The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
Partial list of Contents: Churchill: Politically Correct Exterminator; Hitler: The
Dupe of "Jewjitsu;" Just Law Enforcement, Not Persecution; Deep into
the Psychology of Opposition; Tall Tales; Jailers, Inquisitors and Thought
Controllers; Lying as an Institution.
All learning is based upon
curiosity and curiosity is the unfettered exploration of that which is
interesting. The weird halo of immunity which surrounds the Jewish nation is a
highly interesting sanction and no scholar must be faulted for defying it. To
pretend that we must approach the Jewish studies with some special reverence
and reserve, fearful of causing offense, is a totalitarian expectation.
It will undoubtedly be the
first reaction of a mind-zapped populace to immediately regard the
investigation of the negative factors within the religion of Judaism as a
horrible one, "bound to lead to another 'Holocaust."
That the fanatical
chauvinism of Jewish partisanship has been absorbed into the body politic of
the masses of non-Jews to such an overwhelming extent is a high tribute to the
power and effectiveness of Jewish propaganda.
But this writing is not an
attack but a defense. Khazars attack Christianity
every week in a newspaper column, magazine article, radio report, film,
television show or book. Few people regard such attacks as a prelude to the
further decay and eventual destruction of the Gentile people of the West. Such
Jewish attacks on Christianity are regarded as the "normal criticism"
any creed must endure at the hands of truth-seekers, scientists and
dispassionate scholars.
Within this framework is
the presumption of immunity for Judaism. According to the mindset promoted by
the System's public schools and private universities and the Established
"media" organs of mass communication, Judaism alone among the
religions of the world is immune from scholarly criticism. First because it is
perfect, being the creed of God's Master or "Chosen" Race and second
because, even if it were as flawed to the degree that secular agnosticism
asserts that every religion is flawed, it would still be wrong to expose it as
such because to do so will lead to another "Holocaust."
If one looks beneath the
sham appearances of this late 20th century, that is to say beyond the shuttered
provincialism of Jew-worship, one glimpses the outlines of war. A relentless
libel is directed at the Christian West, or what remains of it in the ruins, in
the aftermath of a half-century of constant propaganda against it. It must be
relentless to insure that no smoldering spark shall leap up to illuminate the
perpetual dark night of the modern era.
The story of the
crucifixion of an honest man at the behest of the Jewish religious and
political leadership, whose heroic committment to the truth above all else,
testified to his divine patrimony, has been for 2,000 years a permanent
stumbling block to the ascendance of Jewish world supremacy. Therefore every
attack upon the historical reality of this story and the person and morality of
Jesus has been launched by the Khazars.
Where that has proved
insufficient, the new state religion of "Holocaust" Newspeak (absent
from dictionaries before 1978) has been established by all Western governments
and by all hireling priests and preachers. By this means Auschwitz is made to
replace Calvary as the axis mundi of Western history. Though the tale of
the destruction of the Khazars during World War Two has been wildly and
shamelessly exaggerated out of all proportion to what actually occurred in that
time, there is no doubt that Jewish people were murdered in the hundreds of
thousands and that this was a horrible crime.
But what is never factored
into the equation as the indictment of the West is prepared on this basis, is
the fact that Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker's Party rose to a
fury of indignation against Jewish people directly as a result of what Jewish
communists like Trotsky (actual name: Leon Bronstein) and Lenin and the
thoroughly-Jewish Bolshevik communist party in Moscow had done to the Christian
peasantry of Mother Russia, which the Germans regarded as every inch a
"holocaust." (The Jewish extraction of Lenin's mother has long been
known to many Russian historians and party bureaucrats with access to inside
information. Cf. "Who was a Jew? Why, Lenin of Course!", Jerusalem
Post International Edition, Jan. 26, 1991, and Dimitry Volkogonov, Lenin: A
New Biography).
Both the Jewish historian
Arno Mayer in his book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? and the German
professor of history Ernst Nolte have noted the essential link between what the
Jewish communists did to Christians in Russia as the basis for retribution
against Jewish people in German-occupied territories.
As Prof. Nolte points out,
the Jewish communists in Russia founded their ideology on the demand for
extermination on a huge scale. In September of 1918 Jewish communist Grigori
Zinoviev advocated the extermination of ten million Russians. In 1919 Lenin
called for the deaths of millions of Christian peasants --the kulaks.
"...for Hitler,
Bolshevism was a genuinely terrible vision constantly before the eyes."
(Ernst Nolte, "The Holocaust Must Be Seen in Context," The
Independent, Nov. 5, 1988).
The horrors of Jewish
Bolshevism is a vision almost never seen on our telescreens or newspaper pages.
The media of mass communications have been dominated by Khazars and their
sympathizers almost since its inception. (Cf. Neal Gabler, How the Jews Invented
Hollywood and William Cash, "Kings of the Deal," The
Spectator, Oct. 29, 1994).
The myth is that Jews were
regarded suspiciously in Germany in the 1930s and eventually punished solely
due to sheer Teutonic or Christian cruelty and irrational hatred. Policed
entirely out of the agenda is the fact that while Nazism was rising in Germany
in the 1930s, Jewish Communist commissars were adminstering death camps and
gulags for millions of Christians trapped inside the borders of the Soviet
empire, a fact never revealed in "Holocaust" studies or movies.
While Khazars cry the
loudest whenever any group or force obstructs their ambitions--these cries
being infinitely magnified by the unprecedented brainwashing abilities of the
electronic visual media--it does not necessarily follow that Khazars are in
fact the most persecuted or long-suffering of the peoples of the world.
The full, graphic acount of
what the Jewish Communists did to Russia and Eastern Europe has yet to be told.
Another objection to this
writing will be that it is, by definition "neo-Nazi" and
"crypto-fascist" simply because it does actually dare to do what
Jewish historians and writers do weekly to Christianity: criticize it.
Winston Churchill: The
Politically Correct Exterminator
Then there is the
"extermination" issue. If one attempts a revaluation of the Communist
propaganda about Germany which has been absorbed into the body politic of the
capitalist West, one is met with the cry of being "an apologist for
exterminators." Such lofty moralizing does not even begin to signify
anything unless it is consistent. The same critique, then, must be launched
against all those "conservatives" and pseudo- "Christians"
who defend or admire Winston Churchill. If Churchill is absolved, one can
expect some revisionists to also absolve Hitler.
For it is no less a
democratic icon than Winston Churchill who advocated the extermination of the
civilian population of Germany through air strikes on all German city centers.
On July 8, 1940 Churchill wrote that what was needed against the Germans was,
"an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers on
the Nazi homeland..." (Source: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Spectator,
Sept. 29, 1979).
In 1956 Churchill told
President Eisenhower, "I am, of course, a Zionist, and have been ever
since the Balfour Declaration." ( Herbert Mitgang, "The Official
Churchill in One Volume," N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 1991).
This campaign of Allied
extermination of the German people had been inaugurated on May 11, 1940 when
the Royal Air Force (R.A.F.) was the first to bomb cities, in this case,
German cities:
"Churchill ordered
a series of night raids on Berlin for the specific purpose of diverting
German attacks from the airfields of London. After Berlin was attacked
six times, the German air force was ordered to attack London, and, as Churchill
anticipated, the pressure on the airfields was relieved. Thus began the
blitz." (Benjamin Colby, Twas a Famous Victory, p.173, emphasis
supplied).
But it would not be until
Arthur Harris became commander-in-chief of the R.A.F.'s Bomber Command in
February of 1942 that Churchill's plan for the extermination of the German
people by fire was attempted with total committment. "Harris
was...single-minded in his aim: the systematic destruction of German
cities....His new campaign was inaugurated on March 28, 1942 with the
234-aircraft attack on Lubeck, a medieval town, strategically insignificant but
in Harris's words, 'more like a fire-lighter than a human habitation.' Lubeck
was burned to the ground, the first of many...
"The Ruhr towns were
attacked from March to June 1943, Hamburg from July to November, Berlin from
November until March, 1944...Using much more sophisticated techniques of
electronic navigation, of marking and of bombing, the city was first broken up
by explosives-- 'cookies' designed to blow open doors and windows--and then
rained with incendiaries. Repeated raids overwhelmed the civil defense nd fire
services. Bomber Command attacked Hamburg on 24 July, again on 27 July, with
American attacks in between. The raid of the 27th created a vast firestorm,
destroying 22 square kilometres of the city and killing an estimated 42,000
people. Fifteen months later Harris would boast that Bomber Command 'has
virtually destroyed 45 out of the leading 60 German cities...
"One undefended city
after another was devastated from end to end by explosion and fire, 'browned'
as the repellent R.A.F. phrase had it...Darmstadt was a beautiful old town in
south-west Germany, economically insignificant and untouched until 11 September
1944, when it was 'browned' and 12,300 of its inhabitants were killed...
"The most famous
target in this last phase was Dresden in February, 1945...But Dresden was no
different in kind from the other terror raids before...(A month later)
Wurzburg...a town of complete (military) unimportance...16 March, 1945...Bomber
Command razed the town to the ground in slightly less than 20 minutes.
Wurzburg, like 600,000 German (civilians), had surrendered unconditionally.
"What was especially
reprehensible was the way in which Churchill tried at the end of the war to
disassociate himself from the bombing... After the war Churchill could still
write--privately--to an air marshall: 'We should never allow ourselves to
apologize for what we did to Germany.' But he had the instincts of a
professional politician, and foresaw a reaction. On 28 March 1945 he drafted a
memorandum: 'It seems to me the moment has come when the question of bombing of
German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other
pretexts, should be reviewed.
"... it (is)
impossible for an Englishman born after the war to travel through Germany
without a sense of shame...seeing medieval Nuremburg which Allied aircraft
burnt to the ground and where Allied prosecutors had the effrontery to accuse
Goering and Kesselring of bombing Coventry and Rotterdam...' ( Wheatcroft, Spectator,
op. cit. Also cf. Max Hastings, Bomber Command.).
Christopher Mayhew, former
President of the Oxford Union and a British soldier stationed in Germany wrote:
"Have you seen a blitzed town? London isn't blitzed. Norwich is
practically undamaged, a prosperous peaceful town. German towns are
blitzed." (London Review of Books, June 20, 1985, p.8).
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Another Accomplice in the Attempted Extermination of the German People
Americans too are culpable.
As historian Ronald Schaffer has documented, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
approved and encouraged the mass murder of German women and children by the
U.S. Army Air Force. A top Roosevelt staff adviser, David T. Griggs, stated the
administration's military policy explicitly when he wrote that the effort of
the U.S. air forces "should be directed to the disruption of the German
economy and the terrorization of the German people." (Ronald Schaffer, Wings
of Judgment: American Bombing in World War Two, p. 94).
It was American P-5l
Mustang pilots who swooped down along the banks of the river Elbe as masses of
terrified German women and children huddled in the daylight aftermath of the
firebombing of Dresden. The pilots machine-gunned these pitiful survivors en
masse.
In the decay of language
that is a signpost of the Orwellian dissolution of independent thinking in our
time, the word holocaust, which by original definition denotes death by fire,
is now assigned almost exclusively to the deaths of Jews, allegedly by gas.
600,000 German civilians deliberately burned alive as Allied policy, receive no
such "holocaust victim" status. In fact, it is regarded as some sort
of blasphemy against the canons of "The Holocaust" civic religion
that anyone other than a victim of Hitler is described thus.
