JEWISH PROPHET WARNS OF AMERICA'S JUDGMENT!
Roger
heard directly the voice of God since 1996. He accurately predicted the
9/11 attacks months before they happened. Now he's predicting a stock
market collapse, nuclear attack on America, World War III, and a coming
holocaust of Christians, Jews, and others in America. Read excerpts of
his latest book free at http://www.thedayofthelordisathand.com/.
Topaz
Exposing the Real Racists
Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been
sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian
Duma (parliament).
----------------------------------------------------------
In 1905, a new book was catalogued in the British Library. Its title
was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it claimed to be
the secret minutes of Jewish elitists who planned to dominate the
world. Most authorities now view The Protocols of Zion as an elaborate
forgery concocted by agents of the Russian Czar.
Over the last century since the book's release, thousands of other
books have been written on what is called the 'Jewish Question'. The
vast majority of them defend the Jewish people from the forces of
'Anti-Semitism', yet still the best selling book on the Jews since
1905 has been The Protocols, which has been published in most of the
world's languages. According to prominent Jewish leaders in Russia,
the popularity of 'The Protocols' has now been eclipsed by a new book
titled Jewish Supremacism. Unlike The Protocols, this book is no
forgery, for its author is proud of his work. He is the controversial
American politician David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House
of Representatives.
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.
If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Richard
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-
separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I
attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign
flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign
national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the
superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.
'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.
In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-
Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very
effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-
Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-
Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects.
But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders
of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up
in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.
While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.
INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT
In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled 'anti-
Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define that
term.
In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.
Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-
'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'
With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.
ON ISRAELI TERROR
Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.
Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.
Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.
In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.
It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.
After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Baruch
peace-loving Nazis... What a pathetic wanker. You make Azure look good.
Topaz wrote:
Reams of nonsense...
Baruch
> his latest book free at http://www.link-deleted
Come to think of it, most of the prophets *were* Jewish...
Don't sweat the Apocalypse. It's been about to happen "real soon now" for
2000 years and more. It probably isn't going to happen any time soon. And
if it does, it's only going to happen once, and then you won't have to
worry about it any more.
--
Q: Why should you always serve a Southern Carolina football man
soup in a plate?
A: 'Cause if you give him a bowl, he'll throw it away.
tim gueguen
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pfod619m8jkamu5ns...@4ax.com...
>
> Exposing the Real Racists
>
> Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
>
> Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
>
book by an apologist for Nazism.
tim gueguen 101867
Topaz
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
intelligence is against the law there.
The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
But the United States does have the most free speech and this was a
great idea. Hitler also had a great idea of removing the Jews from
controlling the media. If we could combine these two ideas we could
have a winning combination. Allowing free speech is not the same as
allowing one unelected group to virtually control all of the media.
The media is the real power, and a minor post such as President of the
United States is like nothing by comparison. Why are we voting for
President and not voting for who will control the media? When it comes
to owning TV stations it is only money that talks, not morality or
virtue.
In the Jews country, which Americans are giving billions of
dollars to, they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
to change that.
Topaz
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936
. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.
In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.
And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.
That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!
Baruch
others, all trying to get them.
Topaz
"Without the solution of the Jewish Question, there is no salvation
for
the peoples of the world.
Despite the fierce and fiery reaction of its blind or bought allies,
the disastrous role of the Jew, this parasite upon the body of every
people is being drawn more and more into the light of day. Everywhere
where morality, law, and order succumb to disintegration, where
racketeering and corruption devour the economy, where materialistic
dialectics undermine the foundations of faith, where Marxist
propaganda transforms politics into a criminal reality, where the
healthy race of the people is made sick and desecrated -- there one
meets everywhere the tracks of the Jew.
The Jew is fundamentally and basically criminal. Crime is, for him,
the form of existence inherent in him. Thus, just as the spirochetes
which are the bearers of syphilis, so the Jews are the carriers of
criminality in its political and non-political form.
The frequent criminality of the Jew is as well known a fact as its
peculiar inclination and aptitude for fraud, dirty enterprises,
cheating in gambling, usury, sexual offenses of all kinds,
pickpocketing, high treason, etc.
With the toxin of crime and the weapon of Bolshevism, the Jew conducts
his war of extermination against all that is wholesome, true, good and
noble in the world. He is the embodiment of evil, which rebels against
God and Nature."
Baruch
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:14:58 GMT, Baruch
> <""baruch01\"@N0sbcglobal.net$PAM"> wrote:
>
>
>>Poor, peace-loving Nazis, have to put up with those nasty Jews and
>>others, all trying to get them.
