Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Poisonous Doctrines

by Dr. William Pierce

Today let’s begin by talking about individualism and individualists. I’m using those words in a special sense. In this broadcast, when I say „individualist“ I mean a person who habitually fails to consider or to give proper weight to the group context in which he belongs when viewing the world, formulating ideas, and reaching decisions; and who in evaluating other people fails to put them into the group context to which they belong, instead focusing narrowly only on the individual at hand.

I also will use the word „individualist“ to designate a person who makes an ideology out of his individualism. In this sense an individualist is a person who believes that it is good, moral, admirable, proper, and so on, to disregard group contexts; and immoral, unpatriotic, reprehensible, and wicked not to disregard them. Actually it’s impossible to avoid group contexts, and the ideological individualist himself divides people into two groups: namely, individualists, who, like himself, are good people; and „collectivists,“ who, like me, are bad people, akin to communists.

I’ve spoken with you in earlier broadcasts about the ideology of individualism, and today I want to focus more on some of the practical implications of the attitude. I’ll tell you first what prompted my choice of this subject today: Two weeks ago I said some unkind things about lawyers, judges, and our judicial system, and in response to that broadcast I received a couple of indignant letters from lawyers who told me that I was both unfair and inaccurate in my negative characterization of lawyers. Not all lawyers are soulless, money-grubbing crooks, they told me. Some lawyers are decent, honest, patriotic people, they told me. Some lawyers agree with me about most things, and it is foolish to alienate them by calling all lawyers crooks. I need their support, and I will lose it if I continue to insult them.

Well, I can’t really disagree with that. I personally know a few lawyers who aren’t crooks, and I certainly do want to retain their support. Looking at my broadcast of two weeks ago from an individualist viewpoint, it was both unfair and inaccurate. The individualist would say that I paint things with too broad a brush. I should say that some lawyers are crooks, and then the individualist will agree with me. Of course, the essence of my message two weeks ago was not that some lawyers are crooks; it was that the judicial system is corrupt. The system designed by lawyers and staffed by lawyers for the purpose of making and interpreting the laws is corrupt. The fact that every lawyer is in some sense a part of that system does not mean that every lawyer is corrupt. A few lawyers who are in the system are fighting against the system. I didn’t say that two weeks ago, because I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn’t want to distract my listeners from the main thrust of the message with qualifications and quibbles. It’s an important message, and I wanted it to make the strongest possible impression on my listeners. I deliberately paint with a broad stroke.

Here’s another example of the way in which people looking at things from an individualist viewpoint misunderstand my message. I am often critical of the Christian churches, of their subservient collaboration with the Jews, of their encouragement of miscegenation and their other racially destructive policies. And some Christians who agree with my positions on the Jews and on race take offense at my comments regarding the overall role of Christianity in our society today, and they tell me, „Hey! I’m offended. All Christians aren’t race-mixers and collaborators with the Jews.“ And of course, I understand that. I understand that there are many individual Christians who are good people, Christians who don’t run with the Jews, but what I was talking about was the overall role of Christianity and the Christian churches in our society, and that role today is destructive.

Another example: I often talk about the feminization of our society and the feminization of our young men, and I make it quite clear that I don’t approve of these things. This offends some women, who take what I say personally. An expression I used in one broadcast that offended several of my women listeners enough for them to send me indignant letters of protest was the phrase „college girls of both sexes.“ The implication was that college girls are not to be taken more seriously than feminized college boys. At another time I stated that permitting women to vote was a terrible mistake, and again I received letters from women who indignantly told me that they vote more responsibly than many men they know. Well, I’m sure they do, but I was talking about the overall effect of women’s votes, and that has been very damaging to our society.

Of course, women as a rule take everything personally, and so I explain individually to those who protest that I do take women seriously, that I value and respect them, and that I love them — but that I also understand that despite all of the fascinating individual differences among them, all of them are profoundly different from men.

