in
time. The reason is that the balance is not something that can be
prescribed universally, but is to some extent just an expression of
public opinion to which legislators to some extent respond.
The problem raised by the Council is that we seem to we live today in
the face of decaying of social values. I say presumably because I don't
know people on the Council although I live nearby, but I do have contact
with the Muslim community more broadly.
In the Muslim tradition, there's a sense that the state is responsible
for the maintenance of moral values, but this is not entirely peculiar
to that tradition and is to a lesser degree evident
everywhere. Legislation is filled with attempts to regulate moral
behavior. George Bush and the candidates now running for the White House
all feel it important to identity with religious sects and values and to
suggest that their action in office will conform to them. So it is not
really cut and dried, unless you propose going to one extreme or the
other (absolute laissez faire, complete control over behavior), but no
one is suggesting that
Nor is there any ground for suggesting that any intervention into social
behavior by the state represents entering upon some kind of slippery
slope. It seems that when there are situations in which there is
increasing or decreasing (although I'm not sure there are examples of
this) intervention, it seems encouraged by specific forces, such as a
growing sense of social insecurity and discontent over the way things
are, than some theoretical goal of absolutism. While this point would be
hard to prove, the opposite hypothesis would be much harder.
As a persecuted community (and they _are_ persecuted as your Muslim
friends will point out), it naturally wants the state to fulfill its
traditional role in protecting minority communities from things like
racism and religious hatred. Well, of course, the state already does
that, and what is unusual is the mention of downloading from the
Internet.
Well, I'm as enthusiastic as anyone about being uninhibited in my use of
Internet, but there certainly are laws, such as affecting copyright and
child porn, and so the Council's wish to have religious and racial
propaganda included would not be particularly novel.
I don't personally see such legislation as being particularly
enforceable, and I don't think it really addresses the source of all the
hatred that permeates our society, but the Council's suggestion seems
reasonable, given that it feels threatened.
My point is that the Council's recommendation is hardly "sinister", for
it is not out of the ordinary. As for its being totalitarian, we are
already heading quickly in that direction without much help from the
Council. One would have to be blind not to see that the US is quickly
building the infrastructure required for totalitarian government,
although naturally it will differ in style from the examples we have
known. That's what we should be concerned about, not some hopeless
proposal by a picked-on community in New Britain.
I've not here discussed in what sense the Council is a "they" resenting
"our" freedoms. The Council _is_ us, in the same way that the members of
a local Jewish or Black community is part of "us" and are as American as
you or I. That is, a part of our community here is represented by the
commentator as not belonging here, but as serving some vague outside
entity or movement. This would be the equivlant to my saying that my
Jewish neighbors are part of some kind of international conspiracy. As
we all know, is precisely this kind of thinking that is typical of
fascism. The article seems itself a better example of the kind of
totalitarian thinking than its characterization of the Muslim Council.
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM
Topaz
Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.
The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."
Topaz
>You mean it isn't just the Muslims and the Blacks?
The West is the White race.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.
Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.
Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."
Topaz
<bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>
>I've not been at all following this thread, which seems inappropriate in
>this newsgroup, but since it has gone on at length, perhaps I may be
>permitted to inject a comment.
>
>To characterize the Council for proposing a ban on downloading offensive
>material from the Internet as totalitarian and sinister strikes me as
>simplistic.
You strike me as Jewish.
>
>Freedom of choice may have been an ideological absolute when it was
>invented during the Enlightenment, but it has never been an absolute in
>practice. There are many choices you can't make without punishment:
>yelling "fire" in a crowded theater;
What if there really is a fire. The Jews really do rule America. That
is why America is always involved in the Middle East.
> saying that someone should shoot
>George Bush as pass through the airport check in;
But Bush is a mass murderer and a terrorist.
>distributing child
>porn to your friends; etc.
Everyone knows that is different from the free speech we are talking
about.
> I pick obvious examples, but constraints on
>personal choice always exist and permeate the ordinary activity of daily
>life. You are not free to go through the red light at a traffic
>stop. You can't promote Nazi propaganda in France; you couldn't be a
>communist during the McCarthy era.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11576
Jewish Terrorism in France
In its issue of June 1991, the French monthly Le Choc du mois ("The
Shock of the Month") published a rather lengthy report entitled
"Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years of Terrorism" ("Milices juives.
Quinze ans de terrorisme," pp. 7-13). Under the main headline, a
subtitle summed up:
'"Jewish Action Group," "Jewish Combat Organization," "Jewish Defense
Organization"... Under these various names, Jewish activists for 15
years have unceasingly sown terror [in France] with total impunity..
The report reviews 50 cases of physical aggression committed by
organized Jewish groups during the period from June 19, 1976, to April
20, 1991. Not mentioned, therefore, are physical attacks committed by
individual Jews (which are, in any case, rare).
The victims of the 50 cases listed by Le Choc du mois, who number in
the hundreds, suffered: loss of life, an eye put out, acid throwing,
numerous hospitalizations, injuries followed by deep coma, lifetime
disabilities, and serious post-traumatic conditions, "the commission
of barbaric acts," severe beatings in the presence of policemen who
refused to intervene, and numerous ambush attacks (in one case with
the complicity of the daily newspaper Lib'ration).
Most of these acts of aggression were passed over in silence by the
media or only briefly reported. Some were applauded by Jewish
publications or organizations which, in general, after a few pro forma
words of censure, suggested that the victims deserved their fate, that
such attacks are "only natural and normal," and that no one need
expect any leniency in future if he should ever again arouse Jewish
"anger."
It is worthy of note that not one Jew has been the victim of a single
attack in revenge by any "revisionist" or so-called "extreme right"
group. (Although the press routinely lumps "revisionism" and the
"extreme right" together, in reality historical revisionism receives
support from thinking persons of all possible political views, from
the ultra-left to the extreme right, and of all parties, except the
Communists. Paul Rassinier, regarded as the founder of Holocaust
revisionism in France, was a Socialist.)..
Francois Duprat
Francois Duprat, a member of the leadership of the National Front
party, and an author and distributor of revisionist writings, was
killed in his car on March 18, 1978, when it was blown up with a
sophisticated bomb. His wife was severely injured. A "Remembrance
Commando" claimed responsibility for the crime. In keeping with the
practice of "Nazi hunters" Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, Patrice Chairoff
had published in Dossier n'onazisme ("The Neo-Nazi File," 1977), the
name and address of Duprat, and of several other persons who were
suspected of fascism, neo-Nazism, or revisionism (Le Monde, March 23,
1978, p. 7; April 26, 1978, p. 9)..
On December 9, 1979, about a hundred individuals wearing helmets
attacked the 14th national conference of GRECE (Groupe d"tudes et de
recherches sur la civilisation europ'enne, "Group for the Study and
Research of European Civilization"). Wrecking the book stands, they
displayed banners bearing the name "Organisation juive de d'fense"
(OJD, "Jewish Defense Organization"). Fifteen or so of the conference
attendees were injured. One of them lost an eye. Several of the
assailants were arrested by the police, and then released that same
afternoon on the intervention of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch, the son of
Jean Pierre-Bloch and a friend of Jacques Chirac [currently President
of France]. Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch had been involved, and would also
later be involved, in other attacks and intercessions on behalf of
these same attackers.
On September 19, 1980, a commando group of the "Jewish Defense
Organization" (OJD) attacked sympathizers of Marc Fredriksen, an
executive of FANE ("F'd'ration d'action nationale et europ'enne," or
"National and European Action Federation"), at the Paris Palace of
Justice (court house). Six persons were injured, two of them
seriously. The Palace of Justice guards, although charged with
maintaining order, permitted the Jewish militants in this case, as in
all other similar circumstances, to act without or almost without
hindrance..
