By Denis Wise
By Denis Wise
By N. Joseph Potts
The death in jail of Jeffrey Epstein last month recalls a very famous death of another jailed Jewish man charged (and convicted and sentenced) of crimes against a 13-year-old girl in 1913. That case, which involved only one of many rumored similar victims, involved the lethal abuse of a factory worker named Mary Phagan by the manager of the factory, 29-year-old pillar of the Atlanta Jewish community Leo Frank, who, having grown up in Brooklyn, might have seemed rather a “damn Yankee” to at least some of his neighbors of 106 years ago. Frank’s victim, unlike any of Epstein’s known victims, was murdered and, while Frank was tried and convicted and sentenced to death, his guilt continues to be vigorously contested this more-than-a-century later, by the successors to the massive and distinctly Jewish campaign to win his exoneration of the offense.
The two cases, while they have many and important differences, both involve Jewish men accused of raping underage teenage girls as well as large and enduring campaigns of national stature to secure the acquittal of the defendants. In Frank’s 1913 case, America’s (then-smaller, but already powerful) Jewry mobilized to support his exoneration, stimulated by the notion, perhaps manufactured among the larger and more-influential Jewry of the northern United States, that Frank was being discriminated against because he was a Jew in the South, whose Jewish population was then less-influential than that of their co-religionists to the north (Frank was, in any case, a “child” of the North, having grown up in Brooklyn). The establishment of the Anti-Defamation League in October 1915 is widely credited to the (Jewish) outrage at Frank’s lynching in August of that year.
Epstein’s case entailed a “conviction” and a much-diluted “prison sentence” in what now might be called its first phase, one that might reflect his vastly greater influence (read: wealth) over the juridical apparatus, and no doubt because no one had been found murdered. Frank’s case had only one phase (including appeals that went all the way to a petition to the US Supreme Court), but of course did involve a murder, one the guilt for which satisfied all the jurors on his case, but has never satisfied the jury of “public opinion” as mediated by media firmly controlled by parties sympathetic to, if not Frank’s innocence, then at least to his ethnic affiliation.
Frank did not have the means to mount the monumental defense that eventually rose to his succor, but Jewish moguls of the day such as Albert Lasker saw to it, through vigorous fund-raising campaigns conducted throughout Jewish communities in the North, that his justice was indeed the best that money could buy. Epstein had no need of any such circling of the financial wagons; he was a billionaire in his own right, but in view of his ability to purchase his defense in the open market, nonetheless Jewish legal luminaries such as Alan Dershowitz figured large in the phalanx ultimately mustered to defend him in the 2016 Florida case that led to his sentence to 13 months’ “confinement” in a minimum-security prison near his palatial estate in Palm Beach. Some of these lawyers, such as Dershowitz, stood among those who might have been implicated in the crimes committed by, or through the connivance of, Epstein.
Among those ensnared in Epstein’s fiendishly woven net was the United States Attorney for Southern Florida Alexander Acosta, who arranged for Epstein’s convenient conviction on a Florida State charge. Later appointed secretary of labor by President Donald Trump, he subsequently resigned under fire after Epstein was again arrested in July 2019 by the United States Attorney for Southern New York, the locus of yet more of the crimes with which Epstein was charged, all of these involving underage teenage girls.
Epstein’s guilt is not contested, neither as to the ages of his victims, nor even really as to their numbers (apparently something in the dozens). Neither Epstein nor any of his co-conspirators is implicated in any murder. Frank’s guilt, at least of the murder of Mary Phagan, continues to be very much contested by, among others, the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz–yes, the very same Harvard Law School professor who has for many years now led the star-studded legal team defending Jeffrey Epstein, the Twenty-First Century’s answer to Leo Frank. Naturally, the metaphorical child of the Frank case, the Anti-Defamation League, continues to beat its very loud drum to advance the cause of Leo Frank’s innocence even to the point, in 1986, of securing a posthumous pardon from the state of Georgia, issued as an apology for having failed to protect its notorious inmate at its prison in Milledgeville in 1915.
Frank’s lynching was the first and last lynching of a Jew recorded in the annals of American lynching. American Jewry had, over the two years preceding it, made the case a cause célèbre, not least in the media, which, even at that early time, were controlled by Jewish interests not only of ownership, such as Adolph Ochs’s New York Times, but through the massive and pervasive influence of large-scale advertisers such as merchandiser Alfred Lasker, whose tentacles reached into the hearts of virtually every newspaper large and small in the United States. Lasker, having taken the cause very much to heart, became the unofficial leader of the campaign in Frank’s behalf, a campaign that may be said to have continued vigorously today well into its second century.
The Epstein case, unlike the Frank case, did not become a “Jewish” issue despite the Jewishness of Epstein, Epstein’s “patron” Les Wexner, Dershowitz and many of Epstein’s other defenders. Indeed, Epstein did not, as Frank did with some distinction, take part in Jewish religious affairs beyond hobnobbing with ex-prime ministers of Israel and the like. But the ethnic commonality among Epstein and other Jewish men such as Harvey Weinstein and Leon Wieseltier was the subject of a recent article by ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon in the Unz Review, volubly countering this non-ethnic quality of l’affaire Epstein. However, the non-ethnicity of the matter has seemingly left the ADL out of this reprise of the case that brought it into existence 104 years ago.
Leo Frank was not, as Jeffrey Epstein was, rich (although his wife did come from a wealthy family), so he could not, as Epstein easily did, fund his own high-powered team of defense lawyers. But Frank did indeed enjoy a powerful defense team easily comparable to the one marshaled around Epstein. It was funded by Alfred Lasker and a nationwide fundraising campaign conducted largely through Jewish auspices such as synagogues and chapters of the B’nai B’rith, of whose Atlanta chapter Frank was president. Indeed, Frank’s team’s successors have managed within the past year to establish Georgia’s first Conviction Integrity Unit, which has taken on local closed cases such as that of convicted murderer Wayne Williams, along with a posthumous one, that of Leo Frank, with full exoneration in view. Unlike also-pardoned ADL beneficiary Marc Rich, Leo Frank’s supporters haven’t made large donations to foundations of American presidents, but smaller donations to the foundations and political-campaign funds of Georgia and Fulton County politicians may produce the desired effects quite handily. No relatives of Leo Frank are to be found among the public advocates of this campaign, nor any descendent of anyone who knew him. Relatives of Mary Phagan, however, oppose the initiative.
Assuming, as is widely done, that Epstein was murdered in jail á la Lee Harvey Oswald, to keep him from dishing the dirt on many powerful people, Frank’s death at the hands of a lynch mob that had extracted him from jail would appear to have been committed on other considerations, notably his Jewishness as continually asserted this past century or so by the ADL, his supporters, and their latter-day successors such as Alan Dershowitz.
But that idea also is contested, notably by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, publisher and author of record of The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews Vol. 3, the Leo Frank Case. This work (long since banned by amazon.com) advances the proposition (pp. 309-330) that the lynch mob was covertly orchestrated by the same (Jewish) parties who had supported and defended Frank’s innocence in the two years preceding the lynching. Why would these same partisans now wish their beneficiary dead?