>
>
> "Without the solution of the Jewish Question, there is no salvation
> for
> the peoples of the world.
>
Feckless twit, worshiping the biggest loser of the 20th Century, who
snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because he was crazy...
Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are
set out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that
the few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas
chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually
built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit
that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at
Auschwitz was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no
physical evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of
people who died from gas have been found. The Communists were the
first to enter the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists
didn't blow up the buildings? Then they could claim that these
demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992],
the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess
by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating
what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he
and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into
making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237],
he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get
Höess to
reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order
signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables,
where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless
you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat.
Höss
tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered
in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification:
"I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The
snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to
walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October
17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf
Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us
when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during
the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail
cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed
with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed
with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out
for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the
bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke
down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition
Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been
extracted
from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions
of Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London
Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent
of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other
country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a
world-wide revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was
Gerhart Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist
Party in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film
writers of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of
Congress and sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and
published by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes
Stalin in an interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it
is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of
things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by
Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism,
as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
someone4
>speech or writting.
No you don't, people say politically incorrect things here all the
time. Comedy can often be politically incorrect, we can laugh at
ourselves, and that is a sign of a healthy communal state of mind.
>Saying that the races are not all equal in
>intelligence is against the law there.
Racial discrimination is, and for good reason. We live in a
multicultural society, and on the whole it works well. It broadens our
minds, and gives more depth and diversity to our lives. Problems can
come when small minded people try to stereotype people according to
their race, social background, political beliefs, lifestyle choice,
fashion sense, religion, or whatever they, in their small mindedness
decide is the important quality, for their own selfish reasons. The
advantage of a multicultural society, is that you get to know
individuals from other cultures, and so it is harder for these small
minded bigoted people to convince others of some fictional stereotype,
which in reality no one fits. Stereotypes are cartoon characters with
no depth, individuals are a lot more complex than that. Bigotry is
based on ignorant assumptions about individuals, who you don't even
know.
What would you define as intelligence by the way, and how would you
measure it?
Topaz
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>No you don't, people say politically incorrect things here all the
>time. Comedy can often be politically incorrect, we can laugh at
>ourselves, and that is a sign of a healthy communal state of mind.
You are wrong all your freinds a liberal like you, which is why you
don't know what is going on. People outside your circle of liberalism
do get arrested for thought crimes in Britain. They following is
against the law to say in Britain:
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
>
>>Saying that the races are not all equal in
>>intelligence is against the law there.
>
>Racial discrimination is, and for good reason. We live in a
>multicultural society, and on the whole it works well. It broadens our
>minds, and gives more depth and diversity to our lives. Problems can
>come when small minded people try to stereotype people according to
>their race, social background, political beliefs, lifestyle choice,
Portugal was once a great nation. It might have been the greatest
nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot
of Black people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage.
Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to
preserve the White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
the blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded
a superior type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the exterenal
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined
by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only
by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing
this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer
insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no
more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so
that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very
high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of
humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
>fashion sense, religion, or whatever they, in their small mindedness
>decide is the important quality, for their own selfish reasons. The
>advantage of a multicultural society, is that you get to know
>individuals from other cultures, and so it is harder for these small
>minded bigoted people to convince others of some fictional stereotype,
>which in reality no one fits. Stereotypes are cartoon characters with
>no depth, individuals are a lot more complex than that. Bigotry is
>based on ignorant assumptions about individuals, who you don't even
>know.
>
>What would you define as intelligence by the way, and how would you
>measure it?
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want.
http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. Iceland has no shipping lanes or
natural
resources, Yet they have one of the worlds lowest crime rates, and
have
some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great
weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the world.
etc,
etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move
them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation
Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and
hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
R. Steve Walz
>
> On 24 Apr 2005 13:39:37 -0700, "someone4"
> <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >No you don't, people say politically incorrect things here all the
> >time. Comedy can often be politically incorrect, we can laugh at
> >ourselves, and that is a sign of a healthy communal state of mind.
>
> You are wrong all your freinds a liberal like you, which is why you
> don't know what is going on. People outside your circle of liberalism
> do get arrested for thought crimes in Britain.
And that's because they don't say things that are a fraud on the public.
Britain is one of the first nations to sensibly have laws against LIES!
> They following is
> against the law to say in Britain:
>
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
> world are the Arabs and China.
-----------------------------
Your notion of that terminology is entirely incorrect.
