by Dr. William Pierce
Most of the comments I receive from listeners are very supportive, but I do get some hate mail as well. Most of the hate mail is either nutcase stuff from people who have some personal problem, which they project onto me, or it’s from lemmings who are very indignant that I’m not in step with everyone else in the mass media. They just need someone to hate, and I think it makes them feel better if they tell me what a rotten person I am.
But I also receive a somewhat more thoughtful type of hate mail from people who curse me because I can’t understand that race really doesn’t count. They tell me that I should never judge another person as a member of the race to which he belongs, but only as an individual. They tell me that many Blacks are law-abiding, hardworking people who don’t use drugs or throw their trash in their yards and that many White people are criminals, are on welfare, and are generally trashy and worthless. Therefore, these individualists tell me, racism is stupid. I’m stupid, they say, because I embrace all White people, the bad along with the good, and I condemn all Blacks, the good along with the bad.
They tell me that when they’re looking at a neighborhood with the thought of renting an apartment or buying a house and moving into the area, they don’t judge their prospective neighbors on the basis of whether their names are Chung Lung Fu and Abraham Goldberg or Bill Smith and Earl Turner; they judge instead on how much their neighbors paid for their homes and how well they keep them up. They’d rather live next to an Abe Goldberg or a Rastus Brown with a nicely waxed, new BMW in the driveway than next to a Bill Smith with a ten-year-old Ford.
Individualists also believe that whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual is unimportant. What counts is whether or not he’s well groomed, well mannered, and pays his bills on time. Undoubtedly there are individualists who will say that sex doesn’t matter, either. No one should be judged by group characteristics, but only by those individual characteristics relevant to the immediate situation: will he or she make a good neighbor, a good employee, a good congressman? That’s all that counts, the individualist will say. And I’m sure that many individualists actually believe this. In fact, it is a religion for many of them, judging from the emotional nature of their hate mail to me.
To explore this matter further: some individualists — a minority of them, I suspect — have bought into a semi-religious, semi-philosophical world view called “Objectivism” and peddled most notably by a Soviet-trained Jewess named Ayn Rand, who came to America from the Soviet Union in 1926 and began writing books extolling the virtues of selfishness and individualism. Some of her best-known books are The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and The Virtue of Selfishness. Another notable individualist in the Ayn Rand mold is Harry Browne, who recently has been the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President of the United States and who wrote a book titled How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
The basic idea of Browne’s book is that no one owes anything to anyone except himself, and that the only rational objective for any individual is to look out for himself, get as much for himself as he can, do whatever he wants to do that he can get away with, and to hell with everyone else. Anyone who doesn’t accept this view of things is either a sucker, just waiting to be fleeced by a more objective and rational person — or is a person with ulterior motives aiming to fleece others.
As I said, some people have made a semi-religion out of this way of looking at things. One finds many of these people in organizations such as the John Birch Society and the Libertarian Party. But for other people — the majority, I suspect — individualism is simply an excuse for their selfishness and lack of responsibility. Perhaps for some it’s an indicator of cowardice: faced with an intolerable racial situation in America today, they opt for an explanation of things that will not get them kicked out of the country club. They are aware of what non-White immigration is doing to America, for example, but they are afraid to take a position that might be considered “racist.” They are afraid of the label. And, at the same time, they can see the catastrophe that is looming for America, so they simply abjure all responsibility.
The views of most individualists have grown out of alienation. When people have been cut loose from their roots, when they have lost all sense of community and belonging, when they have become simply human atoms floating in a cosmopolitan soup, they try to make sense of things. They look for some standard or rule to go by to justify their behavior and their feelings. And some opt for individualism. Individualism doesn’t have the social stigma that “racism” does. Individualism has been given the stamp of approval by Jews, and Jews are powerful people who are in good odor with the media and with the government, so it must be OK. They can’t get kicked out of the country club for being individualists.