Because he might confess. He was alive, in keeping with their wishes, but still incarcerated, very much against their wishes, if only because there, he might be subject, á la Rudolf Höss of Holocaust fame, to coercion, or even inducements, to confess to the crimes of which he was accused. This would certainly never do. In fact, Frank nearly died in his cell, as Epstein did in his, after a fellow inmate cut his jugular vein with a butcher knife about one month after the commutation. Perhaps the would-be murderer was committing a din rodef murder in behalf of Jewish paymasters not unlike those said to have commissioned Jeffrey Epstein’s death.
Two months elapsed between Governor Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s sentence and the lynch mob’s carefully arranged transits by car of 150 miles over unpaved roads from Marietta to Milledgeville, where they picked up their hapless victim, and then back again to Marietta, chosen because it was the hometown of poor Mary Phagan. None of the (well-known) participants in the lynching was even charged with the murder of Frank, much less prosecuted.
One wonders if, a hundred or so years from now, the ADL will secure the exoneration of Jeffrey Epstein.
Yeah. Those girls were all party-crashing gold diggers. Epstein just got the rap because he was Jewish.
That’s right. Just because he was a Jew.
 As raping is legally defined. In most of the United States today, the legal age of consent is 18. Sexual relations with a person younger than that age is called “statutory rape,” intended to cover cases in which the victim gives her consent.
 Din rodef is a Talmudic concept holding that it is permissible–indeed, required–to kill a person whose continued life threatens the life, or reputation, of a Jew, or, as in Frank’s case, the Jewish community en grosse.
Our opponents are getting desperate. Since they cannot debate us on an open forum, as they would lose, they have taken to extreme Soviet-style censorship on all major platforms.
YouTube, which was once a great platform for the average person to get their content out to a wide audience, has now become a place where only the most inane, idiotic, and philo-semitic videos are allowed. No honest opponents of jewish supremacy and their White genocide agenda are allowed on the platform, regardless of whether or not they try to stay within the new rules. If an “edgy” YouTube channel still exists, it’s because the jewish supremacists want them to be there, likely because they serve as controlled opposition.
Just in case you were unaware, the CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, is jewish. YouTube is owned by Google, which was co-founded by two jews, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. While the ADL is now embedded within YouTube (along with all of the major tech companies in Silicon Valley), they have actually been partnered with YouTube since 2008.
I knew it was a matter of time, as our jewish overlords will not allow anyone actually telling the truth about them to have any kind of platform on their services.
In addition to merely removing or hiding content it deems offensive, Google’s Youtube is now demonetizing the accounts of said “offenders”.
So let’s see how much YouTube has ramped up its jewish censorship campaign.
YouTube said Tuesday that it has removed more than 100,000 videos marked as hate speech under the platform’s new policy against bigoted and supremacist content. The video-sharing giant said it removed more than 17,000 channels and 100,000 videos for violating its hate speech policy between April and June – the month in which the policy was instituted – a five-time increase in the number of removals in the first three months of the year. Google-owned YouTube also said it has removed more than 500 million comments for hate speech, double the amount of removals in the first quarter of the year. “The spikes in removal numbers are in part due to the removal of older comments, videos and channels that were previously permitted,” YouTube wrote in the post.
YouTube needed to change their own rules because truth was still getting out to the masses. They needed to ensure that anything even remotely critical of their power and their agendas (White genocide, hoax shootings, LGBTQ, pedophilia, etc.)
A new protected class by @YouTube: those now immune from criticism due to their “immigration status.” In other words, @YouTube is banning speech critical of illegal immigration. pic.twitter.com/9bersTWNNa
– Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) June 5, 2019
The way they framed their policy, anyone talking about the important issues of today could be flagged for promoting “hatred” against any of the protected groups, as hatred is never clearly defined, leaving it up for (((interpretation))).
YouTube will eventually go down the tubes as people stop uploading and watching the stupid videos that are allowed there. Unfortunately, alternative like Bitchute are filled with degeneracy, out of control woman-hatred, and softcore anime porn. Nevertheless, that is where I will be sourcing the majority of the videos featured on Renegade Tribune, since nearly all of the old YouTube videos I embedded over the years no longer exist.
Of course this problem of censorship is not just with Youtube, but with every major technology outlet.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. systematically censor or hide information about the Jews’ international crime network.
The modern learned elders of Zion want to know why the freedom of speech will not die in an otherwise moribund, enervated USSA.
By John Wear
Great Britain’s Blank Check to Poland
On March 21, 1939, while hosting French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain discussed a joint front with France, Russia and Poland to act together against German aggression. France agreed at once, and the Russians agreed on the condition that both France and Poland sign first. However, Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck vetoed the agreement on March 24, 1939. Polish statesmen feared Russia more than they did Germany. Polish Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz told the French ambassador, “With the Germans we risk losing our liberty; with the Russians we lose our soul.”
Another complication arose in European diplomacy when a movement among the residents of Memel in Lithuania sought to join Germany. The Allied victors in the Versailles Treaty had detached Memel from East Prussia and placed it in a separate League of Nations protectorate. Lithuania then proceeded to seize Memel from the League of Nations shortly after World War I. Memel was historically a German city which in the seven centuries of its history had never separated from its East Prussian homeland. Germany was so weak after World War I that it could not prevent the tiny new-born nation of Lithuania from seizing Memel.
Germany’s occupation of Prague in March 1939 had generated uncontrollable excitement among the mostly German population of Memel. The population of Memel was clamoring to return to Germany and could no longer be restrained. The Lithuanian foreign minister traveled to Berlin on March 22, 1939, where he agreed to the immediate transfer of Memel to Germany. The annexation of Memel into Germany went through the next day. The question of Memel exploded of itself without any deliberate German plan of annexation. Polish leaders agreed that the return of Memel to Germany from Lithuania would not constitute an issue of conflict between Germany and Poland.
What did cause conflict between Germany and Poland was the so-called Free City of Danzig. Danzig was founded in the early 14th century and was historically the key port at the mouth of the great Vistula River. From the beginning Danzig was inhabited almost exclusively by Germans, with the Polish minority in 1922 constituting less than 3% of the city’s 365,000 inhabitants. The Treaty of Versailles converted Danzig from a German provincial capital into a League of Nations protectorate subject to numerous strictures established for the benefit of Poland. The great preponderance of the citizens of Danzig had never wanted to leave Germany, and they were eager to return to Germany in 1939. Their eagerness to join Germany was exacerbated by the fact that Germany’s economy was healthy while Poland’s economy was still mired in depression.
Many of the German citizens of Danzig had consistently demonstrated their unwavering loyalty to National Socialism and its principles. They had even elected a National Socialist parliamentary majority before this result had been achieved in Germany. It was widely known that Poland was constantly seeking to increase her control over Danzig despite the wishes of Danzig’s German majority. Hitler was not opposed to Poland’s further economic aspirations at Danzig, but Hitler was resolved never to permit the establishment of a Polish political regime at Danzig. Such a renunciation of Danzig by Hitler would have been a repudiation of the loyalty of Danzig citizens to the Third Reich and their spirit of self-determination.