If a French "right wing" group had harmed a Jew, the media of the
world would have played up the attack, with shocking photographs of
the victim, gruesome details about the injury, follow-up interviews,
and outraged commentary..
A few days later, on October 7, Charles Bousquet, 84 years old, was
attacked in his home in Neuilly with sulfuric acid by a group of
unknown men who had apparently mistaken him for the militant
nationalist, Pierre Bousquet (no relation to Ren' Bousquet). He was
hospitalized for a month at Foch Hospital in the major burns ward, and
suffered after-effects from his injuries. He refused to press charges
because his son Pierre, a professor of history at the University of
Paris IV, has asked him not to "on account of the Israelites." He
said: "They'll be in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, the ones who did it. It
would all be useless. I want to forget it" (during a conversation with
R. Faurisson, May 2, 1984).
On October 12, 1980, Mark Fredriksen was beaten up and admitted to the
Rambouillet hospital in serious condition. His apartment was torn
apart in his absence. While under treatment at Berck-sur-Mer for
multiple fractures, he came close to suffering another attack: three
young men showed up and asked to see him; their description matched
that of the Aziza team that subsequently attacked Michel Caignat with
acid (see below).
On October 20, 1980, the writer Andr' Figu'ras was attacked at his
residence.
On the morning of January 29, 1981, Michel (Miguel) Caignet, a
26-year-old Sorbonne student who was preparing for a doctorate in
Anglo-German linguistics, had just left his residence in Courbevoie to
go to the university when he was accosted by four individuals. They
knocked him down and prevented him from moving. One of the four
attackers sprayed his face and his right hand with sulfuric acid.
Caignet had belonged to FANE, and he was a revisionist. He had been
denounced by the weekly VSD (Vendredi/Samedi/ Dimanche). Following the
attack with acid, his face looked so hideous that only two newspapers
ventured to publish his photograph. The principal perpetrator of the
attack, Yves Aziza, a medical student and the son of Charles Aziza (an
assistant pharmacist at Montreuil), was identified by the police
within an hour of the crime. But in this case, as in others, the
French police and courts scandalously permitted Yves Aziza to flee to
Germany and to Israel. At the Justice Ministry, an official named Main
at the criminal affairs bureau (headed by Raoul B'teille)
sarcastically evaded every question put to him with regard to the
14-day delay in opening a judicial inquiry. Among Yves Aziza's
correspondents was Daniel Ziskind, the son of MichŠle Ziskind, sister
of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch, who is himself the son of Jean
Pierre-Bloch.
On September 18, 1981, 200 members of the Organisation juive de combat
(OJC) or "Jewish Combat Organization" laid down the law at the Palace
of Justice in Paris, where the defamation trial brought by Pierre
Sidos, president of l'Oeuvre francaise, against Jean-Pierre Bloch was
taking place. As usual, Jewish thugs beat up several of the
spectators.
On November 25, 1981, the premises of the tudes et documentation
bookstore were set on fire by a commando group.
On May 8, 1988, at Saint-Augustin Square in Paris, OJC commandos used
iron bars to attack l'Oeuvre francaise supporters who were taking part
in the traditional parade in honor of Joan of Arc. Some 15 supporters
were injured, two of them very seriously. Four of the victims were
hospitalized. A septuagenarian remained in a coma for several weeks.
Ten OJC members were questioned by the police. That same afternoon
Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch interceded with the criminal police
investigation unit (police judiciaire) on their behalf. Legal
proceedings were instituted against some of the attackers. Some
attackers were released with the following notation by the examining
magistrate: "preliminary examination inopportune." Other attackers
were tried, though not without pressure "from the highest political
level" being brought to bear on the public prosecutor's office. In
total, only three of the attackers were tried. Each received a
two-year suspended (!) prison sentence.
On February 6, 1990, millions of viewers witnessed the brutal attack
against Olivier Mathieu during a television broadcast emceed by
Christophe Dechavanne. Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch came on to the stage
with a group of OJC militants. Mathieu had just time enough to
exclaim: "Faurisson is right." Then ten or so of the thugs severely
beat him, his fiancee, and Marc Botrel. Among those present was an
important figure among Jewish militants: Moshe Cohen, a former second
lieutenant of the Israeli army and an officer at the time of the Tagar
organization, the student branch of the Betar (59 boulevard de
Strasbourg, Paris Xe). The attacks continued off stage and out into
the street. One attacker was questioned by the police, but released a
few hours later on the intercession of Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch.
Pierre Guillaume, a leftist, is in charge of the Vieille Taupe ("Old
Mole") publishers, which has issued a number of revisionist works,
including those of Professor Faurisson. He has been the victim of a
number of serious attacks, both against his person-at the Sorbonne, in
his Paris bookstore, and at the Palace of Justice in Paris (where the
guards did not intervene) -- as well as against his property (book
warehouse, video equipment, bookstore). In 1991, groups of
demonstrators, most of them Jews, laid siege to his bookstore in the
rue d'Ulm on a regular basis. As a result of various acts of violence
(breaking shop windows, spraying chemical products, physical
intimidation, etc.), they finally succeeded in closing it.
On April 20, 1991, at the "Maison des Mines" building in Paris, about
50 individuals claiming to be members of the Groupe d'action juive
(GAJ), or "Jewish Action Group," and armed with iron bars and baseball
bats, attacked the attendees of a meeting of the "Friends of
Saint-Loup" ("Les Amis de Saint-Loup"), named after a deceased writer
whose real name was Marc Augier. Thirteen persons, most of them
elderly, were injured, two of them very seriously. Juliette Cavali',
67 years of age, was taken to Beaujon Hospital where she lapsed into a
coma that lasted three months. After regaining consciousness, she was
condemned to spend the rest of her days unable to walk or even to feed
herself. Alain L'authier, a journalist for Lib'ration and a relative
of the socialist deputy and Jewish zealot Julien Dray, witnessed the
attack from beginning to end, and provided a smug and ironical report
of it ("Zionist commando unit invites itself to the neo-Nazi meeting,"
Liberation, April 22, 1991, p. 28).
Europe's most prominent Holocaust revisionist scholar, Professor
Robert Faurisson, was the victim of ten physical assaults between
November 20, 1978, and May 31, 1993 (two in Lyon, two in Vichy, two in
Stockholm and four in Paris). Seven of these attacks were at the hands
of French Jewish organizations or militants-two in Lyon, one in Vichy,
one in Stockholm (by Swedish Jews together with French Jews who had
come from Paris by plane), one at the Sorbonne, and one at the Palace
of Justice in Paris.
The first of these seven attacks took place on November 20, 1978. It
was lauded in Lib'ration-Lyon by the Jewish journalist Bernard
Schalscha, who reported the day, the place, and the hour of the
professor's courses. Members of the Jewish Students Union who had come
by first-class train from Paris attacked the professor at the
University, while Dr. Marc Aron, a cardiologist and president of the
liaison committee of the Jewish institutions and organizations of
Lyon, was present.
The second attack occurred a few weeks later when Faurisson attempted
to resume his courses. On that day as well, Marc Aron was again at the
university.
At the Sorbonne, on September 12, 1987, members of a Jewish group of
militants attacked Henry Chauveau, Michel Sergent, Pierre Guillaume,
Freddy Storer (a Belgian), and Professor Faurisson, all of whom were
injured. (Chauveau was seriously injured.) The Sorbonne guards
apprehended one of the attackers. A plainclothes policeman ordered the
attacker released and used the violence as an excuse to expel the
professor from the university. (Prof. Faurisson had once taught at the
Sorbonne.)