> It is just as racialists would predict.
------------------------------
No wonder.
> It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
> the Black race.
--------------------------------
Which means nothing. The fact YOU don't know WHY indicates that you're
on the low end ofthe intelligence spectrum, but the explanation has
to do with starting point vs rate of change. When a people have less
educated parents and relatives and neighbors, they start school with a
deficit. On top of that, when such a deprived people generates the
hate that any group of humans will, toward those who have deprived
or enslaved them, this compensatory belief system acts to prevent them
learning any field of knowledge dominated by their abusers because
of hatred and suspicion.
> The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
> people in India.
---------------------------
And so you think that if you get a tan your intelligence will
diminish? You must think you've been cooked under a sunlamp!
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
> important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
> the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
> are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
----------------------------
Well no wonder...
That's your problem right there, you believe in the lies of a racist.
Steve
someone4
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
> world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would
predict.
Well in the next 20 years China might be the biggest economy in the
world, how would they explain that? That India is rising so fast now,
the West is starting to farm out IT to them, and their manufacturing is
growing at an impressive rate.
The reason Europe did so well, was because it had the last empires,
from the Roman to the British. These were built upon technologies from
earlier civilisations and Empires. America was built on advances from
Europe.
When the African ancient Egypt Civilisation was around where were the
'white' people then? Did this mean that the Egyptians were much more
intelligent than the 'white' people?
What about the Chinese civilisation?
Japan uses the Chinese characters, so arguably the Chinese gave them
writing.
It is simply a case of empires going in cycles, they rise, using the
technology available at the time, and presumably some new concepts, and
then eventually they fall (though arguably China is still pretty much
standing, even after the Mongol invasion).
>All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
>intelligent than Blacks.
IQ tests just measure how good people are at IQ tests, it doesn't
measure intelligence. If you practise IQ tests you improve at them. Are
you becoming more intelligent?
If you believe you should distinguish people by what they get on IQ
tests, why not do exactly that, regardless of their ethnic origin.
There are 'black' people with a higher IQ than you or Hitler. Are they
superior?
>White people invented just about everything
>important.
What did they invent before 1BC for example?
What was their level of civilisation at say 2500BC compared to
civilisations like Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, Babylonia etc?
How do you explain the technical inferiority of the 'white' races
around this time?
Are the Greeks and Romans 'Aryan'? The Romans for example were more
olive skinned, and not as 'white' as the Nordic races, they were also
smaller in stature. Technology wise, they made the Nordic people look
positively primitive. They described these people as barbarians.
>"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
>native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the exterenal
>features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
>observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
>real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
>scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
>to say, of Aryan peoples."
In this extract from Mein Kampf, Hitler was talking about more modern
achievements, but it is a mistake to think that these came out of the
blue, technology is built upon previous technologies.
Are Jews Aryan people?
Here is a list of some Jewish Nobel prize winners that contributed to
the scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America:
*Biomedical Sciences*:
Julius Axelrod, US, discoveries concerning the humoral transmitters in
the nerve terminals and the mechanism for their storage, release and
inactivation
David Baltimore, US, discoveries concerning the interaction between
tumor viruses and the genetic material of the cell
Baruj Benacerraf, Venezuela, discoveries concerning genetically
determined structures on the cell surface that regulate immunological
reactions
Konrad Bloch, Germany, discoveries concerning the mechanism and
regulation of the cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism
Baruch Blumberg, US, discoveries concerning new mechanisms for the
origin and dissemination of infectious diseases
Sydney Brenner, South Africa, discoveries concerning genetic regulation
of organ development and programmed cell death
Michael Brown, US, discoveries concerning the regulation of cholesterol
metabolism
Ernst Chain, Germany, discovery of penicillin and its curative effect
in various infectious diseases
Stanley Cohen, US, discoveries of growth factors
Gerty Theresa Cori, Czechoslovakia, discovery of the course of the
catalytic conversion of glycogen
Gerald Edelman, US, discoveries concerning the chemical structure of
antibodies
Paul Ehrlich, Germany, for work on immunity
Gertrude Elion, US, discoveries of important principles for drug
treatment
Joseph Erlanger, US, for discoveries relating to the highly
differentiated functions of single nerve fibers