Germany presented a proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Danzig question with Poland on October 24, 1938. Hitler’s plan would allow Germany to annex Danzig and construct a superhighway and a railroad to East Prussia. In return Poland would be granted a permanent free port in Danzig and the right to build her own highway and railroad to the port. The entire Danzig area would also become a permanent free market for Polish goods on which no German customs duties would be levied. Germany would take the unprecedented step of recognizing and guaranteeing the existing German-Polish frontier, including the boundary in Upper Silesia established in 1922. This later provision was extremely important since the Versailles Treaty had given Poland much additional territory which Germany proposed to renounce. Hitler’s offer to guarantee Poland’s frontiers also carried with it a degree of military security that no other non-Communist nation could match.
Germany’s proposed settlement with Poland was far less favorable to Germany than the Thirteenth Point of Wilson’s program at Versailles. The Versailles Treaty gave Poland large slices of territory in regions such as West Prussia and Western Posen which were overwhelmingly German. The richest industrial section of Upper Silesia was also later given to Poland despite the fact that Poland had lost the plebiscite there. Germany was willing to renounce these territories in the interest of German-Polish cooperation. This concession of Hitler’s was more than adequate to compensate for the German annexation of Danzig and construction of a superhighway and a railroad in the Corridor. The Polish diplomats themselves believed that Germany’s proposal was a sincere and realistic basis for a permanent agreement.
On March 26, 1939, the Polish Ambassador to Berlin, Joseph Lipski, formally rejected Germany’s settlement proposals. The Poles had waited over five months to reject Germany’s proposals, and they refused to countenance any change in existing conditions. Lipski stated to German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop that “it was his painful duty to draw attention to the fact that any further pursuance of these German plans, especially where the return of Danzig to the Reich was concerned, meant war with Poland.”
Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck accepted an offer from Great Britain on March 30, 1939, to give an unconditional guarantee of Poland’s independence. The British Empire agreed to go to war as an ally of Poland if the Poles decided that war was necessary. In words drafted by British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, Chamberlain spoke in the House of Commons on March 31, 1939:
I now have to inform the House…that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to that effect.
Great Britain for the first time in history had left the decision whether or not to fight a war outside of her own country to another nation. Britain’s guarantee to Poland was binding without commitments from the Polish side. The British public was astonished by this move. Despite its unprecedented nature, Halifax encountered little difficulty in persuading the British Conservative, Liberal and Labor parties to accept Great Britain’s unconditional guarantee to Poland.
Numerous British historians and diplomats have criticized Britain’s unilateral guarantee of Poland. For example, British diplomat Roy Denman called the war guarantee to Poland “the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British government. It placed the decision on peace or war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling military dictatorship.” British historian Niall Ferguson states that the war guarantee to Poland tied Britain’s “destiny to that of a regime that was every bit as undemocratic and anti-Semitic as that of Germany.” English military historian Liddell Hart stated that the Polish guarantee “placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment. Moreover, the guarantee was impossible to fulfill except with Russia’s help.…”
American historian Richard M. Watt writes concerning Britain’s unilateral guarantee to Poland: “This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. For Britain to give such a blank check to a Central European nation, particularly to Poland—a nation that Britain had generally regarded as irresponsible and greedy—was mind-boggling.”
When the Belgian Minister to Germany, Vicomte Jacques Davignon, received the text of the British guarantee to Poland, he exclaimed that “blank check” was the only possible description of the British pledge. Davignon was extremely alarmed in view of the proverbial recklessness of the Poles. German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker attempted to reassure Davignon by claiming that the situation between Germany and Poland was not tragic. However, Davignon correctly feared that the British move would produce war in a very short time.
The Deterioration of German-Polish Relations
German-Polish relationships had become strained by the increasing harshness with which the Polish authorities handled the German minority. The Polish government in the 1930s began to confiscate the land of its German minority at bargain prices through public expropriation. The German government resented the fact that German landowners received only one-eighth of the value of their holdings from the Polish government. Since the Polish public was aware of the German situation and desired to exploit it, the German minority in Poland could not sell the land in advance of expropriation. Furthermore, Polish law forbade Germans from privately selling large areas of land.
German diplomats insisted that the November 1937 Minorities Pact with Poland for the equal treatment of German and Polish landowners be observed in 1939. Despite Polish assurances of fairness and equal treatment, German diplomats learned on February 15, 1939, that the latest expropriations of land in Poland were predominantly of German holdings. These expropriations virtually eliminated substantial German landholdings in Poland at a time when most of the larger Polish landholdings were still intact. It became evident that nothing could be done diplomatically to help the German minority in Poland.
Poland threatened Germany with a partial mobilization of her forces on March 23, 1939. Hundreds of thousands of Polish Army reservists were mobilized, and Hitler was warned that Poland would fight to prevent the return of Danzig to Germany. The Poles were surprised to discover that Germany did not take this challenge seriously. Hitler, who deeply desired friendship with Poland, refrained from responding to the Polish threat of war. Germany did not threaten Poland and took no precautionary military measures in response to the Polish partial mobilization.
Hitler regarded a German-Polish agreement as a highly welcome alternative to a German-Polish war. However, no further negotiations for a German-Polish agreement occurred after the British guarantee to Poland because Józef Beck refused to negotiate. Beck ignored repeated German suggestions for further negotiations because Beck knew that Halifax hoped to accomplish the complete destruction of Germany. Halifax had considered an Anglo-German war inevitable since 1936, and Britain’s anti-German policy was made public with a speech by Neville Chamberlain on March 17, 1939. Halifax discouraged German-Polish negotiations because he was counting on Poland to provide the pretext for a British pre-emptive war against Germany.
The situation between Germany and Poland deteriorated rapidly during the six weeks from the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, to a speech delivered by Józef Beck on May 5, 1939. Beck’s primary purpose in delivering his speech before the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament, was to convince the Polish public and the world that he was able and willing to challenge Hitler. Beck knew that Halifax had succeeded in creating a warlike atmosphere in Great Britain, and that he could go as far as he wanted without displeasing the British. Beck took an uncompromising attitude in his speech that effectively closed the door to further negotiations with Germany.
Beck made numerous false and hypocritical statements in his speech. One of the most astonishing claims in his speech was that there was nothing extraordinary about the British guarantee to Poland. He described it as a normal step in the pursuit of friendly relations with a neighboring country. This was in sharp contrast to British diplomat Sir Alexander Cadogan’s statement to Joseph Kennedy that Britain’s guarantee to Poland was without precedent in the entire history of British foreign policy.
Beck ended his speech with a stirring climax that produced wild excitement in the Polish Sejm. Someone in the audience screamed loudly, “We do not need peace!” and pandemonium followed. Beck had made many Poles in the audience determined to fight Germany. This feeling resulted from their ignorance which made it impossible for them to criticize the numerous falsehoods and misstatements in Beck’s speech. Beck made the audience feel that Hitler had insulted the honor of Poland with what were actually quite reasonable peace proposals. Beck had effectively made Germany the deadly enemy of Poland.