But anyone who takes the
time and trouble to read the official Strategic Bombing Survey, prepared
by the U.S. War Department, under the section "Morale Division-Medical
Branch Report: The Effect of Bombing on Health and Medical Care in
Germany," will find horrorific photographs and testimony which testifying
that the "holocaust" victims of World War Two also included the
German civilians and in the Pacific theatre, the civilian residents of Tokyo,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One survivor of the
holocaust against the German people was Helga Hudepohl who wrote,
"I was in the isolation ward of a clearly marked children's hospital in a
rural area some 50 miles out side the city (of Berlin), 7 years old and ill
with scarlet fever, when the hospital was bombed to bits and pieces by Harris'
jolly group...Had there really been a fair 'Judgement at Nuremberg,' Harris
would have been one of the accused and have been sent to the gallows as a war
criminal." (Letters, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 1992, p. 22).
The deliberate
extermination of the German people through air power resounded among military
forces on the ground through the mouthpiece of the chief propagandist for the
Soviet empire, the Jewish Communist comunications genius, Ilya Ehrenberg. While
any college kid can invoke the name of Joseph Goebbels as eponymous with
propaganda, Ehrenburg's contribution to this infernal science is virtually
unknown.
It was Ehrenburg who urged
the troops of the Red Army, as they advanced upon the eastern borders of a
prostrate and defeated Germany, to rape and kill every German civilian they
could find. Every German girl over the age of eight in the German village of
Nemmersdorf was raped. German women were nailed to the sides of barns.
At Yalta and Potsdam Truman
and Churchill approved Stalin's call for the forced deportation of millions of
ethnic Germans in those territories ceded to him. This resukted in the mass
deportation of all Germans from lands east of the rivers Oder and Neisse.
Thousands of German civilians were crammed into railroad cattle cars by the
Communists. Those Soviet trains arrived in Berlin with a cargo of dead and
dying German children packed like sardines. No "holocaust" movies
have been made about the plight of these hapless children. They were of the
wrong nationality and religion.
In Czechoslovakia in July,
1945, German women and children were tossed from bridges and more than 2,000
massacred.
By the end of 1946, German
civilians in the British-occupied zone were receiving as little as 400 calories
of food per day--half the ration the inmates at Belsen had received under the
Nazis.
When the post-war
expulsions and pogroms were over, two million German civilians were dead and
fourteen million driven from their ancestral lands in one of the greatest acts
of population-transfer in modern history.
We are told that World War
Two was "the Good War" against "Germany, a nation conceived in
hell itself" (Leslie Gelb, NY Times), "the greatest evil
ever produced on earth" (Simon Schama).
But in so far as our psyche
can disengage itself from Jewish demonizing, the reality is that WWII was a
total war, an "unlimited, unconditional war" against not just Hitler
and the Nazis but German women, children and defenseless elderly who were held
to be collectively guilty.
President Roosevelt stated,
"The German people as a whole must have it driven home to them that the whole
nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of
civilization." ( Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American
Foeign Policy, pp. 472-473).
To teach them these
"decencies," Mr. Roosevelt sanctioned the policies of the extirpation
of German women and children through air force bombs and pal "Uncle
Joe" Stalin's awfully decent Red Army.
Can there be any bloodier a
killer on the earth than the do-gooder liberal? Roosevelt's mentality was first
echoed in the U.S. in Abraham Lincoln's abolitionist legions who were going to
punish the South for its "sins."
Maximillien Robespierre,
leader of the French Revolution and the "reign of terror," wrote:
"It is necessary to exterminate all those vile and scoundrely beings who
conspire eternally against the rights of man and against the happiness of all
people."
A Jewish N.Y. Times editor,
Judith Miller, along with most of the kept press, indicted the Ayatolah Khomeni
of Iran for demanding of Iraq only "unconditional surrender" during
the Iran-Iraq war. (N.Y. Times, May 17, 1992, p. E-3).
In the Jewish mentality,
only the enemies of Judaism must be fought unconditionally.
From this mentality was
born Menachem Begin's Beirut, Lebanon, August, 1982 and George Bush's Baghdad,
Iraq, 1991. In both wars the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population
was central to military strategy, all in the name of sticky-sweet, fairy
godmother platitudes coupled with the dehumanization of the Palestinian and
Iraqi people. In both wars the mass murder of civilians by air power caused
only a ripple of mild protest.
Dynastic Christian
autocrats of antiquity, equated with "persecution" and
"religious superstition" by the pundits of our "enlightened
era," never implemented any such mass murder military policy as we saw the
Allies commit in World War Two and the Israeli air force perpetrate on Beirut
in the summer of 1982. ( Tony Clifton, God Cried).
The groundwork for the
military policy of total war emerged in Abraham Lincoln's war against Southern
independence; especially in the conduct of Generals Sheridan and Sherman. In
the Old World, the British war against the Dutch- South African
"Boer" civilians was an augur of the forthcoming
"blessings" of the 20th century. The British can be acknowledged as
the inventors of the first "concentration" camps where thousands of
Boer women and children perished.
But while Lincoln was
martyred and subsequently canonized as a secular Federal saint, his military
practice was reversed by his successor Johnson almost immediately and with the
exception of the most foaming abolitionists, the Southern people were soon
viewed by their Northern brethren, as much wronged. A similar revulsion
occurred in Britain in the wake of the pacification of the Boers.
Hence it would take the
Jewish mentality, ascribing to its opponents absolute evil unmitigated in terms
of reprisals for any previous Jewish crimes, to create a lasting marriage
between modern policies and resources for total warfare and the permanent
dehumanization of the people against whom those policies are directed, be they
Germans, Palestinians or Iraqis.
It is not only Khazars or
their proxies who slaughter civilian populations. World War I was a more than
adequate example of the penchant for slaughter on the part of senile monarchs
and corrupt politicians and generals, Axis or Allied. But it took the Jewish
mentality to paint such slaughter in the terms of a perpetual morality play
wherein any crime is permissible provided it is directed against those who have
dared to raise their heads against Judaism and who, by Jewish theological
definition, can be the only criminals.
Hitler and
"Jewjitsu"
The larger question arises
concerning whether Hitler really was an enemy of the Jewish people. One does
not refer here to a parochial sense of the war years themselves but rather to
their long-term consequences. Hitler as a German nationalist who had assigned
himself the task of revival of Western civilization amid the decay, saw in the
isolation, separation and if necessary, the destruction of world Jewry, the
salvation of Germany and European culture.
But the sum effect of his
effort was that Hitler was the real founder of the Israeli state. By losing the
war against the Khazars he guaranteed them the public relations bonanza of all
time and these masters of guilt-inducement took the ball all the way to
nationhood.
Hitler's faith in the
benevolence of the Judeo-masonic government of Britain and the Jewish ghetto
known as the Vatican revealed that he was another one of those naive schoolboys
the right-wing in the West routinely produces.
Moreover, his government
was riddled with spies and traitors and he gave the most important post of the
entire German military, the Luftwaffe, to Göring, who by that time had
degenerated into a fat clown out of a comic opera. By 1944 the German people
had a popular saying, that, "There was no roof over the Reich." This
is not to in anyway disparage the heroism of the individual pilots and
commanders of the legendary Luftwaffe's defensive fighter force, which was the
best in the world, but rather the criminal incompetence of Göring.
The chief supporters of the
revival of Hitlerism in the world today are the Jews. Because they hysterically
denounce any honest historical discussion of the virtues as well as the faults
of the man and his regime, they are thereby building up immense pressure within
the young, who are understandably discontented and therefore, attracted to that
which Hitler represents.
When a corrupt society
wholly condemns a single individual as the "wickedest man in the history
of the world," those discontented elements of society who are convinced
that the system under which they live is profoundly evil ,will naturally
gravitate toward this forbidden, near-mythic figure of evil. Their logic will
be, "If this stinking society says he was bad, he must have been
good."
The failure to
demythologize Hitler, not just in terms of Hannah Arendt's "banality of
evil," but by making an appraisal of the man independent of the function
and requirements of Allied and Jewish propaganda, would show him to have been
both good and bad; a product of his times set within the context of the mass
murder-machine the Jewish Communists had got going in Russia from 1917 onward.
The Inner Dynamic of
Judaism
Physical persecution of the
Jewish people has always and everywhere failed in European history as a tactic
for confining the kind of internal influence Pharisees have in native
societies.
Pogroms and persecutions
are completely counterproductive when dealing with the Jews. It must be
remembered that Judaism is an inherently self-destructive, paranoid creed and
the various bickering factions within Judaism are at any given time on the
verge of civil war. The only factor that can truly unite the Khazars and make
them a single force for power on the world stage, is physical persecution and
attack.
Without such attack, they
inevitably crumble from internal strife. This is why their Sanhedrin secretly
promotes and funds violent persecution of Jewish people when such opposition is
not present among the resident peasantry of a given nation. If you want to heal
the world, leave the Jews alone, physically. They will destroy themselves or
convert and reform.
The problem is, they won't
leave us alone. Whenever we get the thing they fear the most going--when we get
going what they have--community--that's when they unleash every force in their
arsenal against us.
Under the current system, a
critic of Talmudism and Phariseeism must always be labeled as a fascist. The
term is used by people who don't know what it means. The most basic concept
central to fascism is the utilization of the power of the state through
centralization, to achieve certain sanctioned ends: the unity of the nation,
the advancement of technology, the solution to the problems of unemployment and
housing.
Fascism as a system of
organization has nothing to do with opposition to Jews. The founders of the
Fascist party in Italy were Jews. Right wing Zionists of the 1930s and 40s
consciously styled themselves Fascists. The Israeli government is allied with
the fascist Phalange Party of Lebanon, whose militia police the "security
zone" in occupied South Lebanon on behalf of the Zionists.
The most successful fascist
government was Franklin Roosevelt's administration whose "New Deal"
economic program marshalled the full resources of the state to operate
businesses, conduct commerce, confiscate wages and earnings.
The neo-Nazi invective is
equally empty and like "fascist" has meaning only as an insult
intended to intimidate people who tell the truth fearlessly. It is a
manufactured attribute imposed on critics of Judaism by Jews who insist that to
expose their religion or its government in occupied Palestine to free and
irreverent inquiry is tantamount to being a militiarist, a racist and a lover
of dictatorship--and this from a militarist, racist, dictatorial Israeli
regime.
The greatest weapon against
the Zionists is exposure, to have the widest possible study, analaysis and
dissemination of their authentic teachings and practices in every field of
human endeavor. This will not only protect non-Jews but will also help in the
conversion of the Jewsish people themselves.
Unlike the Allied mass
murderers who hold the German people collectively culpable (as historian Daniel
Goldhagen has decreed), one cannot and must not hold the Jewish people as whole
collectively guilty, but only their leaders, religious and civil, i.e the
latter day Pharisees.
The New Testament
"blood taint" can no longer apply because the original Jewish race of
2,000 years past is as dead as is the Roman race with which it was
contemporary. There is no pure "Jewish" blood today, only a racial
melting pot of Khazar, Black and Oriental races designated as
"Jewish" on the political expediency.
The greatest allies in the
struggle against the evils of Judaism have been in the past and will be in the
future, authentic converts from Judaism (for example Nicholas of Donin and
Johannes Pffeferkorn).
The emphasis here must be
on authenticity, however. The current "Jews for Jesus" movement is a
telling example of a sham conversion since this group militantly supports the
murders and racism of the Zionist Israeli state in contravention of every
Christian principle. They have attempted to make Christ into a Pharisee. This is
an abomination and these are no true converts. "By their fruits ye shall
no them."
Zionists Behind
Anti-Jewish Violence
A productive investigation
for an enterprising historian would be the pursuit of the following line of
enquiry: to what extent did the Zionist Jewish leadership encourage Hitler's
violent anti-Jewish policies and to what extent do they encourage or actually
themselves commit violent attacks upon Jews today?
Rabbi E. Schwartz, writing
in the N.Y. Times of May 18, 1993: "To achieve their goal of
statehood the Zionists have always deliberately provoked anti-Semitism...Their
interest was not to save Jews, on the contrary, more spilling of Jewish blood
would strengthen their demand of the nations for the creation of their
state."