Before I talk further about the connection between alienation and individualism, let’s back up a bit and look a little more closely at the individualist mind-set itself. Why do individualists send me hate letters? Because, they say, I stupidly embrace White welfare trash and condemn honest and hardworking non-Whites.
Now, that’s really a misleading claim, although in a sense there may be some truth in it. I don’t embrace White welfare trash, as such. I embrace my people, my race — all of it — recognizing that some White people are trashy and are not the sort I would want as neighbors or would want my sister to marry. It’s like embracing my family, while recognizing that some of them are black sheep. And I don’t condemn honest and hardworking non-Whites. It’s not my business to set standards of honesty or industry for non-Whites. That’s their business. I just want them off my people’s turf, out of my people’s territory — all of them. When we have settled our external problems, then we will deal with our internal problems — including our White welfare trash.
You know, this whole debate of individualism versus racism is really tricky. It’s easy for people to become confused. I, for example, am more of an individualist than most of the individualists who hate me. What that means depends upon how one understands the term “individualist.” I am an individualist in the sense that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who can’t or won’t pull their own weight. I don’t like to meddle in other people’s business, and I like it even less when other people meddle in my business. If one of my fellow Whites doesn’t want to take care of himself, that’s his business. Just don’t ask me to take care of him. I believe in natural selection and the survival of the fittest. I believe that we weaken our race when we help the least fit to survive and reproduce. If we’re going to have a welfare system for our people, then we need a compulsory sterilization system to go along with it. I become more upset when I see a 400-pound White welfare mom surrounded by her brood of runny-nosed kids in the checkout line in front of me paying with food stamps than when I see a Black welfare mother.
I believe in helping my fellow White people in a way that strengthens them as a whole, not in a way that weakens them. I believe in helping the best and brightest and strongest of my people to be more effective, because by strengthening my whole people I strengthen that of which I am a part. That is my selfishness. That’s the sense in which I’m an individualist. I’m an individualist within a certain framework: the framework of my race and my civilization. I’m an individualist with roots, an individualist with a sense of community, a sense of belonging, a sense of responsibility.
And you know, that’s the sense in which our people have used the term for a long time. When the Greeks talked about individualism 2,500 years ago, they spoke about it with the same understanding I have today. In the sixth century BC, when individualism characterized Greek poetry, one of the greatest of the Greek poets, Theognis of Megara, expressed his sense of responsibility and his concern for his race when he deplored the careless breeding habits of many of his people and the consequent decline in their racial quality. Theognis wrote:
“The best men . . . wed, for money, runts of poor descent. So too a woman will demean her state And spurn the better for the richer mate. Money’s the cry. Good stock to bad is wed, And bad to good, till all the world’s cross-bred. No wonder if the country’s breed declines. . . .”
And what is the understanding today of the individualists who send me hate letters? To be frank, I think that they understand nothing. They don’t see themselves in any framework of race or history or civilization. They think of themselves as pure, disconnected individuals, with responsibilities to no one, existing only for themselves. They do not embrace a race. They embrace only themselves. When they choose neighbors or co-workers or business partners — or marital partners — they do so solely on the basis of what pleases them at the moment. A Chinese neighbor is just as good as a White neighbor of the same socioeconomic status. A Jewish co-worker is just as good as an Aryan co-worker. Individualists may form alliances with others they perceive as having similar interests, but their own interests always are strictly personal.
And they really think they’re smart. Not only do they avoid the stigma of “racism,” but by shedding all responsibility to anyone but themselves they believe they gain an advantage over suckers like me who are burdened with responsibility to my people, to my forefathers, to my descendants, and so on.