On September 16, 1989, three men set a trap for Faurisson in a park
near his residence in Vichy as he was out walking his poodle. After
spraying a stinging gas into his face, temporarily blinding him, the
assailants punched him to the ground and then repeatedly kicked him in
the face and chest. If a passerby had not intervened, the attackers'
kicks to the head would have been finished off the 60-year-old
scholar. Badly injured, Faurisson had to undergo a lengthy surgical
operation. The crime investigation unit inquiry confirmed that the
attack could be attributed to "young Jewish activists from Paris."
On the eve of the attack, Faurisson had noted with surprise the
presence near the park of a certain Nicolas Ullmann (born in 1963). On
July 12, 1987, Ullmann had violently struck the professor at the Vichy
Sporting-Club. When he was questioned at the criminal investigation
department about his presence in that area, he denied having been
there. Moreover, Ullmann claimed that on the very day of the attack he
had taken part in a masked ball ("bal masqu'") in Paris, so that it
would be impossible for anyone other than his host and friend to vouch
for his presence in Paris that day. It should be noted that the
examining magistrate of Cusset, near Vichy, never summoned Faurisson
to hear his testimony. Instead, judge Jocelyne Rubantel merely
received him in her office in Cusset to inform him that she would ask
for a dismissal of the charges-which she obtained. No search was made
of the Paris headquarters of Betar/Tagar. Such a search would have
incited too much "anger" in the Jewish community.
On October 16, 1989, precisely one month after the attack in Vichy, a
bomb exploded at the door of the offices in Paris of Choc du mois,
which were then ransacked. Credit for the attack was claimed by the
"Jewish Combat Organization" (OJC) and some far left groups. Eric
Letty, who had devoted an article in Choc du mois to Professor
Faurisson, would have been killed had he not, by a miracle, detected
the imminence of the explosion.
We do not have space here to cite the other attacks against Professor
Faurisson.
Many other cases could be cited of attacks by Jewish groups: in
addition to the incidents during the years 1976-1991 listed in the
Choc du mois article, there are other, unlisted, cases, as well as
attacks that have occurred since 1992. To repeat: the total number of
victims of Jewish terror amounts to several hundreds, even though, in
contrast, not a single Jew has been the victim of a concerted or
organized attack in France.
On January 14, 1988, in Lyon, Professor Jean-Claude Allard was
hospitalized following a group attack against him for which the OJC
claimed responsibility. The attackers ambushed him in the parking lot
of the University of Lyon III. In June 1985, he had presided over the
examining board of the thesis of revisionist scholar Henri Roques on
"The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein," which have been widely regarded
as key evidence for Holocaust gassings. (In an action without
precedent in French academic history, the thesis' defense was annulled
under pressure by "angry" Jews. [The English-language edition of The
'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein is published by the IHR.])
Armed Jewish militants carried out new acts of violence on April 13,
1994, during a break in the trial of the "hooligans of the Parc des
Princes," a Paris soccer stadium. (At least one of the hooligans was a
Jew.) In this case the victims were policemen. The militants entered
the Palace of Justice with weapons and iron bars, and one of the court
house guards was attacked. "An interesting detail," one Paris paper
noted. "No investigation was made to clear up the affair, and the only
arrest made was that of one of the 'nationalist militants' who had
been attacked and ventured to defend himself." ("Jewish militants make
the law," Le Libre Journal, April 27, 1994, p. 9. See also: "The Betar
makes the law in the Palace of Justice," Rivarol, April 22, 1994, p.
5).
On April 28, 1994, the German citizen Ludwig Watzal, an official guest
of the University of Nanterre (near Paris), was struck by members of
Jewish or leftist organizations.
Many bookstores have been wrecked. In addition to the
Bleu-Blanc-Rouge, Ogmios, Librairie Francaise, and Librairie de la
Vieille Taupe stores, we may mention the Librairie de la Joyeuse
Garde. (In the last-named case, shop windows were broken, steel safety
shutters were glued shut, and excrement was strewn around.) Further
targets of attacks, for which Jewish organizations claimed
responsibility, have been offices, buildings, exhibitions, a book
warehouse and a church (Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris, on
December 21, 1978).
For those who have been targeted for attack by the Jewish militants,
the most dangerous city in France is Paris. Within Paris, one of the
most dangerous districts is the first district, and within that
district the most dangerous place is the Palace of Justice-the central
courthouse-and the surrounding area. Paradoxically, this area is under
particularly good police surveillance because the Palace has its own
"military command" consisting of hundreds of armed guards, and because
next to the Palace building is the "Quai des OrfŠvres," headquarters
of the police crime investigations department. As it happens, though,
in recent years the guards and police have permitted many acts of
violence to be carried out, especially against revisionists who have
been summoned to court or who come to attend the trials.
When a group of Jewish militants decide to burst into the court
building, the scenario is invariably as follows: the thugs, whose
demeanor betrays their bellicose intentions, are in no way restrained
by the guards from their intended victims. No officer attempts to
inform these shock troopers that violence will not be tolerated. The
assailants are permitted to insult, to provoke, and then to strike
their victims. Sometimes guards will make an effort to protect
victims. If a militant calls special attention to himself by extreme
violence, three guards quickly take him away, but then let him go.
Once the militants have completed their brutal work and have
disappeared, the guards hasten to the bloody or swollen victims,
fussing over them like concerned nannies. The victims are never able
to get the police to interrogate the attackers, or even to learn their
identities…
In 1986, when Laurent Fabius was Prime Minister of France, his wife,
Mme. Fran‡oise Castro, revealed that the Jewish militants and the
Interior Minister were working hand in hand. She stated: "An
extraordinary novelty in political behavior: the Left has allowed
Jewish militants to establish themselves in some quarters of Paris and
also in Toulouse, Marseille, and Strasbourg [and to have] regular
contacts with the Interior Minister." (Le Monde, March 7, 1986, p. 8).
Castro and Fabius are both Jewish.
By a sort of consensus it seems to be generally agreed that the Jews
must be treated in France as a privileged minority whose "anger"
(colŠre) must be excused. (This word crops up in the press with
nagging persistence.) By law, private militia groups are not legal in
France. But the authorities allow one exception to this law. Jewish
militants are the only ones permitted to bear arms in France. (See the
photograph of a Jew armed with an automatic pistol on the roof of a
building in the rue de Nazareth. Lib'ration, Oct. 14, 1986, p. 56.)
France's criminal police investigators are thus paralyzed in their
investigations of crimes committed by these militants, who are
euphemistically called "young Jewish activists of Paris." These
militant groups enjoy at least a partial guarantee of impunity in
France. The worst thing their members have to fear is having to go
into exile in Germany or Israel for a spell..
A list of incendiary statements by French Jews in positions of
responsibility calling for physical violence would be a long one. Jews
do not shrink from political assassination. On this subject, one may
read the recent work of Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Political Assassination by
Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice (New York: State Univ. of New
York Press, 1993). We know the considerable role played by Jews in the
Bolshevik revolution. [See: M. Weber, "The Jewish Role in the
Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime," Jan.-Feb. 1994
Journal.] In France, the song of the partisans was written by two
Jews, Joseph Kessel (1898-1979) and Maurice Druon, both of whom were
later members of the French Academy. The song's refrain is well known:
"Hey there! Killers by gun or blade. Kill swiftly!" ("Oh'! Les tueurs
.. la balle et au couteau. Tuez vite!")..