Why would Zionists want to
assist violent anti-Jewish opposition? Perhaps they understand well that Jewish
propaganda requires violent opposition to Jewry and synagogue and cemetery
vandalism, in order to expand their influence and power and where none exist
they either incite it by means of their control of Hollywood-style, neo-Nazi
front groups, or they perpetrate the actions themselves.
Just Law Enforcement,
Not Persecution
Jewish murderers,
kidnappers, rapists, usurers and those engaged in treason and subversion can be
executed by the civil authorities upon indictment, prosecution and conviction
in fair criminals trials operated within the safeguards of the common law jury
and appeal process. The critical point is that they would be executed not
because they were Jewish, but because they were murderers, rapists, kidnappers,
usurers, traitors and subversives. Moreover, non-Jewish usury bankers, loan
sharks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers and abortionists are even more culpable
than Zionist crooks and killers, since the non-Jewish criminals are
additionally guilty of betraying their own kind. These would most certainly be
liable to a death penalty for their crimes.
In this way the ruling
class, arch-criminals in the masonic and corporate elite who seek to escape
justice when Biblical forces come to power, on the basis of their skin color or
claims about their naivete,´ will be foiled. The Pharisees could never
have gotten to first base in their push for the reign of Anti-Christ were it
not for their allies among the masonic and corporate overclass--nearly dynastic
families who are attempting to impose a police state for the benefit of
bankers, lawyers, Zionists and their "Aryan" cronies.
Equal Rights and Justice
Legal executions of
Pharisees who are guilty of crimes cannot be considered as "violent
opposition" to Jewish people because these actions would be meted out
uniformly, without regard to race or creed, on the basis of crimes committed by
any malefactor. Hence the punishment is a legal rather than a vigilante function
of the civil powers who, according to the Bible, "bear not the sword in
vain."
There will be those who
will ask, "Why accord Jewish killers--or any other killer for that
matter--benefit of law? If we know they are culpable, why not just initiate
summary executions?"
History teaches that such
vigilante acts always denegerate into a witchhunt against innocents with whom
the vigilantes have private scores and vendettas to settle, and who exact their
revenge by means of lumping their personal enemies into the general category of
"enemies of the people." Such actions are the hallmark of the French
Revolution and Bolshevism and of Oriental despotism and Latin American
societies--forms of corruption and cruelty which are inimical to Biblical and
European yeoman values.
In a key exchange
attributed to Sir Thomas More by Robert Bolt, More answers the objections of
his hot-headed son-in-law, Roper, who urges him to use his position as Lord
Chancellor to eliminate his enemies:
"Mrs. More: While you
talk, he's gone! (A reference to More's dangerous personal enemy, Richard Rich,
who has just left the house).
More: And go he should, if
he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give
the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you
do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every
law in England to do that.
More: Oh? And when the law
was down and the Devil himself turned 'round on you--where would you hide,
Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from
coast to coast...and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do
you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
In the preceding dialogue
we observe the ethos later exhibited by the American Revolutionaries of 1776
who were successful in winning and sustaining a revolution based on justice and
equality before the law. Khazars cannot legitimately claim persecution under such
a system of just law and enforcement. Indeed, it is the integrity of just such
a system which distinguishes our values and way of life from those of Zionists,
Oriental despots and banana republics.
Deep into the Psychology
of Opposition
Hitler's techniques has
been harnessed today in America to the ends of the contemporary corporate,
capitalist state and exhibited at great profit at every stadium-sized,
"rock muzak" concert and every "Super Bowl" and "World
Series."
If there is any genuine,
potent, corporate "neo-Nazism" extant today, it exists on the rock
stage or the pro sports field, where the same sloganeering, and submission, as
was witnessed in the techniques and adulation accorded Hitler and the Nazi
party, are put in service of the American capitalist system. But whereas at
least Hitler did these things in the name of his nation and indigenous culture,
American corporate fascism exists solely to enrich a gangster class of money
grubbers.
And lest it be thought that
we imagine that only Jews grub for lucre, the lessons of our literature, from
the American Mrs. McTeague in Frank Norris' McTeague, who out-Jewed the
Jewish ragman in avarice, to the Englishman Monks in Charles Dickens' Oliver
Twist , who outdid Fagin in villainy, and Mark Twain's townful of crooked
hypocrites in Hadleyburg, are all reminders that we are not to imagine
that white Aryans possess any immunities from evil or that Jewish persons
possess any monopoly upon them.
But they key here is that
by casting themselves as hunted fugitives from Christian vigilantes, the Jewish
psychology has been able to blackmail humanity into tolerating the Jewish
invasion of Palestine and the displacement and murder of its people, along with
control of, or inordinate influence over, the money and mass media of every
Western nation. In truth Jewish operatives have controlled the governments of
the West for decades and in some cases (Great Britain for example), centuries.
If we look deep beneath the hoodwink we observe that it is the non-Jewish
dissidents who are the victims of the supposed "Jewish martyrs."
The Mentality
When a Jewish professor of
philosophy from Louisiana State Univ. attacked the late anthropologist Joseph
Campbell as an anti-semite, he phrased the attack not in terms of the quest for
the truth about the nature of the Jews, but in terms of how Jews are
"disparaged" by Campbell. The Jewish professor said that Joseph
Campbell, "invariably disparaged Judaism as literalistic, chauvinistic and
parochial--stock anti-semitic epithets." (NY Times Dec. 2, 1989, p. 26).
In other words, Campbell is
wrong because he spoke truths that "disparage" Judaism. These truths
are identified as coming from a "stock" of epithets that the writer
identifies as being hateful or anti-semitic. But since it is true that Judaism
is parochial and highly chauvinistic, how does it become grounds for
censure when these truths have been known for hundreds, even thousands of years
and form a body of traditional Western observation upon the Jews which the
Jewish writer seeks to delegitimize by terming them "epithets?"
Another phenomenon at work
is the assumption that Jews themselves have no framework of hate within their
own tradition, no "stock epithets" for Christians. Anti-Christianism
isn't even a recognized term in the English language. To defend one's Western
heritage and point to the stock epithets of anti-Christianism prominent in
Judaism, is to practice hate, according to the received opinion of our day.
For Jews to accuse a
non-Jew of hating Jews is a noble act of human rights pique. But for a non-Jew
to accuse a Jew of hating Gentiles is itself regarded as hateful. This
mentality of the hypocritical double-standard is a Jewish mentality.
Jews absolve themselves of
much of what they accuse others of. Syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran states:
"The name of this
little game is keeping the goyim on the defensive at all times. If they
can't be refuted, attack them personally: Insinuate that whatever they say in
their own defense is actuated by the worst motives, motives which it goes
without saying, have no equivalent among Jews themselves, who are always acting
in self-defense. The standard public rhetoric only recognizes anti-Semitism, it
hardly imagines the possibility of anti-Gentilism...It's as if hatred, fear,
suspicion and contempt could only occur on one side.
"...There is no
hyphenated cussword in general use to stigmatize hostility to
Christianity...Leon Wieseltier can call a cross on a convent at Auschwitz
'sickening,' and nobody condemns him...Israeli soldiers can beat up a priest on
the West Bank, then shoot up his church during Mass, and only the Catholic
press takes note...If Christians had done such a thing to a synagogue,
anywhere, it would have been front-page news, everywhere. (Wanderer, Oct.
12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5).
Indeed, in the fabrication
of so-called, in the dreadful Newspeak of New York Times-ese, "hate
speech" law codes, law makers deliberately design them with the concept of
silencing critics of Jews on the assumption that only the critics of the Jews
are capable of hate; the supposition being that Jews are immune to hating or if
they do hate, their hatreds must be excused in light of the "Holocaust."
Michael Thomas, writing in Hanover Place, states, "...these days
there seems to be quite a few people who shout 'Holocaust!' when given a
parking ticket."
Timothy Danson, a Canadian
constitutional lawyer, advocates laws for the suppression of critics of
Judaism: "...the concept of freedom of speech does not entail the
protection by the courts, of malicious lies." Here we see the axiom that
anyone who criticizes Judaism is a liar. This is a totalitarian position and
makes the Jews divine in the way the European monarchs and Chinese emperors
were regarded as having "Divine Right."
Danson goes on to say,
"Anti-semitism does not fall within the category of ideas or opinions that
ought to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The anti-semite
has chosen hate...and therefore he need not concern himself with truth or
reason."
This Canadian lawyer is
saying that to criticize Judaism or Jews is an act of hate. Because he is
totally steeped in the Jewish version of the world this lawyer cannot conceive
of the possibility that Judaism might be a tyranny and to criticize tyranny is
liberation.
This Canadian
Constitutional lawyer states that opposition to Jews cannot be grounded in
truth or reason. That is to say, according to Mr. Danson, it is irrational and
mendacious to criticize Jews or Judaism. Here we see the creation of a special
category of immunity for Judaism.
Mr. Danson goes further and
states that those who criticize Judaism are insane criminals: "The
anti-semite's point of departure emanates from irrationality..The anti-semite
is a sadist, and in the very depths of his heart, a criminal."
Thus the critics of Judaism
are dehumanized to the utmost: they are cruel, they are criminals, they are
crazy. Criminals and the insane have no rights and this is precisely what this
prominent Canadian constitutional lawyer is advocating: that those who dare to
criticize Judaism ("anti-semites") be denied any rights.
But the question springs to
mind, what of Jews who criticize or hate Palestinians or Christians, are they
also insane sadists and criminals who must be dealt with by Canada's
"criminal justice system"?
Mr. Danson has the answer:
"History speaks of the bloody persecution of the Jews over the
centuries." In Mr. Danson's world-view, carefully imbibed from the
official history of the Jewish version of education and information, only Jews
suffered a notable "bloody persecution." Palestinians and Christians
are cast only as the villains, never the victims of Zion. (Canadian Jewish
News, Aug. l8, l988, p. 9).
The psychiatricization of
the issue is a commonplace. Kenneth Stern, the American Jewish Committee's
expert on "hate groups" (they mean gentile hate groups since
Jewish supremacists and terrorists are not included) and author of A Force
Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate regards
the militia, a Second Amendment constititional phenomenon, as "the
eruption of irrational behavior." They are also "paranoid" and
possessed of a "deteriorating mental state." (Cf. N.Y. Times,
Feb. 12, 1996, p. B-2).
Funny, but this writer
knows of a nation of people who have made a religion out of paranoia. In
fact Stern's book is filled with page after page of warnings about an
"impending pogrom" against--guess who?
History is more than the
records that issue from the official sources and the monopolies on academic
investigation. The founding leadership of the communist movement in Russia
responsible for the slaughter of 20 million Christians, was predominately
Jewish. The mass murder of Palestinian women and children by the Israeli army
and air force is a modern example of Jewish atrocities against non-Jews. This
slaughter was aided by the Soviet communist Jews who in 1948 smuggled weapons
to the Zionists in Tel Aviv using Czechosloakia as a conduit. (Christian
News, May 31, 1993, p.7).
One of the bloodiest
butchers of Russian Christians was Leon Bronstein, a Jew who later changed his
name to Trotsky and was the first commander of the communist Red Army.
Trotsky's great, great grandson, David Axelrod, resides in Israel where he
terrorizes Palestinian civilians just as his great, great grandfather
terrorized Russian Christians. In November of 1990, Axelrod shot to death an
elderly Arab couple who were on their way to pick olives in a village near
Nablus (Village Voice, Nov. 20, 1990, p. 30).
Anti-Semanticism
What is also very
interesting about the term anti-semitism which has escaped analysis is that the
use of the phrase is itself an instrument of hate since it is a means of
equating a person with being "insane," a "criminal" and a
"sadist." Persons thus labeled are subject to the loss of employment,
housing and civil and human rights.