Let me tell you: this rootless individualism is not a “smart” way of relating to the world. It is an infantile way. It is based on the same attitude we see in an infant screaming and throwing things because he didn’t get what he wanted. In a normal world, in a healthy environment, as an infant grows up he learns that he can’t always get exactly what he wants when he wants it. He learns not to expect that or even to make that his goal. He learns that he is a part of something larger and more permanent and more important than himself. He develops roots in his community, in his race. He learns to see himself in a larger context, in a framework of race and history and culture. His concept of “self” expands to include these things of which he is a part.
That the type of development is normal and healthy, the type of development that leads to a sense of community responsibility and racial responsibility. And it leads to a stronger and healthier community and to a stronger and healthier race, in which the members of the community and of the race care about these larger collectives. But if a child grows up in a world where he is deliberately cut off from tradition and history, so that he cannot develop any sense of rootedness, or if his environment is so polluted with “diversity” and multiculturalism that he cannot identify with his racial community, then he does not have a proper framework within which to see himself relative to the world. He feels no sense of belonging and no sense of responsibility. He becomes an individual in the sense of Ayn Rand and Harry Browne.
There’s a name for this condition. It’s called alienation. It’s what happens to many young White people who attend schools where they are in a minority, who attend universities where “Eurocentrism” is Politically Incorrect, who live in cities swarming with Third World immigrants, who see Black and Brown faces and get the Jewish slant on things every time they turn on the TV. Strong and healthy people react to this alienating environment by seeking their roots anyway, by doing whatever it takes to develop a sense of racial identity anyway, but many weak or confused people become individualists.
And you know, this alienating environment in which we live is not an accident. It was imposed on us deliberately by people who want to increase the level of alienation in our society, by people who encourageour people to become rootless individualists, by people who use all of the propaganda media at their disposal to convince everyone that it’s “racist” to have roots, that it’s “hateful” to have an interest in the history and traditions of one’s own people, that it’s practically criminal to be concerned about the welfare or even the survival of one’s race — if that race is White, if it’s European.
My organization, the National Alliance, attempts to fight alienation among our people in many ways. For example, we distribute a sticker showing the simple message, “Earth’s most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it.” That’s all. No mention of any other race. Nothing even remotely “hateful.” And yet every time these stickers of ours are mentioned by the controlled news media they are called “hate propaganda.” Really: “hate propaganda.”
Now, that is deliberate. This simple message calling on our people to be concerned about the preservation of our race always elicits a hysterical reaction from the controlled news media. The media bosses are afraid of our racial consciousness. They are terrified that we may feel responsible for our race. They are desperate to stamp out any feeling of rootedness or identity. That’s why they always respond to our simple, inoffensive message with their favorite scare-word: hate, hate, hate. And that’s a collective response. It’s not based on the decision of any single, individual media boss. They have gotten together and formulated a strategy to advance their collective interests. And that is why they’re winning their war against us now.
Well, I don’t know that anything I’ve said today will change the attitude of the rootless individualists. They’re lacking something in their upbringing that I can’t give them in half an hour. They really do think they’re being smart by not accepting any responsibility. They believe that they can survive and prosper as individuals, with no community or racial connections.
Listen: the world doesn’t work that way. The rootless individualist doesn’t realize it, but he really is all alone out there. The other people with whom he is competing — the Jews, the non-Whites, the feminists, the homosexuals — think of themselves as members of groups. They think collectively. They collaborate. Their aim is to disarm and destroy us — collectively. And they’re doing it.
I’ll give you a very recent and shocking example of how this works. Do you remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who went into a bar in Laramie, Wyoming, last year and tried to get a date? Two of the men in the bar gave him a good beating and then left him tied to a fence, where he died of exposure. Of course, there’s no way you could forget that case. It has been a cause celebre in the national media ever since it happened. It has been on every television screen in America again this week in connection with the trial of Aaron McKinney, one of the men accused of killing Shepard. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have given solemn commentary on the case and have cited it as a reason for why we need to have an expanded “hate crime” law to protect homosexuals from heterosexual White males. Half the Christian preachers and rabbis in America have publicly deplored the “hate” they say was responsible for Shepard’s death.