More than 1 million ethnic Germans resided in Poland at the time of Beck’s speech, and these Germans were the principal victims of the German-Polish crisis in the coming weeks. The Germans in Poland were subjected to increasing doses of violence from the dominant Poles. The British public was told repeatedly that the grievances of the German minority in Poland were largely imaginary. The average British citizen was completely unaware of the terror and fear of death that stalked these Germans in Poland. Ultimately, many thousands of Germans in Poland died in consequence of the crisis. They were among the first victims of British Foreign Secretary Halifax’s war policy against Germany.
The immediate responsibility for security measures involving the German minority in Poland rested with Interior Department Ministerial Director Waclaw Zyborski. Zyborski consented to discuss the situation on June 23, 1939, with Walther Kohnert, one of the leaders of the German minority at Bromberg. Zyborski admitted to Kohnert that the Germans of Poland were in an unenviable situation, but he was not sympathetic to their plight. Zyborski ended their lengthy conversation by stating frankly that his policy required a severe treatment of the German minority in Poland. He made it clear that it was impossible for the Germans of Poland to alleviate their hard fate. The Germans in Poland were the helpless hostages of the Polish community and the Polish state.
Other leaders of the German minority in Poland repeatedly appealed to the Polish government for help during this period. Sen. Hans Hasbach, the leader of the conservative German minority faction, and Dr. Rudolf Wiesner, the leader of the Young German Party, each made multiple appeals to Poland’s government to end the violence. In a futile appeal on July 6, 1939, to Premier Sławoj-Składkowski, head of Poland’s Department of Interior, Wiesner referred to the waves of public violence against the Germans at Tomaszów near Lódz, May 13-15th, at Konstantynów, May 21-22nd, and at Pabianice, June 22-23, 1939. The appeal of Wiesner produced no results. The leaders of the German political groups eventually recognized that they had no influence with Polish authorities despite their loyal attitudes toward Poland. It was “open season” on the Germans of Poland with the approval of the Polish government.
Polish anti-German incidents also occurred against the German majority in the Free City of Danzig. On May 21, 1939, Zygmunt Morawski, a former Polish soldier, murdered a German at Kalthof on Danzig territory. The incident itself would not have been so unusual except for the fact that Polish officials acted as if Poland and not the League of Nations had sovereign power over Danzig. Polish officials refused to apologize for the incident, and they treated with contempt the effort of Danzig authorities to bring Morawski to trial. The Poles in Danzig considered themselves above the law.
Tension steadily mounted at Danzig after the Morawski murder. The German citizens of Danzig were convinced that Poland would show them no mercy if Poland gained the upper hand. The Poles were furious when they learned that Danzig was defying Poland by organizing its own militia for home defense. The Poles blamed Hitler for this situation. The Polish government protested to German Ambassador Hans von Moltke on July 1, 1939, about the Danzig government’s military-defense measures. Józef Beck told French Ambassador Léon Noël on July 6, 1939, that the Polish government had decided that additional measures were necessary to meet the alleged threat from Danzig.
On July 29, 1939, the Danzig government presented two protest notes to the Poles concerning illegal activities of Polish custom inspectors and frontier officials. The Polish government responded by terminating the export of duty-free herring and margarine from Danzig to Poland. Polish officials next announced in the early hours of August 5, 1939, that the frontiers of Danzig would be closed to the importation of all foreign food products unless the Danzig government promised by the end of the day never to interfere with the activities of Polish customs inspectors. This threat was formidable since Danzig produced only a relatively small portion of its own food. All Polish customs inspectors would also bear arms while performing their duty after August 5, 1939. The Polish ultimatum made it obvious that Poland intended to replace the League of Nations as the sovereign power at Danzig.
Józef Beck explained to British Ambassador Kennard that the Polish government was prepared to take military measures against Danzig if it failed to accept Poland’s terms. The citizens of Danzig were convinced that Poland would have executed a full military occupation of Danzig had the Polish ultimatum been rejected. It was apparent to the German government that the British and French were either unable or unwilling to restrain the Polish government from arbitrary steps that could result in war.
On August 7, 1939, the Polish censors permitted the newspaper Illustrowany Kuryer Codzienny in Kraków to feature an article of unprecedented candor. The article stated that Polish units were constantly crossing the German frontier to destroy German military installations and to carry captured German military materiel into Poland. The Polish government failed to prevent the newspaper, which had the largest circulation in Poland, from telling the world that Poland was instigating a series of violations of Germany’s frontier with Poland.
Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Józef Beck to seek an agreement with Germany. Potocki later succinctly explained the situation in Poland by stating “Poland prefers Danzig to peace.”
President Roosevelt knew that Poland had caused the crisis which began at Danzig, and he was worried that the American public might learn the truth about the situation. This could be a decisive factor in discouraging Roosevelt’s plan for American military intervention in Europe. Roosevelt instructed U.S. Ambassador Biddle to urge the Poles to be more careful in making it appear that German moves were responsible for any inevitable explosion at Danzig. Biddle reported to Roosevelt on August 11, 1939, that Beck expressed no interest in engaging in a series of elaborate but empty maneuvers designed to deceive the American public. Beck stated that at the moment he was content to have full British support for his policy.
Roosevelt also feared that American politicians might discover the facts about the hopeless dilemma which Poland’s provocative policy created for Germany. When American Democratic Party Campaign Manager and Post-Master General James Farley visited Berlin, Roosevelt instructed the American Embassy in Berlin to prevent unsupervised contact between Farley and the German leaders. The German Foreign Office concluded on August 10, 1939 that it was impossible to penetrate the wall of security around Farley. The Germans knew that President Roosevelt was determined to prevent them from freely communicating with visiting American leaders.
Polish Atrocities Force War
On August 14, 1939, the Polish authorities in East Upper Silesia launched a campaign of mass arrests against the German minority. The Poles then proceeded to close and confiscate the remaining German businesses, clubs and welfare installations. The arrested Germans were forced to march toward the interior of Poland in prisoner columns. The various German groups in Poland were frantic by this time; they feared the Poles would attempt the total extermination of the German minority in the event of war. Thousands of Germans were seeking to escape arrest by crossing the border into Germany. Some of the worst recent Polish atrocities included the mutilation of several Germans. The Polish public was urged not to regard their German minority as helpless hostages who could be butchered with impunity.
Rudolf Wiesner, who was the most prominent of the German minority leaders in Poland, spoke of a disaster “of inconceivable magnitude” since the early months of 1939. Wiesner claimed that the last Germans had been dismissed from their jobs without the benefit of unemployment relief, and that hunger and privation were stamped on the faces of the Germans in Poland. German welfare agencies, cooperatives and trade associations had been closed by Polish authorities. Exceptional martial-law conditions of the earlier frontier zone had been extended to include more than one-third of the territory of Poland. The mass arrests, deportations, mutilations and beatings of the last few weeks in Poland surpassed anything that had happened before. Wiesner insisted that the German minority leaders merely desired the restoration of peace, the banishment of the specter of war, and the right to live and work in peace. Wiesner was arrested by the Poles on August 16, 1939 on suspicion of conducting espionage for Germany in Poland.