What is the definition of
an anti-semitic act? In so serious a crime, the felonious conduct should be clearly
indicated. In spite of much palaver to the contrary, the definition is much
akin to the logic of the Red Queen of Alice's Wonderland who said that a word
was "Anything I want it to be." Someone is an anti-semite simply by
criticizing Jews, Judaism or the Israeli state. In other words, for doing
anything that Jews deem offensive.
For example, when
journalist Patrick Buchanan criticized the Jewish role in the formation of U.S.
Middle East foreign policy, Abe Rosenthal, contributing editor of the N.Y. Times,
compared Buchanan to Nazi soldiers who forced Jews into the Warsaw ghetto! (NY
Times, Sept. 27, 1990, p. 14). The term anti-semite then, applies equally to
the murderers of Jews as to the critics of Jews.
Profesor of Literature Hugh
Kenner in a letter to William F. Buckley Jr.: "The points on which I agree
with Joe Sobran are 1a)that the state of Israel is mighty arrogant in its
presumption of entitlement to U.S. handouts and general compliance; 1b) that a
large & influential U.S. Jewish population shares this presumption...2)
that 'anti-semitism' is a rather facile label for habitual objections to 1a and
1b...I note from a recent NY Times that Abe Rosenthal...was not
satisfied with your treatment of Pat Buchanan.
"It is surely evident
that such as he will never be satisfied by anything short of a casting of
whoever annoys them into outer darkness, and I think it is a mistake to let
them control the terms of the discourse. 'Anti-semitism'--here I agree with
Joe--has no stable meaning; it can run all the way from gas ovens to a mere
wish that Abe R. would moderate his frenzies. And a term that has no stable
meaning is simply not a profitable head for rational discussions." (National
Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-22).
It is questionable whether
Kenner's statement would even be allowed once Orwellian "hate speech"
criminal codes are fully developed and enforced. Any kind of deep, critical
thinking analyzing matters such as who sets the terms of discourse and what the
phrase anti-semitism actually means (nothing) and is used for (to silence
original thought), are slated to be criminalized. Kenner's reasoned attempt to
decide what are the grounds for "rational discussion" would be
labeled as "irrational" and "sadistic."
The defense against Prof.
Kenner's thoughts must be in terms of the denunciation of a heretic, a
"criminally insane hater" who has the gall to deny the True Faith of
Absolute Belief in the Infallible Goodness of Judaism. The superstructure of
piety is erected over the framework of debate. The state religion of the
otherwise agnostic, terminal West emerges--the Church of the
"Holocaust"--cloaked in the moth-eaten, dusty, ermine robes not used
since the coronations of popes, czars and emperors.
High Priest Eric Breindel
of the NY Post announces that "after Auschwitz, express hostility to the
essential Zionist endeavor on the part of a Western intellectual requires an
explanation." (NY Post, Jan. 16, 1992, p. 27).
The Los Angeles Times
decrees the fantastic dogma that public criticisms of Jews are precursors of a
Holocaust. (L.A. Times, Feb. 6, 1990, p. A-5).
Milking the guilt-dogma of
this state religion, the N.Y. Times alleges that "It reeks of
anti-semitism to suggest that survivors of the Holocaust are to be condemned
for establishing a haven in the only state in which Jews form the
majority." (NY Times, Dec. 17, 1991, p. 20). Here is the sacred
state-church dogma of the "Holocaust" in action as it is invoked to
block condemnation of the "holy" Israeli people and achieve political
gain for the Zionist state.
The association of a stench
with condemnation of Israeli murder and dispossession of Palestinians
effectively stops any further clearheaded analysis of the terms the NY Times
has established for dealing with Israelis. By the same logic, Cambodians must
be immune from condemnation if they murder and dispossess ethnic Chinese and
Vietnamese in Cambodia, because they too are "survivors of a
holocaust" who are "establishing a haven in the only state in which
Cambodians form the majority."
According to Prof. Irv
Abella, "The Holocaust metaphor being used against Israel is a group
libel..." (Canadian Jewish News, Dec. 26, 1991, p. 4). Apparently
Jews have a copyright on the word, a proprietary relationship that forbids its
application to the mass murders the "holy people" themselves
perpetrate upon mere Palestinians.
That we are dealing with a
religious impulse rather than merely a debate between competing ideas can be
seen in the fact that the believers in the Church of the Holocaust are unable
even to imagine an alternative view. Joseph Sobran in his published debate with
William Buckley:
"An anti-semite' in
actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate.
The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply
can't bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience
criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term 'anti-semitism' doesn't stand
for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational
discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual
ostracisms." (National Review, March 16, l992, p. S-5).
Sobran's epigram about
anti-semitism being more properly defined as a man Jews hate, is corroborated
by the knowledge that when Jews heatedly disagree with one another they
sometimes call each other "anti-semites." When Michael Bar-Zohar of
the Israeli Labour Party voted for religious Jews to be subject to the Israeli
army draft like all other able-bodied young Jews, he was called an "anti-semite"
and a "Nazi" by members of the Shas and Degel HaTorah parties in the
Knesset. (The Jewish Ledger, April 2, 1992, p. 24).
When Israeli Prime Minister
Yithak Rabin chose to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization in Gaza,
his Jewish political rivals produced posters showing Rabin dressed in a Nazi
uniform. Later this "Nazi" was murdered by a fellow Zionist.
It is fitting that in this
most stupid of all ages, when man has become puffed up on his own supposed
scientific grasp of the universe he presumes to have mastered, that we should
witness the crowning self-mockery of this creed of rational modern progress, in
its enslavement to the racist, superstitious religion of Judaism, to which all
good citizens of the One World Utopia must make obeisance or stand stigmatized
as "anti-see mites," a species akin to that of an insect.
The insect analogy is
apropos. The former chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, Raphael Eitan,
referred to the Palestinian people as "cockroaches scurrying around in a
bottle."
The Blood and Soil ideology
of Zionism which has violently dispossessed the native Palestinians of 92% of
their land and which guarantees immigration only to Jews, is racist to the
core. Equality between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli state is a fiction. Yet,
according to the N.Y. Times, to say that Zionism is just that--organized,
nationalistic racism-- "remains code language for bigotry." (NY
Times, Sept. 24, 1991, p. 30).
By N.Y. Times logic it is
an act of bigotry to point out that Zionism constitutes bigotry against Arabs.
This is the Jewish
mentality par excellence.
They've internalized their
chauvinism to such an extent that they are literally incapable of objectivity
or dispassionate examination of their own foibles, pretensions, myths and
legends. And the idea that speaking out against the racism of Zionism, is some
form of racism, is a palimpsest of fraud. Beneath the branch of Zionism is an
even more unlovely tree, the ferocious hate-mongering at the very heart of the
religion of Judaism.
Tall Tales
Only a nation of infants
who have been spoon-fed the pablum of relentless Jewish propaganda would
question the reality of Judaism's race-hate doctrines. Jewish hasbara (propaganda)
is first and foremost based on brazen lying, the more outrageous the better.
Though they have accused Hitler of the Big Lie technique they are themselves
the chief practicioners of it. In addressing the Jewish leadership, Christ said
they were, "Of your Father, a murderer and a liar from the
beginning." (John 8:44).
When gas chamber doubter
Bradley Smith placed a series of nationwide advertisements in college
newspapers for his views, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz rushed to
respond, denouncing Smith nationally in print as a "known...anti-Black
racist." This was a complete lie made up out of thin air. Said Smith,
"So far as anti-Black racism goes, in all the stuff I've written over the
last 20 years I've never written a word on that issue. It can't even be argued.
It's a complete invention...They make any accusation that comes to mind,
confident that media won't try to find out the truth of the matter." (Smith's
Report, Dec. 1991, pp. 2-3).
A few years ago National
Public Radio (NPR), a taxpayer financed enterprise, championed the cause of 72
year old David S. Rubitsky, who claimed that only "anti-semitism" was
keeping him from receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for having
single-handedly killed more than 600 Japanese soldiers in a battle. According
to Rubitsky, he fought off waves of Japanese soldiers in all-night fight and
saved his battalion. He said Japanese bodies were "piled like
cordwood." He told reporters: "Some were still alive. Some I just hit
in the shoulder and couldn't move. Some in the legs. So I would just shoot them
and bayonet them, shoot them and bayonet them. I was a completely insane
man."
As soon as NPR and the NY
Times discovered that there was a Jew who was not getting the highest military
award, that magic explanation for all Jewish troubles,
"anti-semitism," was summoned. The Times and NPR reflexively played
the hound to the U.S. Army's hare. As it turned out, Rubitsky's account was
conclusively proved false. Rubitsky's evidence, a Japanese inscription on a
photograph, was judged by both military experts and historians in the U.S. and
Japan to be "100 percent...a forgery."
However, since this was a
Jew the media were dealing with, the NY Times conceded that, "In a
reflection of the delicacy of the matter...Army officials and members of
Congress were careful not to portray Mr. Rubitsky as a deliberate liar...simply
an honorable old soldier with a foggy memory." (NY Times, Dec. 16, pp. 1
and 14; Dec. 17, 1989; also cf. Researcher newsletter, vol. 3, no. 5, p.
1). Indeed it must have been a very foggy night out there in the
Pacific.
One wonders if the
perpetrator of this little yarn had been an aging, hillbilly, good ol' boy from
north Alabama, what pyrotechnic paroxysms of pointed media indignation would
have been directed at his church, his culture and his community?
The same "foggy
memories" applied in the Israeli trial of Cleveland auto-worker John
Demjanjuk, where several Jewish "eyewitnesses" swore, without a trace
of doubt or shadow of uncertainty, that Demjanjuk was the infamous "Ivan
the Terrible," gasser-general of Treblinka. Demjanjuk was convicted and
sentenced to hang on the strength of these "honorable old" Jewish
"eyewitnesses." Only later did researchers working for his family
prove that Ivan the Terrible was long dead and Demjanjuk was not him.
To say that some Jews are
known for telling lies is not wrong if it is the truth.
But the Jewish response is
not to argue the point, but to categorize it and place it in their mad panopoly
of pathology. In the Jewish mentality, to indict some Jews for a crime of which
they are guilty is a form of sickness. Hence to say that some Jews are known
for a propensity to lie, will not evince an admission from Jews that the
Congressional Medal of Honor seeker was a fraud ,as are many so-called
"survivors" of the "Holocaust."
But rather, the Jewish
response is to say that accusing Jews of lying has been part of the
"familiar libels" and "stock charges" of history. No real
defense is offered, only the demand, based on the prestige and media clout of
the Jews, that they are to be believed and their critics silenced and reviled.
Elemental discourse with Jews becomes impossible under such circumstances
because Jews insist on non-negotiable absolutes: that they are, by divine
right, God's master race, and that traditional Western Civilization's portrayal
of them as money-mad, liars and extreme racists is always wrong.
This Jewish stance
necessitates an investigation into what Jewish tradition holds about Western
Christian civilization and Gentiles in general to determine if it is Western
tradition that is wrong and Jewish tradition blameless, or whether they may be
something evil within ancient Jewish tradition.
That we have the right to
sift Judaism for evil traditions is certainly a turnabout of fair play since
leading Jewish spokesmen have been condemning Western traditions as evil since
the rise of mass communications. Denying us the right to sift their tradition
for evidence of evil and criminality while they do it to us constantly, is the
Jewish mentality in action.
Take for purposes of
citation, the New Testament story of Jesus chasing the Jewish money-lenders out
of the Temple. If we suggest that there might be a co-equivalent in our time of
Jewish capitalists robbing the economies of the West, Zionists will condemn the
point not on the basis of fact but by screaming "anti-semitism" and
trotting out their shopworn cliches about "reeks of a stench of
bigotry," "an accusation worthy of medieval inquisitors" and
other similar linguistic devices intended to avoid debate on the merits or lack
of same of the accusation.