When I receive protests from lawyers and from male Christians, however, I see the individualist fallacy at work. Men should not look at the world as individualists. They should understand that it is not only natural and proper but necessary to judge other men according to the group of which they are a part. Just as people have individual characteristics, they also have collective characteristics, and to ignore the latter from fear of being considered a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite or a homophobe is the worst sort of folly. When one is in a war one doesn’t judge the soldiers on the other side as individuals. One doesn’t hold one’s fire because the fellow in the enemy’s uniform who is charging with a rifle in his hands may really have wanted to be a conscientious objector instead of a combat infantryman. If he’s in the enemy’s uniform, one shoots at him.

We understand, of course, that not all Blacks are muggers or gang-bangers or armed robbers or HIV-infected rapists, just as we understand that not every Jew is a predator who is actively scheming to destroy our people after he has sucked us dry. When I look at a Black I may see a criminal or a welfare bum, or I may see an honest, hard-working person, but in either case I see a Black, and I understand what his race is doing to my race collectively. Even if an individual Black with whom I am dealing is friendly, intelligent, and moral, I would be a fool to expect him to join me in a campaign to put an end to what his race is doing to my race and my civilization collectively.

I sometimes am obliged to deal with Jews: much more often than with Blacks, in fact, because Jews collectively have arrogated to themselves so many positions of control and influence in our society. And I am able to distinguish among individual Jews. I see that many Jews with whom I deal are tricky and deceitful, but there are some who are straightforward and sincere, I believe. Many are really hateful, but occasionally I meet one who is almost likable. Yet I never forget what Jews collectively, as a whole, are doing and have done to my people collectively.

We must understand that we are in a planet-wide race-war, and the survival of our race depends on our winning this war. We won’t win by wasting our time trying to figure out who the friendly Blacks are and who the hostile ones are. We won’t win by refusing to talk about what the Jewish media bosses and the powerful Jewish organizations are doing to our people from fear that we may be unjustly casting suspicion on Jews who are simply minding their own business. We must deal with them collectively, and when the crunch comes that’s certainly the way they will deal with us.

In fact, that’s pretty much the way they already deal with us. When those gangs of Blacks were running wild through the Mardi Gras crowd in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, savagely attacking White people, they didn’t try to figure out which Whites were racists and which ones were diversity-loving, race-mixing liberals. Their cry was, „Let’s get a Whitey! We gonna kick some White ass tonight,“ and they attacked any White target of opportunity they encountered.

The national media have successfully kept most of the country from hearing about the Fat Tuesday race riot in Seattle, and on that subject I have a few more thoughts to share with you. For one thing, I’ve been able to gather a little more information about what happened that night. Not only was there a series of vicious beatings and robberies of White men and women by gangs of rampaging Blacks, there also was a series of sexual assaults. The controlled media were even more eager to keep these covered up than the beatings and robberies, but the news is leaking out — in Seattle, at least.

It was very similar to what happened in New York’s Central Park last year, when a gang of Blacks and Puerto Ricans grabbed White women who were walking in the park, ripped their clothes off, squeezed their breasts, pushed fingers into their vaginas, and otherwise abused and humiliated them. Just as in New York, in Seattle it was very definitely racial, often with both Black males and Black females collaborating in the sexual abuse of White women, and it was very definitely hostile: the same Black gangs who were sexually abusing White women were viciously beating White women and White men. When it happened in Central Park the news got out; primarily, I think, because a couple of very loud Jewish feminists were among those abused. In Seattle it’s been covered up. But now it is coming out, after a fashion. I’ll read just one line from a March 12 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about just one woman who was being held down and abused on Fat Tuesday while a news reporter filmed the scene: „At one point there are 19 hands — black, Asian, Hispanic — on her body.“

Now I want to talk with you more about something I touched on at the beginning of last week’s broadcast, and that’s the behavior of the White people in Seattle’s Mardi Gras crowd both before and during the riot. I should begin by saying that it wasn’t the way the local media and the Seattle police claimed it was, with hooligans of both races fighting it out. Whites did not attack Blacks. It was entirely Blacks attacking Whites. I have had a chance now to study videotape footage of the riot, and the one-sided nature of the racial attacks is quite clear.