Robert Furchgott, US, discoveries concerning nitric oxide as a
signaling molecule in the cardiovascular system
Alfred Gilman, US, discovery of G-proteins and the role of these
proteins in signal transduction in cells
Joseph Goldstein, US, discoveries concerning the regulation of
cholesterol metabolism
Paul Greengard, US, for signal transduction in the nervous system
Francois Jacob, France, discoveries concerning genetic control of
enzyme and virus synthesis
Robert Horvitz, US, discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ
development and programmed cell death
Eric Kandel, Austria, for signal transduction in the nervous system
Bernard Katz, Germany, discoveries concerning the humoral transmitters
in the nerve terminals and the mechanism for their storage, release and
inactivation
Arthur Kornberg, US, discovery of the mechanisms in the biological
synthesis of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid
Hans Adolf Krebs, Germany, discovery of the citric acid cycle
Karl Landsteiner, Austria, for discovery of human blood groups
Joshua Lederberg, US, discovered genetic recombination and the
organization of the genetic material of bacteria
Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy, discoveries of growth factors
Fritz Lipmann, Germany, discovery of co-enzyme A and its importance for
intermediary metabolism
Otto Loewi, Austria, for discoveries relating to chemical transmission
of nerve impulses
Salvador Luria, Italy, discoveries concerning the replication mechanism
and the genetic structure of viruses
Andre Lwoff, France, discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme
and virus synthesis
Otto Meyerhof, Germany, for discovery of the relationship between
consumption of oxygen and the metabolism of lactic acid in the muscle
Cesar Milstein, Argentina, theories concerning the specificity in
development and control of the immune system and the discovery of the
principle for production of monoclonal antibodies
Hermann Muller, US, discovery of the production of mutations by means
of X-ray irradiation (half Jewish)
Daniel Nathans, US, discovery of restriction enzymes and their
application to problems of molecular genetics
Marshall Nirenberg, US, interpretation of the genetic code and its
function in protein synthesis
Stanley Prusiner, US, discovery of Prions - a new biological principle
of infection
Tadeus Reichstein, Poland, discoveries relating to the hormones of the
adrenal cortex, their structure and biological effects
Martin Rodbell, US, discovery of G-proteins and the role of these
proteins in signal transduction in cells
Andrew Schally, Poland, discoveries concerning the peptide hormone
production of the brain
Howard Temin, US, discoveries concerning the interaction between tumor
viruses and the genetic material of the cell
Harold Varmus, US, discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral
oncogenes
Selman Waksman, Russia, discovery of streptomycin, the first antibiotic
effective against tuberculosis
George Wald, US, discoveries concerning the primary physiological and
chemical visual processes in the eye
Rosalyn Yalow, US, for the development of radioimmunoassays of peptide
hormones
*Physics*:
Alexei Alexeevich Abrikosov, Russia, for pioneering contributions to
the theory of superconductors and superfluids (half Jewish)
Felix Bloch, Swiss and US, for his development of new methods for
nuclear magnetic precision measurements and discoveries in connection
therewith
Niels Bohr, Denmark, for his quantum model of the atom (half Jewish)
Max Born, Germany and US, for his fundamental research in quantum
mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the
wavefunction
Albert Einstein, US, for the discovery of the photoelectric effect
Richard P. Feynman, US, for their fundamental work in quantum
electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of
elementary particles
James Franck, Germany, for their discovery of the laws governing the
impact of an electron upon an atom
Jerome Isaac Friedman, US, for their pioneering investigations
concerning deep inelastic scattering of electrons on protons and bound
neutrons, which have been of essential importance for the development
of the quark model in particle physics
Dennis Gabor, Hungary, for his invention and development of the
holographic method
Murray Gell-Mann, US, for his contributions and discoveries concerning
the classification of elementary particles and their interactions"
Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, Russia, for pioneering contributions to the
theory of superconductors and superfluids
Donald Arthur Glaser, US, for the invention of the bubble chamber
Sheldon Lee Glashow, US, for their contributions to the theory of the
unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary
particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral
current
Robert Hofstadter, US, for his pioneering studies of electron
scattering in atomic nuclei and for his thereby achieved discoveries
concerning the structure of the nucleons
Brian David Josephson, UK, for his theoretical predictions of the
properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier, in particular
those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effect
Lev Davidovich Landau, Russia, for his pioneering theories for
condensed matter, especially liquid helium
Leon Max Lederman, US, for the neutrino beam method and the
demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the
discovery of the muon neutrino
Gabriel Lippmann, France, for his method of reproducing colours
photographically based on the phenomenon of interference
Albert Abraham Michelson, US, for his optical precision instruments and
the spectroscopic and metrological investigations carried out with
their aid
Ben Roy Mottelson, US and Denmark,for the discovery of the connection