During a 1986 interview with the Chicago Tribune (June 29, 1986),
Beate Klarsfeld told "how she haunted at least three former Nazis
until they committed suicide or died; how she organized attempts to
kidnap others; how she used headline-making gimmicks to bring to trial
or to ruin the careers of many who were convinced the world had
forgotten them." She related how she slapped the face of German
Chancellor Kurt-Georg Kiesinger in public in 1968. "Once, she and
several friends tried to kidnap Kurt Lischka" but the operation failed
because the car they were using had only two doors. As for Ernst
Ehlers, "harassed by Klarsfeld-organized demonstrations outside his
home, he first resigned his position [as judge] and then committed
suicide."
After picking up the trail of Walter Rauff in Chile, the Klarsfelds
organized demonstrations in front of his house and broke his windows.
"He died a couple of months later," Beate Klarsfeld told the American
daily. "I was glad, because as long as these people are alive, they
are an offense to their victims." "My husband and I are not fanatics
... Once my husband held a pistol to the temple of Rauff, just to show
that we could kill him, but he didn't pull the trigger."
In 1988, Serge Klarsfeld stated: "No one has really gone after Le Pen
in dead earnest. We ought to have provoked confrontations with him so
that ... he'd take the most extreme position possible." (Le Soir
[Brussels], quoted in Rivarol, July 1, 1988, p. 5).
In 1991, Beate Klarsfeld entered Syria with fraudulent papers to go
after Alois Brunner (who was already disfigured and missing most of
his fingers as the result of letter bombs). In front of his presumed
residence, she wanted to repeat the kind of demonstration that had
been staged in front of the home of Paul Touvier in 1972 (which was
broken into, looted, and laid waste). [See: "Alois Brunner Talks About
His Past," in the Spring 1990 Journal, pp. 123ff.]
In 1992, the Klarsfelds organized what Le Monde (Oct. 21, 1992, p. 4)
called "the savage escapade of the Betar at Rostock ... spreading
terror in the central square of the Rostock town hall, with French and
Israeli flags displayed, calling passersby 'dirty Germans, dirty
Nazis!'." A short time later Beate Klarsfeld expressed approval of the
Betar attack against the Goethe Institute (German cultural center) in
Paris, calling it an act of "legitimate violence" because the Rostock
police had briefly held and questioned a few of the Jewish attackers.
(Der Standard [Vienna], Oct. 23, 1992). Nine of the policemen had been
injured, among them several who required hospitalization after being
beaten with baseball bats and iron bars, and sprayed with "defensive"
gas.
On June 8, 1993, Ren' Bousquet, former secretary general of the police
in the wartime Vichy government (and who was later deported by the
Germans), was struck down in his Paris residence by a fanatic. The
attacker, who spewed out verbiage … la Klarsfeld, explained his action
as that of a lover of justice who had already tried to kill Paul
Touvier. Writing in the French daily Le Monde (June 10, 1993, p. 28),
Annick Cojean referred to Serge Klarsfeld: "Was he not the slayer of
Bousquet? The one who had tracked him down, pursued him, attacked him,
forced him to resign from his every position from 1978 to 1989? And
was he not [by this killing] robbed of a long awaited trial? The
lawyer [Klarsfeld] quietly smiles: 'Why deny it? What I feel today is
relief above all. And if that runs counter to the interests of the
trial, so be it! I can't be worrying about what those people want.
That's too much for me'."
Full article
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n2p-2_Faurisson.html
2006 NationalVanguard.org.
>
>The policy everywhere has always been to strike a balance that favors
>the greatest options for our choices that is compatible with public
>safety and welfare. Public safety and welfare always come first.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>
Exposing the Real Racists
Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been sold
worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian Duma (parliament).
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.
If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr.
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a
quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative
years... I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted
a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a
foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught
the superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.
'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.
In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an
'anti-Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In
very effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called
'anti-Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or
'anti-Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem
sects. But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important
leaders of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well
wind up in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.
While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.
INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT
In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled
'anti-Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define
that term.
In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.
Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-
'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'
With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.
ON ISRAELI TERROR
Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.
Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.
Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.
In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.
It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.
After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."
>
>I don't personally see such legislation as being particularly
>enforceable, and I don't think it really addresses the source of all the
>hatred that permeates our society, but the Council's suggestion seems
>reasonable, given that it feels threatened.
>
>My point is that the Council's recommendation is hardly "sinister", for
>it is not out of the ordinary.
No, it is sinister.
> As for its being totalitarian, we are
>already heading quickly in that direction without much help from the
>Council. One would have to be blind not to see that the US is quickly
>building the infrastructure required for totalitarian government,
>although naturally it will differ in style from the examples we have
>known. That's what we should be concerned about, not some hopeless
>proposal by a picked-on community in New Britain.
>
>I've not here discussed in what sense the Council is a "they" resenting
>"our" freedoms. The Council _is_ us, in the same way that the members of
>a local Jewish or Black community is part of "us"
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html
Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique
Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:
"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."
Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."
This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.
> and are as American as
>you or I. That is, a part of our community here is represented by the
>commentator as not belonging here, but as serving some vague outside
>entity or movement. This would be the equivlant to my saying that my
>Jewish neighbors are part of some kind of international conspiracy. As
>we all know, is precisely this kind of thinking that is typical of
>fascism. The article seems itself a better example of the kind of
>totalitarian thinking than its characterization of the Muslim Council.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personnel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg are Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidelines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionaire Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of children's
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:44:39 -0400, Haines Brown
>
> <bro...@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
>
> >I've not been at all following this thread, which seems inappropriate in
> >this newsgroup, but since it has gone on at length, perhaps I may be
> >permitted to inject a comment.
>
> >To characterize the Council for proposing a ban on downloading offensive
> >material from the Internet as totalitarian and sinister strikes me as
> >simplistic.
>
> You strike me as Jewish.
>
>
>
> >Freedom of choice may have been an ideological absolute when it was
> >invented during the Enlightenment, but it has never been an absolute in
> >practice. There are many choices you can't make without punishment:
> >yelling "fire" in a crowded theater;
>
> What if there really is a fire. The Jews really do rule America. That
> is why America is always involved in the Middle East.
Nazis only rule meth labs and kiddie porn outlets.
>
> > saying that someone should shoot
> >George Bush as pass through the airport check in;
>
> But Bush is a mass murderer and a terrorist.
Drinking that Kool-aid, I see.
>
> >distributing child
> >porn to your friends; etc.
>
> Everyone knows that is different from the free speech we are talking
> about.
>
Nazis are into kiddie porn big time.
You are a Nazi.
As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.
You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know
you can not measure up.
You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.
You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.
You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National
Socialism.
Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you... which is why you choose minor
children as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent
adults in a consensually sexual
way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a helpless victim, be
it a prepubescent
boy, or a patient in a mental hospital.
That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or
honest about it.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
> being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
> "anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
> they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
> Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
> Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
> friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
> didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
>
> No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
> suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
> that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.
Michael Ejercito
> by Kevin MacDonald
>
> The current situation in the United States is really an awesome
> display of Jewish power and influence.
possum
"RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7618d89b-539a-456a...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 7:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> By Luke O'Farrell
>>
>> Snipped Antisemitic Hate-Mongering Propganda <
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=237
possum
"RFHall" <real...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:489023c4...@news.seanet.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:08:57 -0500, Topaz
> <mars...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Walter:
>
> Thanks for giving us a peek at a part of Nazi Germany that
> not many of
> us know.
>
> RFHall
oh yes, thanks for 'the third reich, it's popular virtues.'
please tell him no to bother to post " the architectural
glories of belson - the designer coffee table edition',
nobody here is going to like it, and i just don't like
talking' to him ...
assHall.
possum
possum
fascism stamps on any face it has power to stomp on, and
would eventually stomp on joey the budgie....
what does one think it is? go on, you're a one, have a go.
possum
Topaz
Mussolini, Benito - The Doctrine of Fascism
Fascism is the name of an ancient way of keeping a group of people
together under a united goal. Dating back to the Roman Empire,
political leaders like Julius Caesar used fascism as a way of
maintaining a consensus between the individuals in his land, as well
as establishing the kind of self-sacrificing heroism that has always
defined the basis for Indo-European culture. Fascism puts focus on the
whole, which includes people, culture, religion and nature.