What also is quite clear, however, is that many Whites in the crowd were acting like Blacks, and virtually all of the Whites were acting like lemmings. First, the Whites acting like Blacks: „wiggers“ they are generally called, for an obvious reason. There were many young White men in the crowd wearing the backward baseball caps and baggy shorts that are the trademark uniform of the wigger. Pathetic souls that they are, they have been robbed of any natural sense of racial identity and racial community by this utterly sick and depraved society in which we live. And I mean deliberately robbed, with malice aforethought.

The Jewish media — and the public schools — have played especially reprehensible roles in this destructive, genocidal work. Everything that in healthier times helped give our young people a sense of collective racial identity and racial pride has been repudiated in the schools. The teaching of history and literature has become a joke. The Jews and the feminists and the egalitarians have ripped the guts out of everything in the schools that used to have White racial content. The multiculturalist ideologues think this is wonderful because it prepares our children to be world citizens in the New World Order of multiculturalism and diversity. For the multiculturalists it’s a religion. But the conservative Republicans who have made an ideology out of individualism think it’s fine too: at least, it’s not collectivism; it’s not racism.

But having a sense of collective identity, a sense of who we are and what group we belong to is what’s natural. We evolved with a need for this sense of collective identity. That’s the way we survived in the past. And so when the schools and the media rob the more lemming-like kids of their sense of identity, they look for a replacement. And the schools — and especially the Jewish media — have a ready-made replacement for them. They find it on Sumner Redstone’s MTV. They find it in Black History Month, where they are told that everyone of worth, from the ancient Egyptian pharaohs to the inventors of the helicopter and television, were Blacks. They find it in the glorification by the media of Black basketball players and other Black sports figures. They find it in the almost inescapable presence of Black music promoted by the media. And they are made to understand that if they wear a Confederate flag patch on their shirts they’ll be expelled from school. But it’s OK to wear a Malcolm X T-shirt to commemorate a Black hero who wrote about how much he wanted to kill Whites. And so we have wiggers imitating Blacks in clothing styles, in speech patterns, in musical taste, and in behavior. That’s why when we look at the video footage of Seattle’s Fat Tuesday riot we can see young White men acting like Blacks, smashing windows, vandalizing cars, sometimes fighting with normal Whites, pawing girls, and behaving in a generally animalistic way.

Then there are the rest of the Whites, the approximately normal Whites. Two things are notable about them. First, they weren’t expecting the Blacks to misbehave; they were completely surprised when the Blacks began attacking them. And second, they didn’t fight back. With the notable exception of 20-year-old Kris Kime, who was murdered by the Blacks for behaving the way a White man should behave, they didn’t even try to protect their own women. They just stood around and gaped at what was happening. To me these two things are far more disturbing than what the Blacks did.

So why were the more-or-less normal Whites surprised when the Blacks began behaving like Blacks? Why weren’t they expecting that? Haven’t we had enough experience with Black behavior in America yet?

And, of course, the answer to that is that the normal Whites are just as much lemmings as the wiggers. The wiggers just show it in a more degenerate fashion. The wiggers are usually the lower-IQ lemmings — the lower-class, more impressionable lemmings. But the normal lemmings, most of them less than 30 years old, have been conditioned all their lives, just like the wiggers, by the Jewish media, by the schools, by the government, and by the Christian churches to believe that Blacks are the same as Whites, except a little darker. Really, most young Americans believe that, and they’re surprised every time reality conflicts with their belief. Every day I receive letters from distressed young lemmings who have heard one of my broadcasts or visited my Web site. They whine at me, „Why can’t you see that we’re all the same? Don’t you understand that the only difference between us and Blacks is skin color? Don’t you know that the only race is the human race? The scientists have proved it!“

And really, they all sound pretty much alike. They have had these lies drilled into their heads, and they parrot them back at me. And some of these lemmings are reasonably bright, educated people. They really believe that scientists have proved that there is no difference between Blacks and Whites. And, I am sorry to say, some scientists have contributed to this false belief, either because they are lemmings themselves and want to show that they are Politically Correct, or because they hope to improve their chances of getting another government research grant. Some of the scientists associated with the human genome project, for example, have been quoted by the media as saying that the mapping of the human genome supports the notion that racial differences are insignificant. There is only a fraction of a percent difference between the genomes for Whites and for Blacks they say. The genomes for the various races are far more similar than they are different.