between collective motion and particle motion in atomic nuclei and the
development of the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus based
on this connection
Arno Allan Penzias, US, for their discovery of cosmic microwave
background radiation
Martin Lewis Perl, for the discovery of the tau lepton
Isidor Isaac Rabi, US, for his resonance method for recording the
magnetic properties of atomic nuclei
Burton Richter, US, for their pioneering work in the discovery of a
heavy elementary particle of a new kind
Emilio G. Segrè, Italy and US, for their discovery of the antiproton
Melvin Schwartz, US, for the neutrino beam method and the demonstration
of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the
muon neutrino
Jack Steinberger, US, for the neutrino beam method and the
demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the
discovery of the muon neutrino
Otto Stern, US, for his contribution to the development of the
molecular ray method and his discovery of the magnetic moment of the
proton
Steven Weinberg, US, for their contributions to the theory of the
unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary
particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral
current
*Chemistry*:
Sidney Altman, Canada, discovery of catalytic properties of RNA
Christian Anfinsen, US, work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the
connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active
conformation (convert)
Paul Berg, US, for his fundamental studies of the biochemistry of
nucleic acids, with particular regard to recombinant-DNA
Herbert Brown, Ukraine, development of the use of boron- and
phosphorus-containing compounds, respectively, into important reagents
in organic synthesis
Melvin Calvin, US, research on the carbon dioxide assimilation in
plants
Aaron Ciechanover, Israel, 2004, for the discovery of
ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation
Avram Hershko, Israel, 2004, for the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated
protein degradation
George de Hevesy, Hungary, the use of isotopes as tracers in the study
of chemical processes
Walter Gilbert, US, contributions concerning the determination of base
sequences in nucleic acids
Fritz Haber, Germany, for the synthesis of ammonia from its elements
Herbert Hauptman, US, development of direct methods for the
determination of crystal structures
Alan Heeger, US, for the discovery and development of conductive
polymers
Roald Hoffmann, Poland, theories, developed independently, concerning
the course of chemical reactions
Jerome Karle, US, development of direct methods for the determination
of crystal structures
Aaron Klug, Lithuania, development of crystallographic electron
microscopy and his structural elucidation of biologically important
nucleic acid-protein complexes
Walter Kohn, Austria, for his development of the density-functional
theory
Rudolph Marcus, Canada, contributions to the theory of electron
transfer reactions in chemical systems
Henri Moissan, France, for investigation and isolation of the element
fluorine, and for the adoption in the service of science of the
electric furnace called after him (half Jewish)
George Olah, Hungary, for his contribution to carbocation chemistry
Ilya Prigogine, Russia, contributions to non-equilibrium
thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures
Max Perutz, Austria, studies of the structures of globular proteins
William Stein, US, contribution to the understanding of the connection
between chemical structure and catalytic activity of the active center
of the ribonuclease molecule
Adolf von Baeyer, Germany, for services in the advancement of organic
chemistry and the chemical industry, through his work on organic dyes
and hydroaromatic compounds (half Jewish)
Otto Wallach, Germany, pioneer work in the field of alicyclic compounds
Richard Willstatter, Germany, for his researches on plant pigments,
especially chlorophyll
So you can see that to claim the technical advances of America and
Europe was purely down to the Aryan race is a falsehood.
What about the contribution to mathematics by the Hindus (who invented
the decimal system) and the Arabs?
See the following link on how mathematics developed in the Arabic
world:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
See the following link for a description of the development of Hindu
mathematics:
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/mathematics.htm
That mathematics is the foundation of physical sciences shows that the
technical advances of the Western world owe much to the work done by
the Indians and Arabs. So while Japan has used discoveries and changed
it's culture accordingly, so has China, and so too did the Western
cultures.
As I have pointed out, the Western cultures were multi-cultural, and
influences from these other cultures aided the west tremendously.
Topaz
wrote:
>And that's because they don't say things that are a fraud on the public.
>Britain is one of the first nations to sensibly have laws against LIES!
Racial equality is a lie.
Topaz
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Well in the next 20 years China might be the biggest economy in the
>world, how would they explain that? That India is rising so fast now,
>the West is starting to farm out IT to them, and their manufacturing is
>growing at an impressive rate.
Asians can mass produce things after Whites invent them. Asians
will work for far less than Whites and get the jobs Whites used to
have. Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor.
>
>The reason Europe did so well, was because it had the last empires,
>from the Roman to the British. These were built upon technologies from
>earlier civilisations and Empires. America was built on advances from
>Europe.