Yet the facts speak for
themselves: nine out of ten of the people indicted in Wall Street
insider-trading securities' fraud are Jewish. James B. Stewart's 1991 book
about the chief Wall Street money-changer crook of our time, the Khazar Michael
Milken, is aptly titled Den of Thieves. The sad fact is that, whether
2,000 years ago or now, some Jews have an innate propensity for crooked
financial dealings.
This is admitted privately
by the Jews themselves. Chaim Bermant is an orthodox Jewish columnist for the
national Zionist newspaper Jewish Chronicle based in Britain. In
his writing of March 1, 1991 he upholds the observation that Jews are
essentially dependents who must prey on a productive people in order to
survive.
Chaim Bermant asks:
"...why are Jews
wildly successful at making money everywhere else in the world except
Israel?..in Israel there are no Gentiles, i.e. no suckers waiting to be got the
better of. Where everybody is on the ball, how can anybody score goals?"
This is the truth about
Israelis from the mouth of a Khazar himself, whose opinion carried enough of
the ring of authenticity, to be repeated in print in a major Jewish newspaper.
Yet if you or I repeat this truth we are subject to invective and even prosecution.
Yet I maintain that many
Irishmen have a propensity for alcoholism, many Germans for petty bureaucracy,
many Americans for mindless Babbittry, many Scotsmen for parsimony and many
Englishman for homosexuality. Whether I am right or wrong in these characterizations
should be argued on the basis of historical fact and statistical analysis, not
hysterical screaming and laws intended to criminalize one's thoughts and
writings.
In fact, though Irishmen,
Germans, Americans, Scots and English might not like what I have to say and
might counter forcefully with facts and figures of their own to dispel my
conceptions, few of them would seek to pass laws to imprison those who hold
such uncomplimentary views, probably because deep inside, these Irish, Germans,
Americans, Scots and English know their own worth as great peoples who have led
great civilizations.
Jailers, Inquisitors and
Thought Controllers
It is the Zionists who have
such tremendous insecurities about their contributions to world history and if
truth be told, a clandestine knowledge of the truth of their critics'
accusations, so that they must resort to the jailer's turnkey to maintain their
world hegemony. It is because the truth carries its own special sting that Jews
call for the imprisonment of their intellectual critics.
The persecution trombone
will inevitably squeek out a long row of shrill notes at this juncture. At long
last, a comonsense approach to this subject must be argued. If Jews habitually
lie and cheat whose fault is it if they are "persecuted" as they call
it? The more proper word is prosecuted.
Moreover, in the annals of
history the Irish have been among the most persecuted people on earth. The
treatment of the Germans in the U.S. during World War One bordered on a
lynch-mob mentality and at the end of World War Two, millions of German
civilians perished as a result of deliberate mass explusions and population
transfers. Thanks to Jewish influence over the media of mass communications,
little or none of this is known to the public.
More importantly, we are
enjoined to speak the truth no matter what the consequences, come what may. It
is the mentality of a slave to hold back or suppress the truth because of what
may result from having spoken or written it. The "poisecution" claim
of the Khazars is no grounds for refusing to tell the truth about them.
All learning is based upon
curiosity and curiosity is the unfettered exploration of that which is
interesting. The weird halo of immunity which surrounds the Jewish nation is a
highly interesting sanction and no scholar must be faulted for defying it. To
pretend that we must approach the Jewish question with some special reverence
and reserve, fearful of causing offense, is a totalitarian expectation.
All investigations must be
free and impartial and lead wherever the evidence leads; anything less is
Orwellian. Only in the presence of a dictator are we compelled to exhibit a
fawning sychophancy and certain Jews have become every inch the dictators of
what constitutes the "proper" bounds of writing and research, as
surely as any Ming Dynasty emperor or Stalinist commissar decreed the
perimeters for scholars in those eras.
Such a dictatorship of the
mind can only be rightfully resented.
The Talmud: The Original
Hate Propaganda Volumes
What is clear from this
debate is that either one heritage or the other must be indicted as evil:
either Western Civlization was irredeemably evil for having prosecuted and
punished the saints and angels who comprised God's Chosen Representatives on
Earth, or Judaism is an evil creed which instills in its followers a
willingness to lie, cheat and murder those whom their Talmud
dehumanizes as goyim, resulting in natural resistance from non-Jews.
Isn't it interesting that
while it is considered utterly correct, moral and proper to paint the whole of
Western Civilization as evil for alleged crimes against the Jews, it has been
ruled totally inadmissible, immoral and racist to condemn Judaism as an evil
force?
In this matter of the
Talmud and the allegation that Jews ferociously hate and despise non-Jews as
part of their religious instruction, we can argue from a body of facts and
documentation which will send those liberals who are always calling for
dialogue, scurrying for the nearest police station to demand our arrest.
They do not want and cannot
endure a frank, open dialogue on the contents of the Jewish sacred book, the
Talmud, or on the extent to which Judaism is infected with institutional racism
and hatred for non-Jews. Like any superstitious zealot, they are content to
conform to the official decree of the state religion of "Holocaust"
piety. Critical analysis and thinking independent of received
opinion--faculties cited as absolutely indispensable by liberals when considering
any other religion--are discarded when it comes to Judaism. Here one is abjured
only to bend the knee, tip the hat and be on one's way.
This cowardly betrayal of
our God-given powers of reason--also advocated by conservatives--should anger
any researcher or scholar worth his or her salt and that anger ought to be
translated into the most rigorous and thorough, impartial examination of
Judaism it is within our power to render. Such an examination, to be valid,
must begin with the Jewish sources themselves.
Whenver the subject of
hatred and racism in the Talmud is raised, certain Jewish rabbis nearly always
respond with a barrage of name-calling, coupled with a statement that the
Talmud is free of all such negativity. This is the official position, promoted
in the media intended for consumption by Gentiles. But let us see what the Jews
say in publications intended for each other.
The Jewish Press is reputed to be the largest Jewish
newspaper in America. Politicians court it for endorsements and orthodox Jews
consult it for instruction. Rabbi Simcha Cohen writes an authoritative teaching
column in The Jewish Press entitled, "Halachic Questions."
In his column Rabbi Cohen
stated, concerning the Talmud's view of "heathens," that is,
non-Jews, that they are "animals." Rabbi Cohen writes that the
Talmudic teaching that non-Jews are animals can be found in the Talmud books
Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b. (The Jewish Press, Feb. 19, 1988,
p. 10A).
Jewish men are admonished
not to marry a non-Jewish women because such women all have the status of zona
that is, prostitutes. According to Rabbi Samuel A. Turk, writing in The
Jewish Press of June 22, 1990, p. 38, quoting the halachic authority,
Gentiles are not allowed to marry into Israel because Israel must have within
it "no harlot;" and "neither shall there be a sodomite." In
other words, non-Jewish men are all regarded as homosexuals and non-Jewish
women are all regarded as prostitutes.
Furthermore, according to
Rabbi Simcha Cohen, if a Jewish woman marries a Gentile man, she becomes a zona,
that is to say, a prostitute. Rabbi Cohen:
"...marriage to a
Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a liason classifies the woman
as a zona...common parlance interprets the term zona to refer to
a prostitute..."
This is qualified by
Talmudic authorities in that a Jewish woman would not be called a zona who
conducted a prostitution service exclusively with Jewish men:
"Indeed, premarital sex of a Jewish woman to a Jewish man does not
automatically brand the woman a zona..." A Jewish woman becomes a
prostitute or zona in the eyes of the Talmud only when she marries or
otherwise has sexual relations with a non-Jew. (Jewish Press, Feb. 19,
1988, p. 8C).
The Talmudic view of
non-Jewish women as prostitutes is widespread among Jews. The Yiddish word for
a Gentile woman is shiksa, which means whore, from the Hebrew root word,
sheigetz ("abomination"). The Yiddish word for Gentile girls
is shikselke, meaning "little female abomination." (Chaim
Bermant, "Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen Words, Jewish Chronicle,
May 17, 1991).
These unlovely
racist-Jewish appellations have been transliterated into English slang in
American popular culture in the use of the word bimbo ("stupid
whore") as an insulting description of good-looking, blonde White women. A
classic example of the Jewish hatred of such women was exhibited by Lisa
Schwarzbaum in her essay entitled "Blonde Ambition," which was
published in the NY Daily News:
"The
garden-variety bimbo of today is a woman who is inescapably blonde, inevitably
busty and invariably about as intellectual as a Cheez-Doodle...She beams her
40-watt brilliance...She's called Jessica or Donna or Marla, and she comes to
our attention because she has been spotted in a motel room with a
televangelist...City women swear we wouldn't want to trade our higher
consciousness for their low wattage. We bemoan their unfeminist feminine
wiles." (NY Daily News, May 27, 1990).
Could it possibly be
inferred from Miz Schwarzbaum's writing that she is guilty of the "group
libel" of Gentile women? Imagine the howls of condemnation and the cries
for imprisonment were a White Christian woman to pen an article entitled,
"Jewish Feminist Ambition."
The bimbo insult, like so
many other racist Jewish epithets, has been picked up by the heartland and the
mainstream and resounds through small town America as a self-hating put-down
used by Gentile women against other Gentile women. The racist nature of this
insult isn't even glimpsed, nor does any "anti-racist" campaigner
trace its origin in the depths of instiutionalized Jewish contempt for Gentile
women.
With regard to the
"Who is a Jew" debate, it is officially stated in the Establishment
media, that any Gentile, if sincerely converted to Judaism under the auspices
of properly constituted orthodox rabbinic authority, becomes a Jew. However
this is by no means the unanimous view of the rabbis themselves or of the
Talmud. In fact, the Talmud decrees that "...a Gentile can obtain some
rights when he is powerful and especially when he poses a threat to Jews."
(Israel Shahak, Ha'aretz. April 5, 1990).
At present, the Israeil
state is dependent upon the good will of the Gentiles of the West for financial
support, military aid and cooperation in propagating Israeli versions of
current events and history. Therefore, at present, Gentiles are accepted as
Jews if they convert, have the proper sincerity and are examined and received
by the strict orthodox rabbis. To do otherwise would be to reveal that Judaism
is a religion of self-worship (the Jewish race is itself god), based upon the
notion of Jews being the Master Race.
For those who search the
Jewish scriptures, an inner teaching on the status of Gentile converts to
Judaism is revealed, a teaching which awaits enforcement at a later date, when
Jews are all-powerful, but which points to a mentality of clandestine contempt
orthodox Jews have toward converts to Judaism.
Hence Rabbi Helbo in the
Talmud passage T.B. Yebamos 109b states, "Proselytes are hurtful to Israel
and a sore on the skin." (For confirmation of this passage, see Rabbi
Sammuel Turk, Jewish Press, Feb. 19, 1988, p. 10). A further indication
of the true status of the Gentile convert to Judaism can be found in the fact
that the marriage of a Jewish priest to a Gentile convert is prohibited (Simcha
Cohen, Jewish Press, Feb. 19, 1988, p. 10a).
More ominous is the
statement of the pre-eminent Jewish rabbi of antiquity, Shimon Ben Yohai, to
whom the Jewish holiday of Lag B'omer is dedicated. Rabbi Yohai stated,
"Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed." (Isidore
Singer, "Gentiles,"Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia, p.
617, 1907 edition; also cf. Talmud-Minor Tractates, Soferim 15, Rule 10).
Assuming that the
"best of the Gentiles," in Jewish eyes would be those who seek to
become Jews, one can suppose that Rabbi Yohai's statement will at some future
date warrant the elimination of those Gentiles in the Israeli ranks who carry
the label of convert. Though the pre-eminent Jewish law interpreter of
antiquity has commanded their death, permission to delay or counteract Jewish
law is given where Gentiles are still in a position to create a danger for
Jews.