What they don’t say, of course, is that there is only a fraction of a per cent difference between the genome for White people and that for chimpanzees. In fact, there is only a very small percentage difference among the genomes for all the species of mammals. Most of the mammalian genome, whether it is for a White person or a rat or a Negro or a dog, contains instructions for how to synthesize hair and skin and nails and bone and milk and teeth and nerve tissue and so on. Nearly all of the mammalian genome is taken up with these instructions that are pretty much the same for all mammals. Only a tiny fraction of the mammalian genome is different for each species. But that tiny fraction of the mammalian genome that specifies whether the hair and skin and bone and other tissues will become a White person or a rat or a Negro or a dog is important. The differences, small though they may seem compared to the similarities, are significant. Except to lemmings, of course, who really don’t get it.

White women baring their breasts in the presence of Black males is an indication of just how lemming- like the normal Whites are. Even back in Christian times, when the Mardi Gras festival was a much more significant thing than it is today, there was a sexual flavor to much of the revelry. But if a woman bared her breasts in a village Mardi Gras festival in those times, 200 or 300 years ago, say, there were only Whites present, only members of her own tribe, her own racial family, and she could reasonably expect that she would not be sexually assaulted. There’s an enormous difference between that and exposing herself to non-Whites. But lemmings have been conditioned not to understand that. And so they really were surprised when the Blacks in the crowd began behaving like Blacks.

It is not only the lie that we are all the same, that there are no significant differences between us and Blacks, that made the Whites in Seattle such easy victims for the Blacks. It also is the abominable doctrine of the ideological individualists that it is immoral to judge people collectively, the racially destructive doctrine that it is immoral to deal with rioting Blacks collectively. The individualists have preached that we should look only at individuals committing crimes against other individuals, and we should shut our eyes to the fact of Blacks committing crimes collectively against Whites. The individualists have preached that for Whites even to notice what Blacks collectively are doing to Whites collectively, whether in a Mardi Gras festival or in our public schools or anywhere else is wicked; it is racist. It is wicked to notice what the collective Black presence in our society is doing to our society, to our civilization. We must judge each Black individually; we must not organize a White posse and begin cracking Black skulls when we see Backs collectively rampaging against our fellow Whites, the way they did in Seattle.

These liberal doctrines are poisonous, racially destructive doctrines, both the doctrine of equality and the doctrine of individualism. Of course, there’s more to it: there is the general softness, the generally feminized condition, of young White males these days. And there was the presence of the wiggers in the crowd, blurring the distinction between Whites and Blacks. Altogether, as a race we are in pretty sorry shape. It’s really dangerous, and we need to do something about it. Get in touch with me, and I’ll tell you what you and I together can do.

Auschwitz: The Case For Sanity

A Historical and Technical Study of Jean-Claude Pressac’s “Criminal Traces” and Robert Jan van Pelt’s “Convergence of Evidence”

by Carlo Mattogno


In 1993 Jewish theologian Deborah Lipstadt called British historian David Irving a “Holocaust denier.” Irving sued her for libel in return. Subsequently a court case unfolded in England which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was Jewish art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the Holocaust, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book The Case for Auschwitzin 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.

Mattogno’s Auschwitz: the Case for Sanityis the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. Its first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac – yet without naming his source even once. On more than 700 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s contorted assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts.

Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for van Pelt, as it reveals that van Pelt’s study of Auschwitz ignores crucial counter-arguments, fails to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, is highly inconsistent, uses deceptive methods, presents conflicting sources without due source criticism, deforms all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveals a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of Auschwitz.