>
>When the African ancient Egypt Civilisation was around where were the
>'white' people then? Did this mean that the Egyptians were much more
>intelligent than the 'white' people?
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan.
1939, p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in
Egypt, has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971,
p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a
vivid blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII,
1889, p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored
ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899,
p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red
hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its
Splendors,1978 p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called
Wedjat Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue"
in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and
blond hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la
Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red
hair and blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932,
plate XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee
Boreby, 1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking
man with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The
Great. It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another
picture can be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the
picture on the jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published
showing paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading
personalities of Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look
black and the rest are hard to classify. All nine mummies look
European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed
the Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the
face of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T.
Nelson 1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper
class women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned
while outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by
Phillip Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street,
SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
>
>What about the Chinese civilisation?
Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
The Mummies of Xinjiang
In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly.
In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of
Pennsylvania,
was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese city of
Urumqi, in
the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he accidentally strayed
into
gloomy, newly opened room. There, under glass, lay the recently
discovered corpses of a family - a man, a woman, and a child of two or
three - each clad in long, dark purple woolen garments and felt boots.
Even
today I get chills thinking about that first encounter," says Mair.
"The
Chinese said they were 3,000 years old, yet the bodies looked as if
they
were buried yesterday."
But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In
contrast to most central Asian peoples,these corpses had obvious
Caucasian,
or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set eyes, and
long
skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even though I was
supposed
to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't leave that room. The
questions
kept nagging at me: Who were these people? How did they get out here
at
such an early date?"
The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up
by
Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are
astonishingly
well preserved.They come from four major burial sites scattered
between
the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in
northwest
China and the fringes of the The Taklimakan Desert, some 150 miles due
south. All together, these bodies,dating from about 2000 B.C. to 300
B.C.,
constitute significant addition to the world's catalog of prehistoric
mummies. Unlike the roughly contemporaneous mummies of ancient Egypt,
the
Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or nobles; they were not interred in
pyramids or other such monuments,nor were they subjected to deliberate
mummification procedures.
They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony
desert,
where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees. In the heat
the
bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other tissues
remaining largely intact.
Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were
they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?
Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging
debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese
civilization.
As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts refer to alien
peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on China's far
western
borders; the texts make it clear that these people were regarded as
troublesome "barbarians." Until recently, scholars have tended to
downplay
evidence of any early trade or contact between China and the West,
regarding the development of Chinese civilization as an essentially
homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences; indeed, this view
is
still extremely congenial to the present Chinese regime. Yet some
archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed barbarians might
have
been responsible for introducing into China such basic items as the
wheel
and the first metal objects. Exactly who these central Asian outsiders
might have been, however what language they spoke and where they came
from
- is a puzzle. No wonder, then, that scholars see the discovery of the
blond mummies as a sensational new clue...
Most researchers now think the birthplace of horsedrawn vehicles and
horse
riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than in
China
or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his colleagues
have
shown through microscopic study of ancient horse teeth, horses were
already
being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years ago. The Ukraine horses,
Anthony
found, show a particular kind of tooth wear identical to that of
modern
horses that "fight the bit." The world's earliest high-status vehicles
also
seem to have originated in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden
chariots with elaborate spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date
to
around 2000 B.C. Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until
some
800 years later...
had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and
sheep farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric
trade
along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably
helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into
China.
"Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous
implications
for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects. "For all
their
incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't cut off from the
rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow one way, from China
westward."
Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming.
The Chinese have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his
team
continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the corpses and
artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at the Institute
of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten their continued
preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be financed with
Western
help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then, finally, they'll receive
the study and attention that will ultimately unlock their secrets.
>
>Japan uses the Chinese characters, so arguably the Chinese gave them
>writing.
>
>It is simply a case of empires going in cycles, they rise, using the
>technology available at the time, and presumably some new concepts, and
>then eventually they fall (though arguably China is still pretty much
>standing, even after the Mongol invasion).
>
>
>IQ tests just measure how good people are at IQ tests, it doesn't
>measure intelligence. If you practise IQ tests you improve at them. Are
>you becoming more intelligent?
Intelligent people do better on IQ tests than imbeciles.
>
>If you believe you should distinguish people by what they get on IQ
>tests, why not do exactly that, regardless of their ethnic origin.
Because we can't deport our children if they have low IQ's
someone4
In the previous post you had quoted from Mein Kampf and suggested that
the advances of America and Europe were down to the Aryan race. I
notice you snipped the whole section where I listed the 90+ Jewish
Nobel Prize winners that contributed to the progress of America and
Europe.