It is therefore totally opposed to liberalism, which claims that the
freedom of the individual is of highest importance. It can be said
that the essence of fascism is that of an integralist tradition: each
nation is seen as an organic entity, meaning that there are no
internal conflicts between man and nature, nor man and state. In
liberal democracies, there is a constant conflict between the state
and the individual. Left wants to increase the power of the state,
while the Right wants to do the opposite. Fascism solves this by
simply equating the state with the people: what the state wants, the
people want, and vice versa.
Thus fascism is a way of finding a balance between the needs of
different individuals and having them work towards shared goals. This
will always remain as the stable foundation to healthy civilizations.
As soon as a house needs to be built it's absolutely necessary to let
all parts involved focus on their task and work together in order to
fulfill each other with their respective specialization. Opposed to
the democratic view on work, where each individual is assumed to be
able to control and handle any given task, fascism claims the
opposite: only those who are in accordance with the natural abilities
of a specific task may fulfill them with the greatest perfection in
art. Anyone can build a fairly functioning place to stay, but how many
have the inherent skills to make it last for several years? It's thus
not about "who can do what", but merely "who can do it best". As seen
from a democratic point of view, this is promotion of "inequality".
Fascism sees it as natural and is not bound to moral obligations: each
individual has a unique ability and should thus work towards improving
it.
Put into a pragmatic context, this form of political specialization is
solved through the traditional system of guilds, or "corporativism",
as it is also called. This means that all carpenters will unite under
a union for carpenters, all leaders will unite under a union of
leaders etc. The benefits of this are many, but practically it is a
fully mature way of combining cheap and effective education with an
economic stability for all parts involved. It develops each respective
craft and creates a sense of pride in one's own ability and art. The
fascist form of corporativism is therefore a close relative to the
caste society, which focuses on individual specialization and denies
the democratic-capitalist way of valuing people according to money.
Within fascism, the natural ability of the individual is not seen as
an economic question, but a purely pragmatic one, leaving space for
individual improvement and development.
It must therefore be said that fascism is totally against the
political system of socialism, which sees all individuals as equal in
ability, but most importantly, divides the people up into economic
groups called "classes", where the working class is seen as suppressed
by the bourgeois class. Fascism wants to erase this clash and unite
the people under the things that ultimately bind them together:
history, culture and religious belief. In relation to this we can thus
address another common misconception about fascism: it is not simply a
political stance, but an overtly spiritual and transcendentalist
outlook on life..
The most noticeable difference between liberal democracy and a fascist
society, is however the question of leadership. Democracy is built
around the assumption that numerical votes automatically can decide
which idea is the one worth striving towards. Fascism claims the
opposite: no numerical votes or principle of the majority can find the
best solution to our problems. Only by recognizing the inherent
variation in ability among individuals, including leadership, may we
find a way of controlling and managing the issues of the state and its
different organs. Therefore, all traditional fascist societies have
been ruled by political leaders and not by the people, although the
general goals and ideals of both parties remain the same. Note that
this is not an actual hierarchy, as it is often presented from a
democratic point of view: a leader is just as worthy and useful for
society as a whole as a carpenter or an engineer. Corporativism wants
each individual to see his or her own specific place in the organic
order as a whole. Only through this view can we at last lay the
clashes between classes aside and start working for common goals
again..
Ultimately fascism is a philosophy for the future of modern
civilizations. Not until we dare to face the inherent problems with
democracy and its ways of creating moral illusions, can we find a
political system based on natural reality.
Topaz
Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
Otto Dietrich
The "Dritte Reich" stands firm. It rests on its foundations, on the
immortal values of the Nordic Race, and in the depth of Germany's
soul.
We call Adolf Hitler our "Leader" (Fuehrer), because that is what he
is. He united State and Nation in Germany.
Only the eye-witness, who has experienced day by day, at the side of
Adolf Hitler, the wave of love and enthusiasm which greets him from
every class of German, can realize that such ovations, so rare in the
life of statesmen, signify no artificial feeling, but genuine
affection.. Hundreds, thousands throng the streets and roads, and
surge toward his car.. The scenes which we witness day by day are
touching and heart-rending. They are not isolated examples, but occur
everywhere.
The history of the National Socialist Movement shall be handed down to
posterity as the epic of the resurrected German Nation.
With indomitable will and unprecedented perseverance, which no
reverse can dishearten, this previously unknown man of the people,
with a few faithful adherents, dared to pierce the lines of the
Marxist terror.. He knows; terror is not overcome by intellect, but by
terror.
Adolf Hitler was not permitted to speak in public. The party lacked
the most essential means. It's existence during the following years -
probably the most arduous of its life - was one long series of
persecutions, muzzling, and trickery. Whoever admitted National
Socialism, was banished from civil life, from the decadent bourgeoisie
and from the class-conscious workers. The mere suspicion of National
Socialism meant the loss of employment and bread, boycott and ruin of
business interests, the inevitable acceptance of misery.
Hundreds, thousands were imprisoned by the November State Government.
Throughout the streets raged bloodshed and scenes of Marxist terror.
All the powers of hell were let loose against the advancing young
movement.
After twelve years of inconceivably laborious preparation, the
N.S.D.A.P. felt strong enough to knock at the door of power in the
Reich
But strong elements of economic opposition were still prevalent, and
these he attacked at the beginning of 1932.
Even today, I can picture this meeting of prominent men. We came for
Godesberg, and drove up to the Park Hotel, amidst the hooting of the
Marxists. The room was over crowded. Huddled together, sat the chief
West German magnates. There were familiar and unfamiliar faces. Men in
the public eye , and those quiet , but no less influential powers,
who, moving behind the scenes, control the fate of economy by the soft
sounds issuing from their private offices- men said to bear a ledger
rather than a heart.
Joyful expectation brightened the faces of those already converted.
But the vast majority bore an air of superiority and cool reserve-
probably flattered that Hitler had approached them. Mere curiosity,
and general interest lured them to the meeting. They wanted to hear
Hitler speak. They had no intention of being converted; the came to
criticize, seeking confirmation of their own infallible opinion.
Our leader received a chilly ovation; he spoke from a slightly raised,
projecting balustrade, he hands resting lightly on the iron railing. I
sat, amongst the listeners, taking notes, and observing the effect of
his speech which lasted for over two hours. From world political
perspective and with cogent logic, out leader elucidated the relations
between economy and politics, their reciprocal effect, and their
results in Germany. He explained the cause of the situation , and
proposed the only possible remedy.
The general impression upon this group of most impassive listeners was
astounding. After an hour, their chilly reserve gave way to intense
interest. Hitler spoke of the titanic struggle of his political
warriors, needy and persecuted, but making every sacrifice, even that
of life, for their nation. He contrasted the German youth's unselfish
idealism, personified in National Socialism, and the noble character
of working-class followers, with the lack of comprehension, the
materialism, and the heavy guilt of the purely economically
established Bourgeoisie. He pricked their social conscience without
causing offence.
They began to flush, fixed their gaze upon out Leader's lips, and it
seemed as if their hearts were moved. He spoke to their very souls.
Faint, then thundering applause greeted Hitler at the conclusion of
his speech; he had won a battle.
The Jewish and Marxist Press lied boldly next day that Hitler had
feasted with the industrial magnates on champagne and lobsters.