In discussing the Talmudic
prohibition of giving food cooked specifically for Jews to either
"Gentiles or dogs," an exception is allowed: "...the Jews were
permitted in some cases to serve Gentiles food cooked only for Jews. For
example, permission was given in a case where a Gentile might feel insulted
enough to cause a danger to Jews." (Israel Shahak, Ha'aretz, April
5, 1990).
That contempt for converts
is widespread, if seldom remarked upon in the controlled, secular media. In the
Ask-the-Jewish-Lawyer column of the Canadian Jewish News, a Jewish
mother whose son married a German woman who converted to Judaism wrote the
following:
"We never wanted her
as our in-law. She cannot give us "naches" (the feeling you
get when your one-year-old starts hobbling for the first time), being of a
heritage that we do not respect as my husband is a Holocaust survivor. We do
not consider her conversion to Judaism valid. I told my son I forbid this
marital union. I would like to have his name erased from our family name. How
can we do this? We are preparing a will. Will one dollar for him be enough...?"
Attorney John Syrtash
replied as follows: "...technically you do not have to leave him anything
in your will as a matter of law. However, as a precaution I would put a nominal
$500 in the will, along with an express statement in the will explaining why the
amount is so low as it is, drafted concisely and without reference to your
ethnic prejudices...If you are sufficiently paranoid you may even obtain a
letter from a qualified psychiatrist when revising your will to state that at
the time you signed it you were clear-headed and knew exactly what you were
doing." ("A Lawyer Replies," Canadian Jewish News, Nov.
23, 1989, p. 12).
The reference to
"sufficient paranoia" is apposite as we wade further into the
mad-house of Jewish law and the Jewish mentality it has bred.
One of the big areas of
concentration in yeshiva schools (Talmud seminaries) is the lofty
subject of the women's mentrual flow. This august topic featured prominently in
one Talmud class as reported by the Los Angeles Times: "The
Talmudic lesson last Monday was on distinguishing menstrual blood stains on a
woman's garment from blood spots possibly caused by other sources." The Times
states that it is important for rabbis to be able to distinguish menstrual
blood stains on women's clothing from "...visible blood stains...caused by
lice, bed bugs or blood spattered in a butcher shop." (John Dart,
"Jewish Scholars Mark 7-Year Study Cycle, L.A. Times, April 28,
1990, p.F15).
The Jewess Evelyn Kaye
states: "In the code of Jewish law...there are 85 pages of rules,
regulations and interpretations covering every minute aspect of the menstrual
cycle...The rabbis drew up a series of definitions for 'Regular
Periods'...'Irregular periods,' which they divide up into Lunar cycles,
Same-Interval cycles and 30 Day Cycles." (The Hole in the Sheet).
This fascination with
morbid blood is evidenced in the Jewish infant circumcision ritual or bris in
the course of which blood from the lacerated penis is sucked through a glass
tube by a mohel (rabbi who specializes in circumcisions) in an act known
as metzitza. According to the rule of the Shulchan Aruch (the
codification of the Talmudic Mishnah), any mohel who dispenses
with the blood-sucking must be "removed from his post." Using a
surgical clamp to prevent bleeding also renders a bris "null and
void." According to the Talmud there must be some bleeding resulting from
the bris. "Using a clamp to prevent bleeding defeats one of the
purposes of the ritual and makes it invalid." (Cf. "Doctor Challenges
Female Mohel's Status," Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 21, 1993, p.
31).
Israel Shahak talks about
the "shock"that is "bound to occur" if people actually
"find out the truth...about...Judaism...what Judaism was really like when
Jews were governed by that Halacha" ("the correct path,"
i.e as prescribed in the Talmud).
Shahak states: "As to
the concept of 'saving souls,' (piku'ach nefesh) the Talmudic literature
makes it clear to anyone who reads it, even cursorily, that this concept is
inapplicable to Gentiles. In principle it is forbidden for Jews, including
Jewish doctors, to save the life of a Gentile, for what we could call
humanitarian reasons. Saving the life of a Gentile and thereby violating the
Sabbath is even more strictly forbidden. However, in the case of 'saving the soul'
of a Jew, such violation of the Sabbath is not only mandatory it is counted as
a good deed...There have been endless Halachic debates, which still continue
today, on whether 'soul saving' should apply only to Jews or whether Jewish
fear of Gentiles and their enmity should result in a dispensation to save
Gentile lives...In Israel a few years ago, the Haredi 'experts' for such
matters ruled that a Jewish doctor, when he is afraid that the authorities of
any state may revoke his license if he refuses to treat Gentiles...can obtain a
dispensation, provided that during the treatment he thinks about the
dispensation rather than about the treatment itself." (Israel Shahak,
"The Status of the Gentile in Jewish Religious Law and Israeli Politics,"
Ha'aretz, April 5, 1990).
Prof. Shahak illuminates a
central underlying tenet of Judaism: that it does not express its overwhelming
hostility to the non-Jewish world where it lacks the political and military
might to do so, but once it possesses that might, it shall move swiftly against
the Gentiles: "...according to Halacha a Gentile does not possess any
self-evident rights vis-a-vis a Jew. A Gentile can obtain some rights when he
is powerful and especially when he poses a threat to Jews. The more a Gentile
threatens Jewish lives, the more Halachic rights he will be granted.
"It therefore becomes
clear that...if the Arabs do not have chemical weapons, if their armies become
weaker, and if the Intifada (Palestinian uprising) is crushed, Halacha will not
only prohibit any retreat from the territories, but it will also prescribe the
beginning of the expulsion of the Gentiles, especially of the Christians, along
with the destruction of their churches. If a miracle happens and...Israeli
influence in the U.S. increases a thousand-fold, the Halacha will compel us to
expel all Gentiles not only from all of Palestine but also from 'all places
which we shall conquer..." (Israel Shahak, op. cit.).
Jewish scholar Shahak gives
the Talmudic teaching on Christianity and how it is to be treated when Jews are
strong: "...the churches of the Christians in Palestine...are places of
idolatry. Conversely we are obliged by our religion (Torah) to destroy all
idolatry and idol worshippers and to pursue it until we obliterate it from all
of our country and from all the places which we conquer." (Shahak, op.
cit.).
The words of Israeli Talmud
scholar Israel Shahak, first published in the Israeli national newspaper Ha'aretz,
will come as news to most non-Jews.
Let us tread further down
the path of Jewish hatred for non-Jews. Here is the late Rabbi Meir Kahane
advocating in 1990 the mass destruction of the German people: "When it
comes to the Amalek of our times, Germany, there is an on-going war, a
never-ending war, a war for generations...There can never be forgiveness or
contact or relations or anything to do with them. They are beyond the pale and
daily, the Jew must pray for the ultimate destruction of a German people that
never received an iota of the punishment they deserved...If the Almighty ever
allows me to become Prime Minister of Israel...there will be nothing but an
Amalek whose memory we will blot out as much as possible until the great day
when the Almighty finishes the mitzvah of vengeance." (Rabbi Meir
Kahane, "Halachic Overview," The Jewish Press, Oct. 12, 1990,
p. 49).
In March of l986, the
Israeli army's chief chaplain on the occupied West Bank, Rabbi Shmuel Derlich,
distributed a 1,000 word pastoral letter to Jewish soldiers calling for the
total extermination of Amalek. "Derlich wrote that it is the duty of 'a
king in Israel...to eradicate Amalek without leaving any trace...one must show
no pity for any creature from the nation of Amalek--man, woman, child...There
is no doubt that in the last generation we met the Amalekite enemy...in the
form of the German nation,' he wrote." Jerusalem Post, May 17,
1986.
Harvard University's Jewish
professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, who was cited earlier lying about
revisionist Bradley R. Smith, in his book, Chutzpah, stated, "The
rebuilding of postwar Germany into one of the world's most affluent nations is
a moral disgrace. A minimal appropriate response to the collective
responsibility of the German people for the crimes of their leaders...should
have been a generation of poverty."
Janet DeLynn (a.k.a.
DeLynnski): "...I am glad Israel has the atomic bomb, and the continued
existence of Israel is the only cause for which I consider it justifiable to
use nuclear weapons...maybe we could have tried the A-bomb on Germany rather
than Japan...What practically speaking, can one do with a nation (Germany) in
which virtually everyone over the age of ten, twelve, fifteen...was either a
participant in or accessory to murder?" (Testimony: Contemporary
Writers Make the Holocaust Personal, p. 65, quoted in Instauration, May,
1990, pp. 20-21).
"Rabbi Charles
Rosenzweig of West Bloomfield, Michigan, stated that 'Germany's guilt is
absolute' and that forgiveness 'is not possible." Dov Shilansky, Speaker
of the Israeli Knesset, said that 'Even in a thousand years, the shame of
Germany will not be erased." (Liberty, July, 1990, p. 14).
"I had avoided Germany
because I did not choose to try to keep a civil tongue or civil face among
those I felt would have stood by while my children and I were murdered...And I
felt I knew all I cared to know then about German history and the German soul.
On both, every Jew is a specialist." (A.M. Rosenthal, Press-Enterprise,
[Riverside, Calif.], April 27, 1990. Mr. Rosenthal is the former managing
editor of the N.Y. Times).
"In history, Germany
was not the only criminal nation, just the most vile." (A.M. Rosenthal,
"Our German Business," N.Y. Times, September 22, 1992, p.27).
"One of those rankling
questions is why is it that Germany, which visited upon the whole world, and
especially upon the Jewish world--an unprecedented hell of war, barbarism and
assembly-line killing of millions of Jews, should have turned out to be a
prosperous, powerful and even prestigious country. We wonder why in heaven's
name, this country of savage murderers should have risen from the ashes of
defeat to become a land of tranquility with a standard of living far above
those countries which sacrificed the flower of their youth to stop the Germans
from enslaving the entire world." (Rabbi David B. Hollander, "The
Torah," Jewish Press, December 8, 1989).
"Germans are an
abomination to me. I'm glad Dresden was bombed for no useful military
purpose." (Mordecai Richler, Vancouver Sun, Sept. 13, 1966).
"The two greatest
evils of this century...both came out of Germany...Arrogant overstatement is
another endearing German trait." (Don Feder, Conservative Jewish
columnist, Gazette Telegraph [Colorado Springs, Colorado], April 26,
1989.
"Let Austria decide whether
it is a civilized country or the dirty anti-semitic dogs that they have so far
been." (Edgar Bronfman, President, World Jewish Congress, Globe and
Mail, May 8, 1989.
The world will be saved,
"...if the world were to acknowledge its collective guilt against the
Jewish people." (Moshe Holczler, "Open Your Eyes, World," The
Jewish Press, Nov. 23, 1990, p. 12).
"Hostility toward
non-Jews has along history in the Jewish world...It's no secret that Jews
disparage non-Jews behind their backs. Some Jews brag about tricking them in
business, others shun them socially. The Yiddish phrase goyishe kup (a
non-Jewish head), indicates someone stupid or foolish. In Jewish literature,
the non-Jew is often portrayed as someone who is untrustworthy, dangerous or
hateful." (Michael Lerner, Utne Reader, Jan./Feb. 1991).
Imagine that a former
mental patient, who now heads the Texas Ku Klux Klan, is driving through the
Black ghetto in Houston with his grandchildren and rocks are thrown at his car
by Black demonstrators. The Ku Kluxer immediately stops his car, hops out and
indiscriminately opens fire with an automatic pistol, missing the Blacks who
threw the rocks and killing a Black shopkeeper who had nothing to do with the
incident while also wounding one of his Black customers. The Klan leader then
walks through the Black ghetto firing his weapon, kicking at debris and
shouting "Nigger."
What would have been the
reaction of the U.S. and international media to such a case? What would be the
Klansman's well-deserved sentence? 300 years in prison? 500 years? Death by
lethal injection?