You also snipped and didn't comment on the contributions of Hindu, and
Arabic mathematicians. That mathematics is the foundation of the
physical sciences, almost any progression owes a lot to these
contributions.
>>When the African ancient Egypt Civilisation was around where were the
>>'white' people then? Did this mean that the Egyptians were much more
>>intelligent than the 'white' people?
>"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
>the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
>of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
>bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
>is white."
Maybe the 'white' skin was supposed to signify that she didn't work.
For example, the English aristocracy used to powder their face white,
to distinguish themselves from the peasants who had to work in the
fields, and were thus tanned by the sun. That here hair was red and
yellow shows it was coloured, maybe the yellow, was supposed to look
like gold, or maybe she was meant to be wearing a gold and red stripped
cloth on her head.
You have lots of other examples, which while some are it interesting
doesn't suggest that ancient Egypt or China were advanced because of
'white' influence.
If the 'Aryan' race was superior, where was it's great civilisation
around this time?
Topaz
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>In the previous post you had quoted from Mein Kampf and suggested that
>the advances of America and Europe were down to the Aryan race. I
>notice you snipped the whole section where I listed the 90+ Jewish
>Nobel Prize winners that contributed to the progress of America and
>Europe.
No one is saying Jews are not intelligent. But many folks are saying
Jews are not good.
>
>You also snipped and didn't comment on the contributions of Hindu, and
>Arabic mathematicians. That mathematics is the foundation of the
>physical sciences, almost any progression owes a lot to these
>contributions.
Whites travelled around a lot. They went to India and Arabia.
>
>Maybe the 'white' skin was supposed to signify that she didn't work.
>For example, the English aristocracy used to powder their face white,
>to distinguish themselves from the peasants who had to work in the
>fields, and were thus tanned by the sun. That here hair was red and
>yellow shows it was coloured, maybe the yellow, was supposed to look
>like gold, or maybe she was meant to be wearing a gold and red stripped
>cloth on her head.
More likely she was White.
>
>You have lots of other examples, which while some are it interesting
>doesn't suggest that ancient Egypt or China were advanced because of
>'white' influence.
>
>If the 'Aryan' race was superior, where was it's great civilisation
>around this time?
You always talk about things six thousand years ago, because it's
hard to prove anything, and ignore what is right in front of you:
Tommy
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
someone4
that
>>the advances of America and Europe were down to the Aryan race. I
>>notice you snipped the whole section where I listed the 90+ Jewish
>>Nobel Prize winners that contributed to the progress of America and
>>Europe.
>No one is saying Jews are not intelligent. But many folks are saying
>Jews are not good.
In what way? Are they racist?
>>You also snipped and didn't comment on the contributions of Hindu,
and
>>Arabic mathematicians. That mathematics is the foundation of the
>>physical sciences, almost any progression owes a lot to these
>>contributions.
>Whites travelled around a lot. They went to India and Arabia.
The mathematicians in question though weren't white.
>>Maybe the 'white' skin was supposed to signify that she didn't work.
>>For example, the English aristocracy used to powder their face white,
>>to distinguish themselves from the peasants who had to work in the
>>fields, and were thus tanned by the sun. That here hair was red and
>>yellow shows it was coloured, maybe the yellow, was supposed to look
>>like gold, or maybe she was meant to be wearing a gold and red
stripped
>>cloth on her head.
>More likely she was White.
Not sure why it is more likely, but so what if she was? As I said, you
can't say that the 'aryan' race caused them to be advanced, because
around this time, the 'aryan' race was primitive in comparison.
>>You have lots of other examples, which while some are it interesting
>>doesn't suggest that ancient Egypt or China were advanced because of
>>'white' influence.
>>If the 'Aryan' race was superior, where was it's great civilisation
>>around this time?
>You always talk about things six thousand years ago, because it's
>hard to prove anything, and ignore what is right in front of you:
You don't have to go back as far as 6000 years.
Are you suggesting that the 'Aryan' race did have great kingdoms around
this time, and that we just have no record of them, and just haven't
found the remains of their great civilisation?
On a more modern day note, China might be the leading economy in the
world this century. That is the here and now, and foreseeable future.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/09/content_416043.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/200205/25/eng20020525_96428.shtml
http://www.chinanews.cn/news/2004/2005-03-08/2295.shtml
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/china_on_course.html
Topaz
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>In what way? Are they racist?