Mattogno therefore concludes:

“The Case for Auschwitz is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.”

This is a book of prime political and scholarly importance, as it delivers the exterminationists’ case the most devastating blow ever!

EUROPA – The Last Battle – Part V


If this video is not available in your country use TOR Browser to watch it – fight the jewish censorship!

Protocols of Zion: Protocol II – Economic Wars


Protocol No. 2 – Economic Wars

  1. It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides at the mercy of our international AGENTUR; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the watch and unhampered by any limitations whatsoever. Our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves.
  2. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them – let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.


  1. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.
  2. It is indispensable for us to take account of the thoughts, characters, tendencies of the nations in order to avoid making slips in the political and in the direction of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system of which the component parts of the machinery may be variously disposed according to the temperament of the peoples met on our way, will fail of success if the practical application of it be not based upon a summing up of the lessons of the past in the light of the present.
  3. In the hands of the States of to-day there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing out our requirements that are supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the GOYIM States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the Press we have got the GOLD in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of the oceans of blood and tears. But it has paid us, though we have sacrificed many of our people. Each victim on our side is worth in the sight of God a thousand GOYIM.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – Unknown Date – Part 4!

Unknown Date – Part 4

Protocols of Zion: Protocol I – The Basic Doctrine



Protocol No. 1 – The Basic Doctrine

  1. Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts.
  2. What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of ourselves and that of the GOYIM [i.e., non- jews].
  3. It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
  4. What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
  5. In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
  6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.


  1. In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which soon develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.
  2. Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it under the power of external foes – in any case it can be accounted irretrievable lost: IT IS IN OUR POWER. The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy- nilly, must take hold of: if not – it goes to the bottom.
  3. Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral, I would put the following questions: If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then in what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?
  4. Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.
  5. The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by morals is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the GOYIM, but we must in no wise be guided by them.


  1. Our right lies in force. The word “right” is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.
  2. Where does right begin? Where does it end?
  3. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right – to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.
  4. Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.
  5. Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.
  6. Before us is a plan in which is laid down strategically the line from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labor of many centuries brought to naught.
  7. In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin.
  8. Only one trained from childhood for independent rule can have understanding of the words that can be made up of the political alphabet.
  9. A people left to itself, i.e., to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin by party dissensions excited by the pursuit of power and honors and the disorders arising therefrom. Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgment, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interest? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is unthinkable; for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution.


  1. It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.
  2. Behold the alcoholic animals, bemused with drink, the right to an immoderate use of which comes along with freedom. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the GOYIM are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents – by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the houses of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the GOYIM. In the number of these last I count also the so-called “society ladies,” voluntary followers of the others in corruption and luxury.
  3. Our countersign is – Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power. This evil is the one and only means to attain the end, the good. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit and treachery when they should serve towards the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty.
  4. Our State, marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission. Just but merciless severity is the greatest factor of strength in the State: not only for the sake of gain but also in the name of duty, for the sake of victory, we must keep to the programme of violence and make-believe. The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super¬ government. It is enough for them to know that we are too merciless for all disobedience to cease.


  1. Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” words many times repeated since these days by stupid poll- parrots who, from all sides around, flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well-being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob. The would-be wise men of the GOYIM, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractedness; did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom: that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws: never stopped to think that the mob is a blind thing, that upstarts elected from among it to bear rule are, in regard to the political, the same blind men as the mob itself, that the adept, though he be a fool, can yet rule, whereas the non-adept, even if he were a genius, understands nothing in the political – to all those things the GOYIM paid no regard; yet all the time it was based upon these things that dynastic rule rested: the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty and none could betray it to the governed. As time went on, the meaning of the dynastic transference of the true position of affairs in the political was lost, and this aided the success of our cause.
  2. In all corners of the earth the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the GOYIM, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the GOYA States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the eternal and genealogical aristocracy of the GOYIM we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force.
  3. Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men, whom we wanted, we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.
  4. The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove.