A case equivalent to this
happened in the Israeli state.
Moshe Levinger, a Jew who
spent "some of his youth" in a Swiss psychiatric facility, is the
head of the Gush Emunim, a Zionist settler group which believes that
Arabs "are dogs" and that Palestinian land must be taken by force of
arms.
On Sept. 30, 1988, Rabbi
Levinger was driving through the Palestinian village of Hebron when his car was
hit by stones. "...according to numerous witnesses, Levinger parked his
car from harm's way and then walked determinedly toward the demonstrators,
firing his pistol indiscriminately. Ibrahim Bali, an Arab textile salesman was
buying new shoes for his daughter when he heard the shooting. He was standing
outside a shop when a bullet tore through his shoulder. A bullet also ripped
into the chest of Khayed Salah, who was about to close the metal shutters of
his shoe store. The Israeli Army company commander who witnessed the shooting
said that after the rabbi fired his weapon, he walked down the road screaming,
'You're dogs,' at Arab vendors, kicking over vegetable crates and flower
containers..." (Robert I. Friedman, Zealots for Zion, pp. 23, 29,
37-38).
He was sentenced to serve
five months in prison and was honored at a celebration prior to beginning his
sentence which was attended by well-wishers including Israeli General Yitzhak
Mordecai, military commander of the West Bank as well as the President of
Israel, Chaim Herzog. A religious ruling on Rabbi Levinger's attack was
prepared by Rabbi Moshe Neriya and published in the national Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz
of May 13, 1989, in which the rabbi ruled that every Jew has the duty
"to shoot [Arabs] left and right without thinking and without
hesitating."
Rabbi Moshe Levinger was
released from prison after serving two and one-half months of his sentence. The
sentence reflected the religious opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, who has
offered "justification for the view that the spilling of non-Jewish blood
was a lesser offense than the spilling of Jewish blood. 'Any trial based on the
assumption that Jews and goyim are equal, is a total travesty of justice,' he
said. (N.Y. Times, June 6, 1989, p. 5).
Has the reader even heard
of Rabbi Levinger much less what he did or the ten weeks he spent in jail for
the murder of a Palstinian bystander?
In July of 1983, Levinger's
son-in-law and other members of the Zionist Makhteret (Underground),
described as "the most violent anti-Arab terrorist organization since the
birth of the Jewish state...burst into the courtyard of the Islamic College in
Hebron during a noon lunch break, tossing a grenade and spraying machine gun
fire. Three Palestinian students were killed and thirty-three injured. 'Whoever
did this,' declared Rabbi Levinger, 'has sanctified God's name in public."
In May of 1990, 21 year old
Israeli Amri Popper walked to the Rishon le Zion market where Palestinian day
laborers awaited work. Popper opened fire on them with an assault rifle,
killing seven men and wounding ten. Israeli motorists got out of their cars and
danced the hora among the carnage. As the Palestinians bled to death,
one dancing Jew asked, "What, only seven dead?"
The Israeli army
subsequently shot to death seven more Palestinians on the same day and wounded
several hundred more.
"There is no doubt
that the Rishon le Zion gunman acted within a society in which the norm exists
that Arab life is cheap...treating Levinger like a hero have created this
norm..." (L.A. Times, May 23, 1990, p. 4).
On October 8, 1990, the
first day of Sukkoth, the Jewish feast of booths, the Israeli army
opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,
killing 17 and wounding 150. At first the Sukkoth Day Massacre was presented by
Israeli spokesman as the result of a vicious Arab stoning ofJewish pilgrims at
the Western or "Wailing" wall. "In order to blunt criticism of
the Temple Mount shooting..the Shamir government launched an obstreperous
public-relations campaign against U.S. media's 'biased' coverage of Israel.
It's a time-honored strategy in Israel, where many government officials have
come to believe that a problem hasn't been invented that a little hasbara, or
propaganda can't fix....The Jewish community's strong response seemed to
intimidate the media, which, with few exceptions, followed Israel's
interpretation of events. After the initial flurry of press coverage, the story
seemed to die..." (Friedman, op. cit., p. 132).
17 Palestinian civilians
had been shot to death by the Israeli army and police. The victims were blamed,
even though no Jews were injured by any mass "rock-throwing" as
Israeli magistrate Ezra Kama would admit in July, 1991. The official government
view became the media's view. "The story seemed to die." The hasbara
was having its effect as predicted.
What if 17 Jewish civilians
had been shot to death by an Arab government, would the mdia accept the
official Arab version as their own? After an initial flurry would the story
have been left to die or would it have been made into the Movie of the Week
from the Jewish victims' point of view?
As it turned out, to his
credit, 60 Minutes' TV reporter Mike Wallace investigated the case and
produced a truthful national network program on the atrocity the Jews
committed. Wallace documented that the Israeli massacre of the Palestinians was
an unprovoked, brutal crime.
"60 Minutes was
also inundated with complaints from mainstream American Jewish organizations
and powerful, pro-Israel supporters. At a New York dinner party, 60 Minutes executive
producer Don Hewitt got into a shouting match with ABC television's Barbara
Walters, the real estate developer and publisher of U.S. News and World
Report Mortimer Zuckerman and Mort Janklow, a literary agent, over the
Temple Mount segment...A furious CBS chairman Laurence Tisch summoned Hewitt
and Wallace...Tisch is an influential figure in the New York United Jewish
Appeal-Federation ...Tisch felt the piece was unfair...(and) required more
background reporting." (Friedman, op. cit., p. 133).
Rehavam Ze'evi, member of
the Israeli Knesset stated, "Every Jew is worth a thousand Arabs." (Al-Fajr,
Nov. 6, 1989, p. 15).
"...Prof. Dan
Scheuftan of the Hebrew University told a Nov. 13 Jewish Student Federation
Lecture on the chances for Middle East peace, that all Arabs are violent and
all Arabs want to poison baby Jews." (Canadian Jewish News, Nov.
28, 1991, p. 38).
"Commercial Hebrew
children's literature published in Israel provides a portrayal of the Arab
character that is a reflection of Zionist perceptions of Arabs in general, and
Palestinians in particular. Such a portrayal of Arabs has not been limited to
Israeli Jews alone but has also been transmitted to and accepted by, a large
segment of world Jewry and international public opinion, especially in the
West. As a colonial settler movement, Zionism realized the importance of
portraying the Arab character in a negative light and of depreciating Arab
rights in order to justify Zionist actions in Palestine...
"The characteristic
image of Arabs in commercial Hebrew children's literature is a grim one. The
Arab appears as a criminal...Arabs are also depicted as thieves, stealing
because theft is part of their nature, especially from Jews because of 'envy.'
Arabs are also shown as swindlers...Arabs are base...Arabs are cowards...Arabs
are idiots...Arabs prefer that non-Arabs tell them what to do. Arabs are liars
whose word cannot be trusted and whose promises should not be taken seriously.
Arabs are dirty in mind...
"There are several
reasons for this negative portrayal of Arabs. First is the need to eliminate
any respect for Arabs among Jews...Eradicating respect also dehumanizes,
thereby rendering acceptable whatever befalls the dehumanized party, including
exile, dispossession or even death." (F.E. Asmar, "Israeli Children
Imbibe Racism," Guardian Special Edition, Spring, 1987, p. 21).
"Forty percent of
Israeli Jewish high school pupils hate all, or almost all, Arabs, according to
the first comprehensive survey conducted since the outbreak ofthe intifada...
"The present
survey--completed over a period of two years--was conducted by Ofra Meizels,
Reuven Gal and Eli Fishof of the Israeli Center for Military Studies in Zichron
Ya'acov. In a country-wide poll, the researchers interviewed 5,400 pupils attending
grades 10, 11 and 12 in state-secular and state-religious schools."
("40% of Israeli Youth Hate Most Arabs," Canadian Jewish News, August
17, 1989, p. 5).
The hatred of the Arabs
does not raise the human rights hackles of the liberal and conservative Gentile
apologists for Zionism because this hatred is supposedly a justifiable reaction
on the part of Jews to Arab terrorism.
By the same token, Jewish
hatred for Christianity and Jesus Christ are excused on the basis of what the
Christians have done to the Jews, making hatred of Christians permissible. One
of the many confirmed anti-Christian bigots among the Jews is the writer Hyam
Maccoby. His book falsifying the Gospels, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of
Jewish Evil, is an excellent example of venomous hatred of Christians
presented under the guise of promoting the welfare of the Jews. It seems that
under this shibboleth, waved like the proverbial magic wand before the eyes of
Gentiles, the most vitriolic anti-Christian prejudice is summoned up without
protest from the target peoples. By this clever Jewish technique,
"fighting racism" is invoked in order to spread racist hatred for
Christians and Palestinians.
In Maccoby's book the
existence of the Jewish Judas and his act of betrayal, for which Christ said it
would have been better had Judas never been born, is denied. According to
Maccoby, the whole Judas episode was a Christian plot concocted out of thin air
in order to defame the Jews.
Paul Johnson, writing in
the London Sunday Telegraph (Feb. 23, 1992) states that Maccoby's book
is not so much scholarly as an anti-Christian polemic and that, "...the
book betrays a certain paranoid attitude to Christianity...the book is not an
open-minded inquiry into the reality of Judas. On the contrary it starts with a
conclusion and then proceeds to amass the evidence to justify it. This leads
him into all kinds of difficulties, notably in disposing of the name
'Iscariot,' where he is at his least plausible. It also obliges him to
predicate that the Evangelists and the writer of Acts, were constantly engaged
in unscrupulous propagandist inventions for base politico-ecclesiastical
purposes. On other occasions however, when their evidence happens to fit in
with his theory, they are reliable sources...Maccoby, in short, is too
obsessed...to write an objective account of Judas."
In the Jewish mentality,
opposing the stereotype of Judas as a cardboard "Jew devil," even to
the extent of denying he existed, and attributing the accounts of his treachery
to "propagandist inventions" by the Church, is a worthy and necessary
endeavor on the part of Jewish writers.
However, when Christians
truthfully attempt to wade through the wild tales and exaggerations which
attend the so-called "genocide" of Jews in World War Two, because
they see in such exaggerations, the unmistakeable outline of a cardboard
"Christian devil" being mounted by Zionist propaganda, such an
endeavor raises a howl of protest from Jews and dark intimations about the
motives of those who would seek to correct the record and defend Christianity
from libel.
Thus the equation is
submitted to the old Jewish insistence on special privileges and status above
mankind. They, the Master Race, have the right to investigate historical
stories, like the tale of Judas, which create legends of Jewish deviltry. But
for the mere goyim to do the same, to dare to investigate Jewish tales which
foment legends of Christian deviltry--this becomes an unpardonable sin against
the majesty of Jewish omniscience, infallibility and suzerainty.
In a similar manner the
Jews have created for themselves a license to agitate for Jewish racial purity
and apartheid for Palestinians, at a time in the modern era when talk of race
purity and racial separation are grounds for imprisonment in Britian, France
and Germany and expulsion from the politically correct universities of America.
It is only to the Jewish Master Race that such racial concerns are licensed and
legitimated.
For example, mainstream Jewish
groups regularly run advertisements in national liberal newspapers such as the NY
Times and in their own religious Jewish publications calling for Jewish
racial purity.
In the December, 1989 Jewish
Chronicle a large ad appears, placed by the "Jewish Seminar
Movement" (Chofetz Chayim Torah). The text of the ad asks, "An
Urgent Call to World Jewry...Do you realize we are in dire danger of losing
millions of precious Jewish souls through intermarriage?...That the children of
intermarriage grow up with complexes and confusion? If you or your friends are
on the verge of internarriage, we plead with you, do not allow a temporary
infatuation to ruin your life, the lives of your dear children and help to
destroy our cherished and beloved Jewish people."