In every way. This is what Jews believe about race:
"One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by
a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In
an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel "This
is
a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the
Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he decried
intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial suicide,
and
likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to death of the
Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy should be to
sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even giving up
territory
was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews and making Israel a
more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that post-Zionists
threaten
Israel when they publish textbooks that de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview
mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism has no
place
in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jews." That's
the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's country, talking
about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending? Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]
But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's
advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks it's just
fine -- even necessary -- to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them
out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a different
tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was galvanizing White
Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit
together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that
spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part
and
parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000]
How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival.
They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to survive
and
racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not stupid. They
want
what is best for Jews.
But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States -- wherever White people live -- Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in
their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people, everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping
France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil and
they never let us forget that."
Kevin Alfred Strom
The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>
>
>The mathematicians in question though weren't white.
The odds are that they were.
>
>Not sure why it is more likely, but so what if she was? As I said, you
>can't say that the 'aryan' race caused them to be advanced, because
>around this time, the 'aryan' race was primitive in comparison.
Ancient Egypt was Aryan. At least the ruling class.
>
>You don't have to go back as far as 6000 years.
>
>Are you suggesting that the 'Aryan' race did have great kingdoms around
>this time, and that we just have no record of them, and just haven't
>found the remains of their great civilisation?
>
>On a more modern day note, China might be the leading economy in the
>world this century. That is the here and now, and foreseeable future.
>
Asians can mass produce things after Whites invent them. And people
in China will work for much less than Whites, thus getting the jobs
under Capitalism.
someone4
>In every way. This is what Jews believe about race:
<snip, your assertions that they are>
How can you complain about this, you are racist!
Some Jews might be racist, though not all. It is like someone quoting
Hitler or yourself, and saying that all whites are racist. It simply
isn't true, your broad brush stereotyping loses the individual.
In regards to the Hindu and Arabic mathematicians:
>>The mathematicians in question though weren't white.
>The odds are that they were.
Where do you get this from, your just making it up, you have no
evidence to back up your claim.
>Ancient Egypt was Aryan. At least the ruling class.
What colour is the sky on your planet? Why would people in a hot
climate be white? Why weren't there great Aryan empires in Northern
Europe if they were so advanced?
>>On a more modern day note, China might be the leading economy in the
>>world this century. That is the here and now, and foreseeable future.
>Asians can mass produce things after Whites invent them. And people
>in China will work for much less than Whites, thus getting the jobs
>under Capitalism.
China has invented lots of things, and in the 17th century was still
producing about a third of the worlds goods.
Look Topaz, no offence but I'm not going to keep this thread going any
more, as you are obviously convinced of your argument, and I am sure
that there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
Just don't hurt anyone over your beliefs.
Topaz
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
>
>Some Jews might be racist, though not all. It is like someone quoting
>Hitler or yourself, and saying that all whites are racist. It simply
>isn't true, your broad brush stereotyping loses the individual.
During the American revolution there must have been some British
people who thought America should be independant. Does this mean the
British were not the enemies of Americans? You can say the same about
any war or conflict. In any country there are those who don't agree
with the countries leaders.But that doesn't mean there is no war or no
group that is the enemy.
The real war is not with another country but another race, namely
the Jews. Jews are the cause of all the attacks on White civilization.
The little Jews may be pawns in the game. But they are pawns from the
other side of the board, not our side. Little Jews follow their
leaders and are enemies. Jews think it would be a fine thing if the
White race were destroyed. But they want Whites to give them billons
of dollars so they can have their own country.
Jews were behind Communism and feminism and political correctness.
They are the problem. They are the ones who rule America and control
the media. They are not just the reason America is always in the
Middle East. They are the reason everything is for women and
minorities and against the White man. Here is one example:
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
>
>In regards to the Hindu and Arabic mathematicians:
>>>The mathematicians in question though weren't white.
>>The odds are that they were.
>
>Where do you get this from, your just making it up, you have no
>evidence to back up your claim.
pot kettle black
>
>>Ancient Egypt was Aryan. At least the ruling class.
>
>What colour is the sky on your planet?
blue
> Why would people in a hot
>climate be white? Why weren't there great Aryan empires in Northern
>Europe if they were so advanced?
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan.
1939, p.98
>China has invented lots of things, and in the 17th century was still
>producing about a third of the worlds goods.
>
>Look Topaz, no offence but I'm not going to keep this thread going any
>more, as you are obviously convinced of your argument, and I am sure
>that there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
>
>Just don't hurt anyone over your beliefs.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com