Actually, a few minutes later, the night say us on the road again,
bent on fresh work.
Next day, Hitler addressed with equal success the Crefeld Silk
magnates in Godesberg. Later the national club in Hamburg. Everywhere,
the scene was the same.
Those were daring journeys, fraught with danger, through the very
strongholds of the Marxist potentates who were on the track of their
hated, sworn foe.
But Adolf Hitler fought his way through. The number-plate of his car
was smeared with oil and coated with dust- quite indiscernible.
Then we held our first meeting in Goerlitz, where the attendance
exceeded the hundred thousand figure. All the roads were crowed with
masses of people on foot, on bicycles, and in lorries, all with the
same destination.
Hitler spoke as the stars arose in the heavens, and amidst the flaring
torches.
Now the crowds recognized the luminous plane carrying our leader, who
had just devoted his time to them. Cheers broke out from a hundred
thousand throats, drowning even the thunder of our motors, whilst the
crowds brandished flaming torches in greeting.
We have experienced the following fact; In Germany, wherever economic
and moral distress was greatest, wherever things seemed most
intolerable, there, confidence in our leader was strongest, and
gripped all the people.
Wherever our leader approached, every man and woman came out. Crowds
lined the streets. Aged grandmothers, on whose distressed faces the
direst poverty was written, raised their arms in greeting. Wherever we
stopped, the women stretched out their children towards our leader.
There were tears of joy and emotion.
They used to meet upon the Platterhof. Adolf Hitler would often come
in the night fog to the Platterhof, to take counsel with his friends.
The "Conservative State Idea" appropriated our ideas. The most ancient
political mummies of the past suddenly appeared upon the scene, and,
without shame, claimed the credit for out previous successes.
The Youth stood by Hitler, because it knew that he personified the
Nation's Youth. From the beginning, our leader had valued most highly
the immense importance of Youth for the movement. Not the old
generation, but a rising generation, uncorrupted by the destructive
poison of the world ideas of the ruling classes, could bear the new
Germany upon its shoulders.
Finally, on 30th January, 1933, our leader made the short drive over
the Wilhelmsplatz to the Reichskanzler's Office. Amidst boundless
cheers. The seige was over, the fortress had fallen, the gates lay
open.
The political lie had played a prominent role in all epochs of
parliamentary history. But such accumulations of lies and defamations
as our opponents have hurled against the awakening young Germany in
the course of our 13 years' struggle have not been experienced.
What National Socialist's blood does not boil, if he recalls the rapid
fire of press lies, that witches Sabbath of infernal songs of hatred,
which burst upon the National Socialist Movement every day?
The activity of the Marxist Press against National Socialism, by means
of profligacy, unscrupulous lies and base agitation of the public,
stands unrivalled throughout the press of the whole world.
But this systematic lying campaign of our opponents was always the
best evidence of the moral weakness of their own position. The more
desperate their situation was, the more unscrupulous became their
press agitation.
The agitation of the Jewish-Marxist Press against the N.S.D.A.P., has
been such an essential ingredient of our opponents' struggle during
all these years, that we would be guilty of historical forgery if we
did not lay due stress upon this lying campaign in our description of
the events.
The National Socialist Party has re-united people and State, it has
restored the people to the State, and the State to the people. In this
way, an organism, complete within itself, and comprising every
function of the life of the community, was born from the Nation
itself, in the midst of a decadent people and a corrupt State.
In Nuremberg, the Party represented the German people and the German
State, before the eyes of the whole world. This was a more complete, a
more morally dignified, and a more imposing representation than the
State and Nation have ever previously enjoyed.
If proves the recognition that a new valuation of men, a valuation
based upon the laws of nature, is beginning to force its way through
from the hearts of the European Nations. It is about to overcome
Liberalism, and replace it by a new conception of the living
community.
The democratic, parliamentary Liberalism apodictically claimed for
itself the eternal title of the most purposeful and best form of
representation of the peoples rights. At last with its own eyes, the
Nation has recognized National Socialism as the organization of
naturally chosen leaders. National Socialism's achievements in the
fields of Socialism, Economy, Administration, and Reformation of the
Reich, speak for themselves. In one sweep, these leaders have
accomplished what dozens of previous parliamentary, democratic
governments vainly attempted in the most deplorable way.
Probably it is an act of justice and compensation, that the German
Nation, so sorely afflicted by the world-war, is chosen to lead the
way to a better future for the nations.
Topaz
Disney and the Jews:
Eisner and His Kind Must Stop Harming Our Children
by William L. Pierce
We've spoken about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment
media before, but it's a matter of such urgency that we need to talk
about it again and again. It is absolutely essential for us to
understand who controls our mass media and how they use their control
to undermine America.
Very recently a major rearrangement in the media world took place when
the Walt Disney company paid $19 billion to take control of Capital
Cities/ABC, the company that owns the ABC television network. That
makes the Disney company the biggest of the media conglomerates. And
it makes the man who controls Disney, Michael Eisner, the most
powerful media boss in the world.
What does this mean for the future of our people? Should we be
concerned that the company which brought us Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck,
and Snow White will in the future be playing a much bigger role in
forming the opinions of American television viewers and setting the
moral and cultural standards of our nation?
I'll answer that question: Yes, we certainly should be concerned,
because the Walt Disney company is not what it used to be. It has been
transformed from a wholesome producer of children's entertainment into
a malign instrument of subversion.
To understand how this happened, let's go back to the beginning. Walt
Disney was born in 1901 in a working-class, Midwestern American
family. He spent his early years on the family farm in Missouri. As a
teenager he helped support his family by delivering newspapers. He
later attributed his ability to overcome obstacles and achieve success
to the work discipline that he developed as a boy with the newspaper
route.
Although young Walt came from a typical American background, with no
advantages or privileges, he was a person of exceptional talent and
drive. He felt a strong artistic urge while he was still in grade
school, and he took a correspondence course in drawing. He continued
to develop his drawing skills in high school as a cartoonist for his
school paper. He dropped out of school at 16 and served in the First
World War. After the war, instead of finishing high school, he and
another young artist began experimenting with animated films in a tiny
studio of their own in Kansas City. Using very primitive equipment,
they made short, animated cartoons based on fairy tales. They tried to
market their films through a New York film distributor, but the New
Yorker took advantage of the struggling, young filmmakers: he stole
their work and left them destitute.
In 1922, at the ripe age of 20, Walt Disney decided to make a fresh
start in Hollywood. He sold his camera to raise enough money to make
the trip to California. There he enlisted the support of his brother
Roy as a business manager, and he persuaded his fellow artist in
Kansas City to come join him. With Walt's drive and determination,
they opened a new film studio. They invented a film character they
called Oswald the Rabbit, and a series of animated cartoons featuring
Oswald enabled the small studio to gain a foothold in the film
business.
Later, when sound films were introduced in 1927, Walt invented Mickey
Mouse. Walt himself provided Mickey's voice. Mickey Mouse was an
enormous success and helped Walt Disney Productions prosper and grow.
Over the years Walt Disney's fertile imagination gave us Donald Duck,
Goofy and Pluto, Dumbo the elephant, and a score of other animal
characters which have fascinated children all over the world for more
than 60 years. In 1937 Disney produced his great masterpiece, Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs. This beautifully animated fairy tale
appealed to adults as well as to children. Like many fairy tales its
roots lie deep in the consciousness of our people.
After Snow White came Pinnochio, Fantasia, and Bambi. Walt Disney
Productions became a major power in the American film industry. And it
was unique, in that it was the only major film producer in Hollywood
not owned or controlled by Jews. The fact that Walt Disney was not a
Jew caused problems for him, however. He was surrounded by Jews who
resented his influence on American culture. A whispering campaign was
organized against him. Stories were spread that he was a fascist. He
began having labor problems.