Imagine if a White heritage
group, distressed over the demographic fact that only one in twenty-six of the
world's people are White, were to take out national ads arguing against Whites
"inter-marrying" with other races, thereby "helping to destroy
our cherished and belowed White race." The outrage, the weeping, wailing
and gnashing of teeth would resound from the editorial pages of the Hoboken
Cornstalk Trombone to the halls of the United Nations and media sattelites
circling the globe in outer space. Leading the attack would be "Jewish
service and humanitarian groups," because Jews reserve to themselves alone
the right to racial purity and racial separation.
Jeffrey Kwintner, a Jew,
writing in the Jewish Chronicle of Dec. 29, 1989 says: "...Jews are
the only exception. They were destined to be unique. The concept of racial
purity within the Jewish nation is not a myth...The only facts to determine
Jewishness should be purely an hereditary one regardles of Jewish observance. A
Jew is someone from Jewish stock. No one can make a gentile Jewish...We must
retain our own exclusivity in order to survive and not be infiltrated by
outsiders..."
When the Aryan Nations
group established a headquaters in the Idaho panhandle and announced that they
intended it as a base for creating a separate nation for Whites in the Pacific
Northwest, they were denounced universally in the Establishment media, schools
and courts as foul hatemongers and racists. Yet the option of racial separation
for Jews is perfectly acceptable to such liberal organs as the NY Times. A
headline in the NY Times of Dec. 10, 1990, p. 6, illustrates this:
"More Jews in Israel Agreeing With Palestinians That Separation Is the
Only Solution." The article quotes Minister of Defense Yitzhak Rabin as
saying, "We must now recognize the fact that coexistence with the
Palestinian population of the territories in one political framework has no
chance. The only chance is through the solution of separation..."
No such solution or
separation is permitted White Christians in America however. Any talk of
disparate peoples being unable to "coexist" in one political
framework in the U.S. is grounds for prosecution by the U.S. Justice
Department, which is exactly what the Federal government under Ronald Reagan
did in 1987 to Louis R. Beam, Jr. Mr. Beam, a former Vietnam helicopter gunner,
was placed on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list on charges of
"sedition," solely based on his writings and speeches calling for a
separate White enclave in America. (He was acquitted of the charge by a working
class jury of his peers in Ft. Smith, Arkansas).
The grandiose vision of the
Jewish race with its special immunities, privileges and rights was articulated
by President Ronald Reagan in a memorable passage from his 1988 speech to
dedicate the cornerstone of the U.S. taypayer-financed, U.S. Holocaust Museum,
then under construction in Washington, D.C. In his speech, which was actually
written by a Jew, John Podhoretz, son of the fanatical Zionist Norman Podhoretz
(cf. Washington Jewish Week, Oct. 13, 1988), President Reagan made the
following incredible statement, "And we must make sure that when the tall
towers of our greatest cities have crumbled to dust in the turnings of time,
the Jewish people will still be on this earth to cast their blessings..."
In other words, while the
decline of our American cities is inevitable, the decline of the Jews is not.
Those who have hastened the decline of our Republic and who curse non-Jews in
the texts of their Talmudic books daily and routinely, will be around to pick
up the pieces long after all else is in ruins.
For the babysitter of Bonzo
the Chimp and his constituency of "Reagan Republicans" and
"Reagan Democrats," this is a prophecy to be celebrated and
applauded.
The Jew Samuel Gringauz,
writing in the January, 1950 issue of Jewish Social Studies, referred to
the personal, "eyewitness" testimony of Jews concerning the events of
World War Two, as "full of preposterous verbosity, exaggeration, dramatic
effects...unchecked rumors, bias..."
Historian Gerald
Reitlinger, author of a standard reference work on what is termed the
"Holocaust," states in his book The Final Solution, "...the
Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician speaking in flowery
similes...sometimes the imagery transcends credibility."
Lying as an Institution
Lying to Gentiles is
institutionalized within the Jewish religion in the Kol Nidre rite, when
all oaths that were broken in the preceding year, are rendered null and void.
Let us examine a few of the
testimonies of the Jews who claim to have lived through World War Two and who
are labeled by the instrument of Orwellian Newspeak as "Survivors of The
Holocaust."
In an "Op Ed"
piece in the Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1981, part II, p. 11 a Jewess
named Rachel Patron writes an essay devoted entirely to the theme of the most
horrifying scene she observed during the war: bars of soap made from "the
fat of dead Jews." The article is accompanied by a drawing of a little
girl who has scooped nearly a dozen bars of such soap in her apron. Patron
writes:
"Mama, Mama, look what
I found!' I cried as I ran across the tracks, holding on to the bottom of my
skirt, which I'd filled with bars of soap...My mother and I stood in front of
the open door, she turning the bar of soap over and over in her hand, while
both of mine clutched the skirt holding my treasure. Suddenly mother's face
turned ashen and her eyes opened wide with fear, as if locked on the sight of a
terrible monster coming to devour her. She said nothing but her fear
communicated itself to me and I began screaming, 'Mama, Mama, what happened?
What's wrong?'
"She still said
nothing. I thought she couldn't hear me......I started to tremble and then I
screamed as loudly as I could and stomped my feet hysterically because I was
terribly frightened and I didn't know why. So she had to tell me; not knowing
would do me even more harm.
"Grasping me by the
shoulders, she said, 'R.J.F. means Rein Judisch Fett!' She said it in
German, but I understood; it sounds the same in Yiddish: Pure Jewish Fat.
"I let go of the
bottom of my dress and all the soap came crashing to the floor, many of the
bars chipping and losing their smooth surface. I bent down and started throwing
them out of the train, one by one, looking down to see them crushed between the
sharp wheels and the steel rails. And all the time tears were rolling out of my
eyes..."
This is a certainly a very
heart-rending story, a bit sensational and sentimental perhaps, but one of the
thousands of tales of German perfidy retailed in the mass media including such
august Establishment organs as the L.A. Times. Each story serves to
illustrate that "terrible monster" the Germans and the civilization
from which they came. Certainly L.A. Times readers thought that the
story had been thoroughly checked by the editors before it was published so
prominently and in so great a paper as the Times. While Jews object to
the portrayal of Judas as a Jewish devil, no one has the right to object to
this stirring and sad portrayal of the work of the German devil.
There is only one problem
with the many "Jewish survivor" stories about bars of soap from
Jewish fat: Jewish historians themselves admit that this was Allied atrocity
propaganda and that it never happened.
In World War One the same
idiotic story was told about the Germans by the Allies only in that case the
claim was made that Germans made the soap from the bodies of British soldiers.
One cannot lay culpability
for such war-time yarns at the door of the Jew alone for virtually every war in
history has produced wild exaggerations about enemy forces which kings,
generals and politicians have sought to exploit in order to excite their
populations to greater sacrifices and martial frenzy.
During the French revolution
Robespierre was accused of eating the roasted flesh of priests and of creating
a tannery for human skin for making shoes for the sansculottes. (Le
Blond de Neuveglise [probably a pseudonym of the Abbe Proyart], La vie et
les crimes de Maximilien Robespierre, p. 279).
Robespierre in turn
manufactured atrocity propaganda against LaFayette: "In Robespierre's
private war against LaFayette, he ofen used wild exaggeration. He inflated the
Champ de Mars casualties to 1,500 and repeated atrocity stories of children in
Brabant being slaughtered in their mother's wombs by LaFayette's soldiers and
carried on the ends of bayonets." (David P. Jordan, The Revolutionary
Career of Maximillien Robespierre, p. 89).
What makes the Second World
War different is that it is the first war in which, after it was concluded, the
atrocity propaganda was not discredited, but was in fact escalated. Hence in
1981 the prestigious L.A. Times devoted a large part of its editorial
page to a lunatic bar of soap hoax cooked up by the Allies 35 years before. The
"bars of soap from Jewish fat" tale continues to make the rounds of
films, books, classrooms and newspapers, the better to permanently stigmatize
the German people and the Christian civilization of Europe as monstrous evil.
"Professor Yehuda
Bauer, head of the Hebrew Univserity's Holocaust history department and
regarded as one of the foremost researchers of the Holocsaust, has denied the
frequently quoted charge that the Nazis used the bodies of Jewish death camp
victims to make soap... 'We do not have to go on believing untrue stories,'
Bauer said.
"Raul Hilberg,
professor of political science at the University of Vermont and pre-eminent
historian of the Holocaust, agrees that the soap rumor, although widespread was
probably unfounded.
"There were all kinds
of rumors,' he said, noting that a NY Times article during the war
suggested that Jews were given lethal injections before deportation...Other
rumors speculated that Jews were killed in the Belzec camp by electrocution in
water... 'All these rumors are untrue, based on nothing at all,' Hilberg said.
'No evidence has turned up' to suggest that the Nazis used human fat to make
soap." (Hugh Orgel, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Northern California Jewish
Bulletin, April 27, 1990).
Whatever Hilberg and Bauer
may say about the rumor-mongering and atrocity tales, the mass media continues
to report them as totally truthful, straight news. No matter how preposterous
or idiotic, no skepticism is shown, no probing questions asked. We are dealing
with a religion here, the most sacred in the world!
The BBC made a Timewatch
documentary about a group of Polish Jews who are alleged to have
"survived the Holocaust by living like and with, the rats in the sewers of
Lvov for 14 months." There is even a book, In the Sewers of Lvov, dedicated
to Leopold Socha, a sewer worker. (Cf. "Subterranean Memories, Jewish
Chronicle, Oct. 26, 1990).
Then there is the Zeiger
family of seven, who for "two terrifying years" beginning in 1942,
lived in a "4-foot-deep hole" under Antosh Suchinsky's barn,
"afraid to light even a candle.... The quarters were so cramped the adults
could not even stand. 'I cannot tell you how horrible the conditions were.
There was no air, no food, no light." (Gazette Telegraph, May 28,
1988).
Vera Kriegel recalls the
day in Auschwitz that she was taken into a room where she "saw a wall full
of human eyes pinned to the wall like a collection of butterflies." (Toronto
Star, Feb. 5, 1985).
A Jew named Morris Hubert
claims to have been sent to Buchenwald. He says: "In the camp there was a
cage with a bear and an eagle. Every day they would throw a Jew in there. The
bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick his bones." (Ari L.
Goldman, "Time 'Too Painful' to Remember," NY Times, Nov. 10,
1988).
Or how about Berta Yozawitz
of Miami, Florida. During the "Holocaust," Berta "was moved to
Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. One day, she stole some turnips. She was
caught and forced to lick the kitchen floor clean with her tongue." (Palm
Beach Post, April ll, 1988, p. 1).
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Weiss
informs us: "...Nazis transported from the Auschwitz camp to Germany seven
trainloads of women's hair from which the Germans produced soft mattresses
forthe German population. There were...10 trainloads of gold--especially from
dental work.." (The Jewish Press, April 5, 1991).
A French magazine, National
Hebdo (May 31, 1990) details how the sacred Auschwitz death toll has fallen
dramatically over the years: from 8 million (French War Crimes Research
Office), to 5 million (Le Monde, April 20, 1978) to 4 million (the
figure advertised at Auschwitz-Birkenau up until 1990) to 3 million (the
"confessions" of Rudolf Hoss) to 1. 6 million (Prof. Yehuda Bauer);
to 1.25 million (Prof. Raul Hilberg) to 850,000 (Gerald Reitlinger, The
Final Solution), to 75,000 (Auschwitz archives in posession of the
Russians).
This concludes chapter
one in volume one of THE JEWISH MENTALITY by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright ©1996 by
Michael A. Hoffman II. All Rights Reserved.
Published electronically by
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History. This copyrighted material may not be
reproduced in any format without permission in writing.
http://www.hoffman-info.com