The German press devoted increasing space to detailed accounts of atrocities against the Germans in Poland. The Völkischer Beobachter reported that more than 80,000 German refugees from Poland had succeeded in reaching German territory by August 20, 1939. The German Foreign Office had received a huge file of specific reports of excesses against national and ethnic Germans in Poland. More than 1,500 documented reports had been received since March 1939, and more than 10 detailed reports were arriving in the German Foreign Office each day. The reports presented a staggering picture of brutality and human misery.
W. L. White, an American journalist, later recalled that there was no doubt among well-informed people by this time that horrible atrocities were being inflicted every day on the Germans of Poland.
Donald Day, a Chicago Tribune correspondent, reported on the atrocious treatment the Poles had meted out to the ethnic Germans in Poland:
…I traveled up to the Polish corridor where the German authorities permitted me to interview the German refugees from many Polish cities and towns. The story was the same. Mass arrests and long marches along roads toward the interior of Poland. The railroads were crowded with troop movements. Those who fell by the wayside were shot. The Polish authorities seemed to have gone mad. I have been questioning people all my life and I think I know how to make deductions from the exaggerated stories told by people who have passed through harrowing personal experiences. But even with generous allowance, the situation was plenty bad. To me the war seemed only a question of hours.
British Ambassador Nevile Henderson in Berlin was concentrating on obtaining recognition from Halifax of the cruel fate of the German minority in Poland. Henderson emphatically warned Halifax on August 24, 1939, that German complaints about the treatment of the German minority in Poland were fully supported by the facts. Henderson knew that the Germans were prepared to negotiate, and he stated to Halifax that war between Poland and Germany was inevitable unless negotiations were resumed between the two countries. Henderson pleaded with Halifax that it would be contrary to Polish interests to attempt a full military occupation of Danzig, and he added a scathingly effective denunciation of Polish policy. What Henderson failed to realize is that Halifax was pursuing war for its own sake as an instrument of policy. Halifax desired the complete destruction of Germany.
On August 25, 1939, Ambassador Henderson reported to Halifax the latest Polish atrocity at Bielitz, Upper Silesia. Henderson never relied on official German statements concerning these incidents, but instead based his reports on information he received from neutral sources. The Poles continued to forcibly deport the Germans of that area, and compelled them to march into the interior of Poland. Eight Germans were murdered and many more were injured during one of these actions.
Hitler was faced with a terrible dilemma. If Hitler did nothing, the Germans of Poland and Danzig would be abandoned to the cruelty and violence of a hostile Poland. If Hitler took effective action against the Poles, the British and French might declare war against Germany. Henderson feared that the Bielitz atrocity would be the final straw to prompt Hitler to invade Poland. Henderson, who strongly desired peace with Germany, deplored the failure of the British government to exercise restraint over the Polish authorities.
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. This non-aggression pact contained a secret protocol which recognized a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. German recognition of this Soviet sphere of influence would not apply in the event of a diplomatic settlement of the German-Polish dispute. Hitler had hoped to recover the diplomatic initiative through the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonaggression pact. However, Chamberlain warned Hitler in a letter dated August 23, 1939, that Great Britain would support Poland with military force regardless of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Józef Beck also continued to refuse to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Germany.
Germany made a new offer to Poland on August 29, 1939, for a last diplomatic campaign to settle the German-Polish dispute. The terms of a new German plan for a settlement, the so-called Marienwerder proposals, were less important than the offer to negotiate as such. The terms of the Marienwerder proposals were intended as nothing more than a tentative German plan for a possible settlement. The German government emphasized that these terms were formulated to offer a basis for unimpeded negotiations between equals rather than constituting a series of demands which Poland would be required to accept. There was nothing to prevent the Poles from offering an entirely new set of proposals of their own.
The Germans, in offering to negotiate with Poland, were indicating that they favored a diplomatic settlement over war with Poland. The willingness of the Poles to negotiate would not in any way have implied a Polish retreat or their readiness to recognize the German annexation of Danzig. The Poles could have justified their acceptance to negotiate with the announcement that Germany, and not Poland, had found it necessary to request new negotiations. In refusing to negotiate, the Poles were announcing that they favored war. The refusal of British Foreign Secretary Halifax to encourage the Poles to negotiate indicated that he also favored war.
French Prime Minister Daladier and British Prime Minister Chamberlain were both privately critical of the Polish government. Daladier in private denounced the “criminal folly” of the Poles. Chamberlain admitted to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy that it was the Poles, and not the Germans, who were unreasonable. Kennedy reported to President Roosevelt, “frankly he [Chamberlain] is more worried about getting the Poles to be reasonable than the Germans.” However, neither Daladier nor Chamberlain made any effort to influence the Poles to negotiate with the Germans.
On August 29, 1939, the Polish government decided upon the general mobilization of its army. The Polish military plans stipulated that general mobilization would be ordered only in the event of Poland’s decision for war. Henderson informed Halifax of some of the verified Polish violations prior to the war. The Poles blew up the Dirschau (Tczew) bridge across the Vistula River even though the eastern approach to the bridge was in German territory (East Prussia). The Poles also occupied a number of Danzig installations and engaged in fighting with the citizens of Danzig on the same day. Henderson reported that Hitler was not insisting on the total military defeat of Poland. Hitler was prepared to terminate hostilities if the Poles indicated that they were willing to negotiate a satisfactory settlement.
Germany decided to invade Poland on September 1, 1939. All of the British leaders claimed that the entire responsibility for starting the war was Hitler’s. Prime Minister Chamberlain broadcast that evening on British radio that “the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe (war in Poland) lies on the shoulders of one man, the German Chancellor.” Chamberlain claimed that Hitler had ordered Poland to come to Berlin with the unconditional obligation of accepting without discussion the exact German terms. Chamberlain denied that Germany had invited the Poles to engage in normal negotiations. Chamberlain’s statements were unvarnished lies, but the Polish case was so weak that it was impossible to defend it with the truth.
Halifax also delivered a cleverly hypocritical speech to the House of Lords on the evening of September 1, 1939. Halifax claimed that the best proof of the British will to peace was to have Chamberlain, the great appeasement leader, carry Great Britain into war. Halifax concealed the fact that he had taken over the direction of British foreign policy from Chamberlain in October 1938, and that Great Britain would probably not be moving into war had this not happened. He assured his audience that Hitler, before the bar of history, would have to assume full responsibility for starting the war. Halifax insisted that the English conscience was clear, and that, in looking back, he did not wish to change a thing as far as British policy was concerned.
On September 2, 1939, Italy and Germany agreed to hold a mediation conference among themselves and Great Britain, France and Poland. Halifax attempted to destroy the conference plan by insisting that Germany withdraw her forces from Poland and Danzig before Great Britain and France would consider attending the mediation conference. French Foreign Minister Bonnet knew that no nation would accept such treatment, and that the attitude of Halifax was unreasonable and unrealistic.
Ultimately, the mediation effort collapsed, and both Great Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939. When Hitler read the British declaration of war against Germany, he paused and asked of no one in particular: “What now?” Germany was now in an unnecessary war with three European nations.