The real problem, of course, was that Walt Disney's vision of the
world, as reflected in the films he produced, was wholly different
from that of the Jewish film producers around him. As long as Walt was
making Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck cartoons, this problem could be
overlooked. When he began animating feature-length fairy tales like
Snow White and Cinderella, the Jews in Hollywood became increasingly
nervous. The world of Snow White was an entirely White world, a
European world. It stirred deep feelings in European Americans, and
the aim of the Jewish media bosses then as now was to make White
Americans forget their roots. They wanted to begin promoting
multiculturalism as soon as the Second World War was over, and Walt
was in their way. They couldn't push racial mixing in their films and
have someone as popular as Walt Disney refuse to go along: the
contrast would be obvious to the public. Even Disney's extremely
popular Nature films were resented by the rest of Hollywood. Films
which promoted a love for animals and the natural world were viewed
with suspicion by men whose view of life was entirely economic and
metropolitan.
These may seem like subtle differences, and in fact most people
outside of Hollywood were oblivious to the ideological and cultural
conflict between Walt Disney and the other film producers. The closest
that the conflict came to attracting public attention was during the
1940s and early 1950s, when Walt Disney's total lack of sympathy for
Communism and his refusal to let Communist propaganda be introduced
into any of his productions set him apart from the rest of Hollywood.
While Walt was alive, however, there wasn't much that Hollywood could
do about him. He was too popular with the American people.
After Walt died in 1966, however, the situation changed. His company
had depended on his genius for its prosperity, and without him it had
a difficult time keeping up with the competition. After Disney company
profits had declined for several years, Jewish corporate raiders Saul
Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs moved in for the kill. In 1984, after
Steinberg had milked the company of $32 million, Disney family
shareholders were too weak to resist a takeover by Michael Eisner, the
Jewish boss of Paramount Pictures. Eisner in turn brought in as his
second in command another Jew, Jeffrey Katzenberg. The company that
Walt Disney built-the company that gave us Snow White and Fantasia --
has been in Jewish hands ever since.
During his first day as chairman of the Disney company-his first day,
believe it or not-Eisner ordered the production of an R-rated film,
about the kinky sexual misadventures of a typically neurotic Jewish
family in the Los Angeles area. This was the first R-rated film ever
produced by the Disney company-but certainly not the last.
Actually, what Michael Eisner has done to the Disney company is far
worse than cutting the soul out of it. He has transformed it into
another instrument in the Jewish campaign to multiculturalize America.
He has made it into a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument
aimed at our children.
There are no better examples of this than a couple of recent
children's films produced by the Disney company under Eisner: The
Jungle Book and Pocahontas. Actually, in 1967, the year after Walt
Disney's death, the original Disney company made an animated film
based on Kipling's Jungle Book stories of India. It was a film in the
Disney tradition, made to entertain children and not to brainwash
them. Last year Mr. Eisner produced a new, Politically Correct version
of The Jungle Book. The new version, which uses live characters
instead of animation, promotes interracial sex. In Mr. Eisner's
version, White males are portrayed as contemptible, cowardly, inept,
and disloyal. The White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancee',
and lets herself be wooed and won by an Indian jungle boy, played by a
Chinese actor. And, of course, it bears no resemblance at all to
anything written by Rudyard Kipling. I hardly need comment on the film
Pocahontas, which has received so much publicity recently, except to
say that its message is the same as that of Eisner 's version of The
Jungle Book: namely, that racial mixing is A-OK, that there's
absolutely no reason why a White man should not marry an Indian woman
or why a White woman should not have an affair with a Chinaman.
It took Mr. Eisner ten years to drag the Disney company down to the
Pocahontas level. He is a careful man. He knows that there is a lot at
stake. He certainly doesn't want to move too fast and cause a negative
reaction from the American public. He didn't want to alert the
American public to his intentions ten years ago. So he started with
R-rated sex films and gradually moved to films which tell White
children that miscegenation is fine and noble, and that non-Whites
really have much more character than Whites. But I believe that Mr.
Eisner had this outcome clearly in his mind from the first day that he
took over the Disney company and began degrading it.
And now Mr. Eisner will have the ABC television network under his
control too. I don't expect that to change the party line at ABC very
much. ABC, like the other TV networks, has been pretty solidly Jewish
from the beginning. It was headed by Jewish media boss Leonard
Goldenson for more than 30 years. The fact that Capital Cities
Communications, whose chairman is Thomas Murphy, a Gentile, merged
with Goldenson's ABC ten years ago didn't really have much influence
on programming. Goldenson's people remained in the policy-making
positions. Eisner's buyout of ABC just consolidates things in Jewish
hands a bit. It takes Murphy out of the picture and makes it easier
for ABC to become even more Politically Correct than it was. It means
that we will be seeing programs on the ABC television network
promoting miscegenation and undermining White self-confidence a little
more frequently than before. It speeds up the schedule a bit for
introducing even more destructive propaganda than before. It means
that our children will be subjected to somewhat more intense
brainwashing than before.
The situation with the rest of the mass media of news and
entertainment isn't really different, of course. Just as Jews took
over Hollywood in the 1930s, they also took over the other media, and
today they have such an overwhelming influence that even those who are
not Jews go along with their policies in order to get along.
Often when I point out this fact of Jewish media control to persons
who are Politically Correct, they will respond by saying that it makes
no difference who controls the media. Why does it bother me that Jews
run Hollywood, they ask in a sneering, condescending tone. I know that
people who respond in this way aren't being honest. They would
certainly think it made a difference if I controlled the media, for
example. And actually I'd be concerned if any group with an agenda of
its own had control of the media. I'd be concerned if all of the media
were in the hands of Southern Baptists, for example, or radical
vegetarians.
I am especially concerned about the Jewish control of the media,
however, for two reasons. First, the people who control the media also
control the political process in America: they control, in effect, the
policies of our government and the course taken by our society. That's
because the politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans,
will not stand up to the Jews. Instead they grovel at the Jews' feet.
Every politician knows that he must be portrayed favorably by the
media if he is to be elected, and every politician knows who controls
the media.
The second reason why Jewish control of the media is such a disaster
for us is based in the unique nature of the Jews. If Baptists
controlled the media perhaps they'd persuade the government to have a
law against making love on Sunday. If radical vegetarians controlled
the media, we might have to eat soyburgers instead of hamburgers.
But we can survive those things. We might not be happy, but we could
survive: our people could survive. Neither the Baptists nor the
vegetarians would be trying to corrupt us spiritually or to destroy
our race.
But corrupt and destroy are exactly what Mr. Eisner is doing. That's
the purpose of films like The Jungle Book and Pocahontas. They are
aimed, first, at the spiritual corruption of our children and,
ultimately, at the destruction of our people.
I know that statement sounds extreme to some people who are not
familiar with the facts of Jewish media control. They think that two
recent children's films from the Walt Disney company which promote
racial mixing aren't enough evidence to condemn all of the people who
control our news and entertainment media. And I must agree. One needs
much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone
who is not afraid to look at it, for anyone who is not so determined
to be Politically Correct that he refuses to see it.