29. It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment.

A More Aggressive Israel Lobby is Coming in 2022


By Philip Giraldi

Those Americans who dare to challenge the strangle-hold that Israel and its friends have over US foreign policy will likely find themselves targeted even more aggressively in the upcoming year. Two weeks ago the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), widely reckoned to be the largest and most powerful component of the Jewish state’s lobby, declared that it will now begin directly funding political candidates who are perceived as pro-Israel. Up until now, AIPAC has preferred to operate somewhat in the shadows, representing itself as a organization that is in part “educational” to justify its 501(c)3 tax exempt status which it uses to send all new congressmen on propaganda trips to Israel.

Of course, that has always been a bit of a fiction enabled by a Justice Department that is inclined to ignore all Israeli misbehavior. There are a number of reasons why AIPAC should be regarded for what it is, i.e. an organization that has as a priority the promotion of Israeli interests without any concern for the damage being done to the United States and its institutions. Under US law, specifically the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1937, AIPAC should be compelled to forfeit its special tax status and register, which would permit the government to have full access to its finances and also require a record of its frequent meetings with the Israeli Embassy in Washington as well as with senior Israeli officials in Israel. It would also have to report its significant and unparalleled lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. AIPAC would deny that it is actually directed or possibly funded in part by the Israeli government, but its website somewhat puts the lie to that conceit where it describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby” before elaborating how “We are proud to be a diverse movement of passionate pro-Israel Americans.”

The other lie promoted by AIPAC is that, up until now, it has not funded the political campaigns of its many friends both in Congress and in state and local governments. The reality is that AIPAC and some of its associated groups have aggressively vetted candidates for office at all levels. During its annual summit in Washington, politicians in attendance have routinely held fundraisers at hotels and restaurants not at the AIPAC event but often at hotels within walking distance. It is known that AIPAC publishes for-internal-use-only a candidates’ “scoring card” prior to elections reflective of views on Israel. As AIPAC is itself funded by Jewish billionaires and is in regular contact with them, the exchange of information on who is a “friend” and deserving of campaign money would be easily accomplished without having to use AIPAC as a conduit.

The new structure will consist of a regular political action committee (PAC) able to contribute $5,000 maximum donations to identified candidates per race, and a super PAC, which can raise unlimited money for an individual candidate. AIPAC PAC will be the name of the regular PAC, while the super PAC has not yet received a label.

AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittman sent out an email explaining the changes. In perhaps one of the most chilling statements that I have read recently, Wittman asserts that “The creation of a PAC and a super PAC is an opportunity to significantly deepen and strengthen the involvement of the pro-Israel community in politics.” Given Israel’s current dominance of Congress, the White House and the mainstream media one fears what might come next if stronger “involvement of the pro-Israel community in politics” becomes a reality. Jews constitute less than 2% of the US population and they already are hugely overrepresented in elite professions and politics while at the same time reserving to themselves perpetual victimhood to justify the preferential anti-democratic policies that they actually promote. Will Joe “I’m a Zionist” Biden’s cabinet be required by law to be 100% Jewish? Will Congress require a Jewish majority? Will the government be setting up gulags somewhere out west for people like me who oppose such dominance and the “Israel Project”? Where does this ever end to satisfy the Jewish lobby?

One might well ask why AIPAC is changing its platform to make itself even more accessible since it would seem that the shift to PACs does not much change what happens behind closed doors when politicians come begging for money. The answer may lie in the perception by Jewish groups and the Israeli government that Zionism is in trouble due to the accumulation of egregious human rights violations and war crime attacks on neighbors. The world view of Israel is increasingly negative. So the response is to open the door a bit to visibly dangle more money, which the Israeli Lobby has plenty of, to take on critics.