Similar to the other British leaders, Nevile Henderson, the British ambassador to Germany, later claimed that the entire responsibility for starting the war was Hitler’s. Henderson wrote in his memoirs in 1940: “If Hitler wanted peace he knew how to insure it; if he wanted war, he knew equally well what would bring it about. The choice lay with him, and in the end the entire responsibility for war was his.” Henderson forgot in this passage that he had repeatedly warned Halifax that the Polish atrocities against the German minority in Poland were extreme. Hitler invaded Poland in order to end these atrocities.
Polish Atrocities Continue against German Minority
The Germans in Poland continued to experience an atmosphere of terror in the early part of September 1939. Throughout the country the Germans had been told, “If war comes to Poland you will all be hanged.” This prophecy was later fulfilled in many cases.
The famous Bloody Sunday in Toruń on September 3, 1939, was accompanied by similar massacres elsewhere in Poland. These massacres brought a tragic end to the long suffering of many ethnic Germans. This catastrophe had been anticipated by the Germans before the outbreak of war, as reflected by the flight, or attempted escape, of large numbers of Germans from Poland. The feelings of these Germans were revealed by the desperate slogan, “Away from this hell, and back to the Reich!”
Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas writes concerning the ethnic Germans in Poland:
The first victims of the war were Volksdeutsche, ethnic German civilians resident in and citizens of Poland. Using lists prepared years earlier, in part by lower administrative offices, Poland immediately deported 15,000 Germans to Eastern Poland. Fear and rage at the quick German victories led to hysteria. German “spies” were seen everywhere, suspected of forming a fifth column. More than 5,000 German civilians were murdered in the first days of the war. They were hostages and scapegoats at the same time. Gruesome scenes were played out in Bromberg on September 3, as well as in several other places throughout the province of Posen, in Pommerellen, wherever German minorities resided.
Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans have been documented in the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. Most of the outside world dismissed this book as nothing more than propaganda used to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland. However, skeptics failed to notice that forensic pathologists from the International Red Cross and medical and legal observers from the United States verified the findings of these investigations of Polish war crimes. These investigations were also conducted by German police and civil administrations, and not the National Socialist Party or the German military. Moreover, both anti-German and other university-trained researchers have acknowledged that the charges in the book are based entirely on factual evidence.
The book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland stated:
When the first edition of this collection of documents went to press on November 17, 1939, 5,437 cases of murder committed by soldiers of the Polish army and by Polish civilians against men, women and children of the German minority had been definitely ascertained. It was known that the total when fully ascertained would be very much higher. Between that date and February 1, 1940, the number of identified victims mounted to 12,857. At the present stage investigations disclose that in addition to these 12,857, more than 45,000 persons are still missing. Since there is no trace of them, they must also be considered victims of the Polish terror. Even the figure 58,000 is not final. There can be no doubt that the inquiries now being carried out will result in the disclosure of additional thousands dead and missing.
Medical examinations of the dead showed that Germans of all ages, from four months to 82 years of age, were murdered. The report concluded:
It was shown that the murders were committed with the greatest brutality and that in many cases they were purely sadistic acts—that gouging of eyes was established and that other forms of mutilation, as supported by the depositions of witnesses, may be considered as true.
The method by which the individual murders were committed in many cases reveals studied physical and mental torture; in this connection several cases of killing extended over many hours and of slow death due to neglect had to be mentioned.
By far the most important finding seems to be the proof that murder by such chance weapons as clubs or knives was the exception, and that as a rule modern, highly-effective army rifles and pistols were available to the murderers. It must be emphasized further that it was possible to show, down to the minutest detail, that there could have been no possibility of execution (under military law).
The Polish atrocities were not acts of personal revenge, professional jealously or class hatred; instead, they were a concerted political action. They were organized mass murders caused by a psychosis of political animosity. The hate-inspired urge to destroy everything German was driven by the Polish press, radio, school and government propaganda. Britain’s blank check of support had encouraged Poland to conduct inhuman atrocities against its German minority.
The book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland explained why the Polish government encouraged such atrocities:
The guarantee of assistance given Poland by the British Government was the agent which lent impetus to Britain’s policy of encirclement. It was designed to exploit the problem of Danzig and the Corridor to begin a war, desired and long-prepared by England, for the annihilation of Greater Germany. In Warsaw moderation was no longer considered necessary, and the opinion held was that matters could be safely brought to a head. England was backing this diabolical game, having guaranteed the “integrity” of the Polish state. The British assurance of assistance meant that Poland was to be the battering ram of Germany’s enemies. Henceforth Poland neglected no form of provocation of Germany and, in its blindness, dreamt of “victorious battle at Berlin’s gates.” Had it not been for the encouragement of the English war clique, which was stiffening Poland’s attitude toward the Reich and whose promises led Warsaw to feel safe, the Polish Government would hardly have let matters develop to the point where Polish soldiers and civilians would eventually interpret the slogan to extirpate all German influence as an incitement to the murder and bestial mutilation of human beings.
While we built roads, dig canals, dry swamps, erect dams and locks, we perform a constructive work, which can indeed claim our whole energy.
Interview of April 3, 1934 in Berlin
We have begun to increase commerce. A huge road network will be built in Germany, conceived for coming decades and centuries. The water ways are also being expanded exactly the same, and the previous road network will likewise be put in order.
Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin
We put together a program, which we do not want to leave to posterity: the program of our new road construction, a gigantic task, which requires billions. We will sweep the resistance against it from the path and begin the task big. We will thus introduce a series of public works, which help to reduce the number of unemployed more and more.
Speech of May 1, 1933 in Berlin
In order to generously ensure the prerequisites for the future development of transportation, the huge work of the new German Reich Autobahn was projected and started.
Speech of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching
Since our roads are in part insufficient, in part also decayed, a network of 6 500-kilometer automobile roads will be built and already in this winter started with the greatest energy. The financing comes through our automobile/fuel tax as well as usage fees to be imposed.
Interview of October 18, 1933 in Berlin
You have assembled here at the construction site of one of the gigantic new roadways, which are designed to give the German economy new and most modern transportation routes. Mighty is this plan and symbolic for the greatness of the task placed on us.
Speech of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching
In order to guide the promotion of transportation to a reasonable settlement of all interested transportation parties, the first step will be taken already at the beginning of the coming year through a reform of the motor vehicle tax. The preservation of the Reich railway and its swiftest possible return to the Reich’s power is a task, which obligates us not just economically, rather also morally.
Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
Many… measures will, in their full significance, only find their appreciation in the future, in particular the promotion of the motorization of German transportation in connection to the construction of the Reich Autobahn. The old rivalry between Reich railway and motor vehicle has here found a solution, which will one day be of the highest use for the whole German folk.
Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin
The Reich will – next to the construction of the mighty Autobahn roads – now also turn its practical interest with determination to the improvement of the former main roads.
Speech of March 8, 1934 in Berlin
The development of air transportation as a means for the peaceful connection of folks among each other will be vigorously nurtured by the national government.
Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
The numbers of our transportation – on the rails, by motor vehicle and in the air – experienced enormous increases.