For example, consider what has happened to the popular music industry
in recent years. It's not just the "gangsta rap" that we've heard a
few Republican politicians complaining about because the media people
who've been pushing "gangsta rap" moved a little too fast and caused a
negative reaction from the American people. It's the whole trend of
popular music away from traditional White forms and toward non-White
forms. I don't have to tell you who controls the popular music
industry in America, but I will anyway. In particular, the biggest
music companies promoting Black "rap" music among White children-
companies like Time Warner and MTV-are solidly Jewish. A Jew named
Gerald Levin is to Time Warner what Michael Eisner is to Disney. And
MTV is owned by Sumner Redstone, another Jew, through his Viacom
Corporation. These three companies that I've just mentioned-Disney,
Viacom, and Time Warner-are America's three biggest producers of mass
entertainment-they're number one, number two, and number three,
respectively-and they're all controlled by Jews. Is that just a
coincidence? Think about it!
I could spend the next hour talking about the genealogy of the biggest
media bosses. What you really need to do to be convinced, however, is
to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough
facts to get you started. Just write to me.
The idea I want to leave you with today is this: In this era in which
the mass media have such a powerful influence over our people's ideas
and attitudes and values, it is essential that we take the control of
those media away from a group which is utterly alien to us. It's a
group whose primary aim is to deaden our sense of identity and kill
any sense of racial consciousness among us, so that we will not be
able to resist the poisonous doctrines which they're promoting. These
doctrines are multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism
-- and, of course, "diversity"-all of the racially destructive "isms"
of Political Correctness.
In this era when the single most important influence on the
development of a child's self-image is television entertainment, it is
essential that people like Michael Eisner and Sumner Redstone not be
the ones setting the tone for that entertainment.
We all know that America has lost its sense of purpose and is
drifting. We all know that American society is coming apart. We all
know that our traditional values, our traditional life-style, our
traditional heroes and role models have been disparaged and ridiculed
by the controlled media. We all know that the idea of White racial
guilt, the idea of deferring to minorities, the idea that we should
tolerate perversion and accept it as "normal"-all of these ideas have
been pushed by the mass media. Alienation and delinquency among our
young people are increasing. The traditional American family is in
serious decline. Racial intermarriage is on the rise. Non-White
immigrants are pouring across our borders, and no serious effort is
being made to stop them. Our political system has become hopelessly
corrupt.
The only way that we can even begin to cure this illness is to regain
complete control of our mass media. Our media must be used to give our
people a sense of identity; a sense of racial community; a sense of
kinship, of belonging; a sense of racial and national purpose. We must
take control away from the people who are using the media now to
confuse and alienate and mislead us. Only when our own people are
setting the standards for the media, only when our own people are
deciding what attitudes and values should be taught to our children,
can we become strong and healthy again-and that means breaking the
Jewish control of the media. Let me hear from you on this most
important of all the issues facing our people.
Topaz
By Dr. William Pierce
http://www.natvan.com
"The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World War.
They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in banking, in
advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice, in
publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the spirit
of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and literature.
They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They were
ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German
sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe
that it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were
promoting the same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.
That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification of a new German constitution, took place in the city of
Weimar. The Jews loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the
most degenerate period in Germany's history. The Jews, of course,
didn't think of it as
degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and
"cool." Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was
considered a virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been
written by Jews in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to
the skies and looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the
so-called
"Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to
the Weimar period.
There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one
hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a
normal, healthy White person would view things differently. Check it
out for yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.
The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War, the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to
America after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the
healthiest elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as
many Americans have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany
the Jews were a bit premature. Although they had much of the media
under their control,
they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The
healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.
In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully.
In America they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in
America. It's still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to
be a lot tougher this time. We'd better get started. The first step is
to regain at least partial control of our media, so that we can begin
contradicting the lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a
part of that first step."
Topaz
Here are some quotes from the official NSDAP book on the proceedings
of the 1936 Nuremberg Rally by Dr. Walther Schmitt:
Adolf Hitler's double proclamation to the party rally makes clear the
inner National Socialist unity of political accomplishment and
cultural guidance. That alone says more about the National Socialist
movement than all the intellectual analysts could say with a thousand
essays. The combination of politics and culture in the party rally's
program is clear proof of the enormous confidence that fills the
German renewal movement, and which as always spurs it on to still
greater accomplishments. No matter how splendid and triumphant the
political accomplishments discussed in the morning are, come evening
the party reports on it cultural strengths and achievements. It knows
that great political accomplishments also demand great works of art,
and that only these will justify its position in history.
As the Führer has said, National Socialism sees artistic creations as
the highest expression of a nation's being. This view, which breaks
decisively from the past, was expressed in the conclusion of his
speech about the new German cultural era at Nuremberg in 1936: "Art is
the only truly immortal product of human activity."...
Adolf Hitler announced at the conclusion of the 1936 party rally that
it will in the future become a great German Olympic festival: "What
came of the pitiable rallies of our former opponents! Now we see a
great exhibition of the nation in political, military, spiritual,
cultural and economic arenas. The physical activity of the nation must
also be included in the splendid new facilities of the party rally
grounds. It will be a new Olympia, one in modern form and under a
different name!" Once again the Führer revealed in these words the
greatness of an idea which is not a dead teaching, rather part of our
innermost being, an ever living appeal to all sound feelings and to
the creative strength of each German...
We sense that just as Napoleon transformed Paris into the glittering
center of his state with monumental plans, so too the national capital
of Berlin will become a source of pride and greatness for the entire
nation.
It finally would be improper if the artistic level of the ceremonies
themselves were not of a level keeping with their vast new
surroundings. This was evident both in the youth ceremonies and those
of the Labor Service at the 1936 Party Rally of Honor. Their simple
clarity and almost architectural form were a deep expression of the
new German life. The same was true of the powerful oath of political
leaders of the movement, held under the deep black night sky. As Adolf
Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
the heavens, creating a dome of light of unimaginable splendor above
the Zeppelin Field. This political roll call of National Socialism
took place under a symphony of flags, light and disciplined columns,
towered over by the marble platform.
Every moment of this party really demonstrated the creative,
constructive will of the National Socialist movement. Everyone in
Nuremberg felt this and was swept away by its force. The spiritual
strength of the party of construction led to an inevitable
confrontation with Jewish-International Bolshevism, whose systematic
work of destruction has brought one nation after another in Europe to
crisis and misery.
As a proud victor, the Führer in his opening proclamation could list
the accomplishments of his government and the movement, which National
Socialism has done in less than four years since it took power. The
battle against unemployment and the large new economic undertakings
are part of a long series of accomplishments that only four years ago
seemed an impossible dream, but today are already part of a history
that National Socialism hardly speaks about any longer. Yet these
great achievements are not the party's crowning glory. More beautiful
and glorious is the educational work of the movement, its building of
a new German man. The accomplishments thus far have never been rivaled
by any previous government in so short a time..
The Führer spoke of the lessons of political development in recent
years. He spoke as well of the experiences that Germany and the
National Socialist movement have had with the destructive Bolshevist
idea. He proclaimed the iron will of the new Germany to drive back
with force any Bolshevist attack. In this moment the Führer of Germany
became the greatest political prophet in all of Europe.
The National Socialists who heard Germany's Führer know that the words
Adolf Hitler spoke in Nuremberg are the result of serious, mature
reflection, careful observation, and irresistable logic. Here speaks a
man who knows better than anyone else the bestial nature and methods
of Bolshevism. His warning and firm bearing were therefore a political
prophecy that will guide the future development of European politics.
The movement in Nuremberg understood. The thanks and jubilation of his
followers doubled as he called up the old iron laws and virtues of the
National Socialist movement to stand up to Bolshevism, hammering them
once more into the hearts of his followers. Our brown army overcame
Jewish-Bolshevist anarchy in Germany, marching under the eagles of the
National Socialist standards and our red battle flags. The spirit that
led the German war for independence against Moscow will make Germany
strong in the future, defeating any Bolshevist attack on Central
Europe. That is the message of Nuremberg.