Israel and its friends are particularly concerned over the handful of progressives in Congress who have expressed reservations about the blind approval of Israeli crimes against humanity. The PACs will enable a more robust response by providing readily available money to run pro-Israel candidates against them to bring about their removal from Congress. The Zionists also worry about the growing support for the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which seeks to put the same kind of economic pressure on Israel that once brought about change in South Africa. Already Israel advocacy groups at the state level have succeeded in passing legislation in 27 states that in one way or another punishes anyone one who supports “boycotting” Israel. AIPAC would like that number to become 50 and it is also pushing hard on Congress for “hate legislation” that creates harsh criminal and civil penalties for anyone who questions the holocaust or criticizes Israel, which will be defined by the legislation as anti-Semitic acts.

Hand in hand with the moves at the state level, Jewish groups are rewriting text books to include more on the so-called holocaust, to sometimes include mandatory holocaust instruction at grade school and high school levels. In one bizarre incident in Washington DC, students were made to reenact “scenes” from the holocaust including mass executions and burials. One student was made to portray Adolph Hitler and instructed to include a simulated suicide at the end of the exercise.

This overreach all comes packaged together with alarming reports, put out inevitably by Jewish groups, regarding a surge in what it chooses to label as anti-Semitic crimes. Such “crimes” include numerous no-victim incidents like scrawled graffiti on walls or display of posters defending the Palestinians. The Anti-Defamation-League (ADL), which leads the pack in its constant cries of anti-Semitism, hypocritically claims blandly that it is working to “Combat Extremism and Hate.” That definition apparently does not include the treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of its co-religionists in Israel.

Indeed, the tendency of the Israel Lobby to overreach because it has become so arrogant due to its power is perhaps the key to bringing it down. A recent exchange in Florida demonstrates how the ADL, sensitive to any possible slight, actually reacted harshly to someone who was actually on its side. Five weeks ago, rabidly pro-Israeli Governor Ron DeSantis’ Press Secretary, Christina Pushaw tweeted a sarcastic comment stating that there was “no weird conspiracy theory stuff here” about press reports regarding the Republic of Georgia’s Prime Minister meeting with Rothschild & Co about investment opportunities. The ADL Florida Regional Director Sarah Emmons took offense and responded with the following:

“The belief that the Rothschilds manipulate currency and influence global events for personal enrichment and world domination is a staple of antisemitic conspiracy theorists. It’s deeply disturbing to see these kinds of conspiracies promoted by a member of Governor Ron DeSantis’ staff. Conspiracy theories, especially those with antisemitic origins, don’t belong in Florida’s highest office — or anywhere in the Sunshine State. We’ll be reaching out to the governor’s office to voice our concerns and discuss the issue.”

Jews and banking in the same sentence? Must be an anti-Semitic trope, as the expression goes. What if Pushaw had actually been bold enough to say something more to the point, like “Israel is trying to drag us into an unnecessary war with Iran”? In any event, the Zionists are preparing their offensive and we of the Israel-as-ally-agnostic community will find the upcoming year to be even more trying as the Jewish state and its friends tighten the screws to eliminate and even criminalize all criticism. Be prepared!

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

“Der Stürmer” wishes you a successful Year of Struggle – 134 (2022)!


Terms of „political correctness“ – invented by jews


A term invented by this man, Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Bronstein), a Marxist Jew to justify the destruction of European peoples and weaken their self -protective instincts and identity as a tribe. It is applied ONLY to Europeans. It is used as a method of control when any European dares to see anything from his own point of view or try to protect himself or his people.


The Subversive Jewish writer

Morirz Steinschneider

Invented the term


in 1860

The term is used to Silence those that dare to expose Jewish crimes.


A Jewish lawyer

Raphael Lemkin

Invented the term


in 1944

„It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.”


The Jewish father

of Communism

Karl Marx

used the term


in 1856

“The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust

Marx, People’s Paper, April 16, 1856



A term created by this man, Konrad Heiden, a Marxist Jew, to ridicule the National Socialists in Germany. Today it is used to attack any European who does not hate his race, culture and history and who wishes to protect and preserve his own people and children’s future. Somebody who opposes enforced Mass Immigration of Non-Europeans into his ancestral homeland.

David Duke – The Little Bank that Saved Christmas!


If this video is not available in your country use TOR Browser to watch it – fight the jewish censorship!