Proclamation of September 5, 1934 in Nuremberg
by Dr. David Duke
This is a fresh look at why the same powerful Jews who support Israel as a “Jewish State” do everything they can to create a fractured society in nations they live in outside of Israel.
Why Zionists preach one thing for Jews and the direct opposite for Gentiles. Mass immigration, multiculturalism and diversity makes any society vulnerable to the most organized, aggressive, ethnic people on earth. Their leaders know that that their team effort gives a huge advantage over a fractured, atomized society. Diversity is a weapon.
In this video, I give direct evidence of the Zionist technique for dominating a society.
by Dr. William Pierce
10 October 1998
Last week I mentioned a recent attack on me by a Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. I gave this as an example of the way the Jews are able to use the mass media in America to serve their purposes. The specific point I made was that it is not necessary for all of the newspaper owners and editors and all of the local television station owners to be Jews in order for all of them to slavishly follow the Anti-Defamation League’s party line. This is a very important point, a point essential for us to understand if we want to have a free society, and I’ll elaborate on it now.
I mentioned last week that when the Anti-Defamation League – or ADL for short – handed out press releases on September 24 to newspapers and other media in which they said that the organization I head, the National Alliance, is „the single most dangerous organized hate group in America,“ and that we are „linked“ to bank robberies, bombings, and murders all over the country, virtually all of the media simply printed these wild charges without checking them for accuracy. Of all the hundreds of newspapers which printed the ADL’s charges, only one – West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette – even bothered to call me first and ask for my comments. Some of the newspapers, in paraphrasing the ADL’s press release, even managed to exaggerate the ADL’s lies. For example, the Tampa Tribune began its news story on September 25 with the line: „A domestic terrorist group with a following in Tampa poses an ongoing threat of violence, the Anti-Defamation League said in a report issued Thursday.“ The ADL’s words „most dangerous organized hate group“ have been transformed by the Tampa Tribune into „domestic terrorist group.“ That’s a significant change. „Hate group“ is an ill-defined term which you can apply to any organization with whose policies or doctrines you disagree. Groups opposed to abortion, for example, have been called „hate groups“ by feminists and their supporters. „Terrorist group,“ on the other hand, really suggests a group which actually engages in terrorist activity, such as bombings, assassinations, and the like.
Then there’s the Los Angeles Times, which in its September 25 story based on the ADL’s press release stated: „The group’s activities [that is the National Alliance’s activities] – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings – have been uncovered in at least 26 states.“ I’ll repeat that: „the group’s activities – including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ The Los Angeles Times certainly makes it sound as if I’m the head of an organization which actually commits violent crimes such as robberies and bombings as a matter of course, doesn’t it? That was the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.“ What the ADL’s list actually suggests is that the perpetrators of various bombings and murders may be „linked“ to the National Alliance by having read a book or a pamphlet published by the National Alliance or perhaps by having listened to one of my broadcasts. For example, one of the „incidents“ in the ADL’s list of „criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance“ reads: „December 1995, Fayetteville, North Carolina: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.“ As I pointed out last week, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of James Burmeister before he shot a convicted Black drug dealer and the dealer’s girlfriend to death in Fayetteville in December 1995. But it certainly is possible that Burmeister listened to an American Dissident Voices broadcast or read some publication of the National Alliance. There are a lot of our publications in circulation. Burmeister also may have read Reader’s Digest or the Bible or Newsweek magazine, for all I know; there’s certainly a lot of criminal activity described in those publications. Anyway, the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s claim that the National Alliance is linked through its publications to various criminal acts is that we did it: we committed the criminal acts ourselves. The paper said flatly that our activities include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.“ And nobody from the Los Angeles Times even bothered to check with me first!
So what am I supposed to do: hire a bunch of lawyers and sue all of these newspapers and perhaps the ADL too? Perhaps I will – but I doubt that anyone who has actually been involved in a libel suit would suggest such a course. The civil litigation system in the United States has been designed for the sole purpose of enriching lawyers, and because of that the system gives an overwhelming advantage to the litigant who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Perhaps some experienced civil-litigation lawyer who believes this is a worthy cause will contact me and offer his services.
But while I’m waiting for that, let me draw a few conclusions from this nasty business. First, I’ll mention that I’m not especially peeved at the ADL about this new report labeling me as the most dangerous man in America. That doesn’t mean I won’t sue them, but at least I know where they’re coming from. The ADL is a professional hate organization. They are hate merchants. That’s the way they earn their living: selling hate. Along with a handful of other Jewish organizations – the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center, for example – the ADL makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabee Jews around the country that they are in great danger from people like me – but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect these Jews and wannabees from me. And so the ADL – and these other hate merchants – put out deliberately scary press releases to drum up donations. If the newspapers exaggerate things a bit, why so much the better. That’s why the press releases tend to be a little deceptive, why they are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation.
The ADL is the oldest and most powerful of these Jewish hate groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913, after a Jewish factory owner in Atlanta, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. The killer was sentenced to death by the court, and there was a great deal of publicity about the case at the time. Powerful Jewish organizations came to Frank’s defense, and in behind-the-scenes maneuvering they were able to persuade Georgia’s governor to commute Frank’s death sentence. This blatantly corrupt act by the governor working in cahoots with his rich Jewish supporters so enraged the populace that a vigilante group of citizens took Frank out of jail and hanged him themselves. The Jews, realizing that they had bungled the Frank affair, organized the ADL for the purpose of handling such matters more skillfully in the future. In the past 85 years the ADL has grown to become the most powerful Jewish pressure group and lobbying organization in America.
Recent ADL lobbying projects have been the promotion of gun control laws and of state laws banning military-style training by patriotic groups. The ADL’s biggest project for this decade, however, has been so-called „hate crime“ legislation. Hate crime laws attempt to punish a person for what he was thinking before or during the commission of an offense against a member or a group of members of an officially favored minority. For example, if you set fire to a synagogue because you don’t like Jews, you’re liable for a much more severe punishment than you would be if you were hired by the rabbi to set fire to a synagogue so the congregation could collect the insurance. Arson is no longer simply arson. Now there’s arson, and there’s „hate arson.“ And to decide which it is, the government may look into your personal taste in reading material, check into the type of music you listen to, investigate your political and religious affiliations, ask your friends about any expressions of Politically Incorrect opinions you may have made – and then present all of this information in court as evidence against you. The whole concept of „hate crime“ is Orwellian. It turns traditional American concepts of law and individual freedom on their heads. But because the noisiest group of people pushing for „hate crime“ legislation are Jews, no politician dares speak against it. Bill Clinton is the Jews’ current point man on Federal „hate crime“ legislation.
One category of „hate crime“ is „hate speech.“ In fact, the outlawing of what the ADL people call „hate speech“ is their ultimate aim. „Hate speech,“ of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. I find a lot of the films coming out of Hollywood these days offensive, and a lot of television programming, but you can be sure that’s not what the ADL has in mind when it campaigns for laws against „hate speech.“ The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet.
Lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn’t the ADL’s only activity. They’re also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America. They have their spies in every community in America where there are Jews or wannabees. Reports go from their regional offices around the country to massive data banks in New York and in Israel, where the ADL maintains dossiers on hundreds of thousands of Americans. For example, if a state legislator somewhere in America makes a speech which a Jewish listener considers unfriendly to Israel, a report goes into the ADL data bank. If a businessman at a Chamber of Commerce meeting makes a joke which might indicate a less-than-worshipful attitude toward Jews, and a wannabee informs the ADL of the joke, that businessman will henceforth have a dossier in the ADL’s files. Then if that state legislator or that businessman ever runs for Congress, say, the ADL will search its files for his name, find his record, and launch a campaign against him as an „enemy of Israel“ or as an „anti-Semite.“
And the ADL has not hesitated to break the law in its spying activity. In April 1993 police obtained search warrants and raided the offices of the ADL in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they found hundreds of stolen confidential police files. Some of these police files were on anti-apartheid activists in the United States, and the ADL had passed copies on to the South African government in return for South African police files on pro-Palestinian groups in South Africa. This caused a stink even in liberal circles, which ordinarily are pro-ADL. And this business of the ADL’s stolen police files is still in the courts in California.
So as I said, I understand where the ADL is coming from. I’m not surprised that they consider my broadcasts dangerous. I’m not surprised that they want to shut me up and are trying to do that with their current smear campaign, claiming that I am „linked“ to bombings and murders. I expect that sort of behavior – I expect lies of that sort – from the ADL. What’s really disappointing is the enthusiastic collaboration the ADL receives from the politicians and the media. The two newspapers I cited a minute ago, the Tampa Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, for example, are essentially Gentile newspapers, as far as I have been able to determine. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the editors and publishers of these two newspapers are not Jews. So why do they go out of their way to exaggerate the ADL’s lies about me? Why does the Tampa Tribune call the National Alliance a „domestic terrorist group“? Why does the Los Angeles Times say that the activities of the National Alliance include „violent crimes such as robberies and bombings“? Why did neither of these newspapers contact someone in my office and ask about the ADL’s claims before printing them? Why didn’t any of the newspapers which carried the ADL’s attack on me mention the ADL’s history of illegal activity?
Let me tell you what I think about that. I believe that in general there are two factors at work here. I’ll call them the corruption factor and the lemming factor. Let’s look at the corruption factor first. It’s the factor which motivates virtually all of the non-Jewish politicians, but also many non-Jews in the media. It’s the factor which has led Bill Clinton to pack his cabinet with Jews and to promote every Jewish policy they have presented him with. It’s the factor which has led New York’s Senator Alphonse D’Amato to serve as front man for the Jews’ huge extortion effort against the Swiss. These politicians don’t work for the Jews because they love Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They do it because they’re corrupt, because they’re willing to sacrifice the interests of their own people in order to serve the Jews if they believe that they can advance their careers by doing that. And many businessmen are just as corrupt as the politicians. They will do whatever they think is good for their business, whatever will give them the biggest profit. And some businessmen are in the media business. They understand that Jews buy more advertising than any other group. They understand that Jews own a bigger chunk of the media than any other group. They understand which side their bread is buttered on.
And so when the ADL attacks me these media businessmen are ready to fall on me like a pack of starved Dobermans in order to curry favor with the Jews. But you know, the interesting thing about these corrupt people, whether they’re in politics or in the media business, as soon as they believe that the balance of power is shifting, they’ll jump. They’d as soon tear apart the Jews as they would the enemies of the Jews. That’s something to keep in mind as our struggle proceeds.
Now, the lemmings in the media are more interesting than the corrupt businessmen. I’ve dealt with a lot of media people over the years, and one of the observations I’ve made is that they are the trendiest single occupational group in our society – even trendier than people in police work. I don’t think I’ve ever met a journalist who had an original idea or who didn’t follow the Jewish party line with a truly religious devotion. They all march in ideological lockstep.
I think it wasn’t always this way. Back before the Second World War there were a few journalists in America who could think for themselves. H.L. Mencken is one who comes to mind. Nowadays, of course, the party-line journalists shrink in horror and embarrassment from the mention of Mencken’s name. Mencken – gasp! – didn’t like Jews and occasionally said so.
I can’t say that I really understand why journalists today are such lemmings, but I am sure that it’s more than the fact that Jews are so powerful in the media: I’m sure that it’s more than corruption, as in the case of the politicians and businessmen. I suspect that today’s journalists are people who have been more intensely socialized than most of the rest of the population. They are people who have been subjected to stronger group pressures to conform and have been selected according to how well they adapted to these pressures. Perhaps the journalism departments at our universities don’t accept students who don’t fit the lemming mold. Anyway, journalists certainly do have a very strong tendency to stick close to the herd and to regard with suspicion and hostility anyone who has strayed very far from the herd.
Now, this is an oversimplification, but I believe that the reason so many media people fell in love with Bill Clinton as soon as he appeared on the political scene back in 1991 or so is that they saw him as one of their crowd, their herd. „Bill marched with us for the Viet Cong,“ they thought. „Bill partied and smoked dope with us. He’s one of us.“
And they look at me and they think: „This guy Pierce is from the other side of the tracks. Instead of helping us trash the dean’s office, he joined the John Birch Society. He doesn’t belong to our crowd, so let’s trash him too.“ Anyway, I believe that there’s an element of that sort of thinking in the average journalist’s mentality.
Now, the bright side of this picture is that people who think like lemmings and have been conditioned by group pressure to have certain views can very easily be conditioned to have quite different views by the simple application of group pressure in a new direction. You won’t be able to change an independent thinker’s opinions this way, but if you put 100,000 typical journalists in a labor re-education camp and then select out 1,000 of them with leadership potential, straighten out the thinking of this 1,000 with two-by-fours, then put them in charge of the others, and put all except the 1,000 reoriented commissars on a diet of 300 calories a day, in a year every journalist in the camp will be reoriented: skinny, but sincerely reoriented. You can turn them loose with complete confidence that they’ll follow the new party line just as slavishly as they followed the old party line, even after they’ve regained their former weight. That’s the way lemmings are.
There’s one other aspect of the ADL’s operation which merits scrutiny, and that is its program of corrupting police departments around the country. At the press conferences they held in their regional offices last month when they promoted me to „most dangerous man“ they had a number of local police officials with them. The appearance of these police officials on the platform along with the ADL’s Jews tended to give the press conferences a sort of quasi-official or quasi-governmental atmosphere, and that undoubtedly encouraged the reporters present to accept the ADL’s lies without question.
Some of the police officials were there because they have political ambitions. They’re planning on running for the state legislature some day, and they want the Jews’ backing. Others were there because the ADL has assiduously been cultivating its relationships with police agencies for many years. The ADL offers „anti-terrorist“ seminars to police departments and indoctrinates policemen with its hate propaganda under the guise of teaching them how to recognize and combat „domestic terrorists“ – such as William Pierce. The ADL gets away with this despite its own record of criminal activity. The ADL has been able to persuade the cops to overlook its having been caught with stolen police files. That’s a little frightening. If we had a government with integrity, the ADL would be dangerous enough. But with a government like we have in the United States today, every decent citizen must regard with horror the subversion of our police agencies by the ADL.