Now I’ll tell you about another case involving murder and homosexuals that I’m certain you haven’t heard about, unless you happen to live in northwestern Arkansas and read the newspapers there carefully. Less than three weeks ago, on September 26, two adult homosexuals in the town of Rogers, Arkansas, grabbed a 13-year-old boy off the street, took him to their apartment, drugged him, and tied him up and gagged him so that no one could hear his screams, and then they raped him to death.
The 13-year-old boy was Jesse Dirkhising. The two adult homosexuals are Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown, each charged with capital murder and six counts of forcible rape. I mention these names to help you search for information about this horrible crime on the Internet, so that you can verify for yourself what I’m telling you. Try the Internet site of The Morning News of Northwestern Arkansas, the local newspaper there, which has been virtually the only newspaper to carry news of the murder.
As I said, this vicious rape and murder of an innocent child by two adult homosexuals occurred less than three weeks ago, and it’s been totally blacked out of the national news. At the same time the beating death of homosexual Matthew Shepard, who made the mistake of looking for a date in the wrong bar, is still receiving national news coverage every day, more than a year after it happened.
Why? I’ll tell you. It’s because other groups in this country want it this way. No individual in America has the power to black out the news of the homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. And no individual has the power to give the enormous, non-stop national coverage to the beating of Matthew Shepard that we are seeing. This is the result of a collective decision — a racial decision — by the Jews who control the news media in America. The message the Jews want to send to White Americans is that homosexuals are innocent victims and that heterosexual White males are aggressors who prey on them. And so they give us the news that fits this message, and they black out the news that doesn’t.
I mean, really, think about it. Which is the more newsworthy crime: the beating to death of Matthew Shepard by two men he approached for a date or the kidnapping and raping to death of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising by two adult homosexuals? The Jews do this manipulation and distortion of the news for a reason: a collective reason, a racial reason. And it’s working. Idiot White women and idiot White Christians are joining the homosexuals around the country in even more candlelight vigils in memory of Matthew Shepard. But there will never be a candlelight vigil for Jesse Dirkhising. No one will ever hear about Jesse Dirkhising — except those of you listening to me now.
That is the way this world in which we are living works. The suckers are not people like me who feel a sense of racial identity and racial rootedness and racial responsibility. The suckers are the rootless individualists who follow the poisonous teachings of Ayn Rand and Harry Browne.
By Hervé Ryssen
Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.
Judaism is a Political Project
Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.
We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.
Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.
Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.
The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”
“Tolerance” as a Weapon
The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”
Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.
As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.
Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.
Selective Amnesia and Fabulation
Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.
This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.
This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial in Israel magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.
He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”
With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.
Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.
Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).
And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).
We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famous Black Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”
The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”
We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.
There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.
The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.
The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.
Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.
Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.
Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”
It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.
Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”
The Sexual Revolution
After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ‘68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive [The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.
A War Machine against Humanity
In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.
Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:
Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.
You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.
The Neutralization of the Devil
The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the anti-Semitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.
For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.
Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.
Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.
Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.
By Darius Shahtahmasebi
Last week, Israel began holding its largest military drill in 20 years, and it was specifically designed to simulate a war with Hezbollah.
From the Independent:
“The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has deployed thousands of air, sea and land personnel to the Lebanese border for its biggest military drill in almost two decades, a show of strength designed to intimate Hezbollah and Iran even as their power grows in neighbouring Syria.”
Beginning last Monday, soldiers and reservists alike practiced simulating a 10-day-long war with Hezbollah, an Iranian-sponsored Shi’a militant group located mainly in Lebanon. Israel even prepared two field hospitals, as well as trucks and helicopters for evacuating simulated casualties.
According to the Independent, the drill began with small border skirmishes and escalated into a full-on war with the aim of completely obliterating the Lebanese opponents. Even the soldiers playing the role of Hezbollah were to be dressed in the group’s traditional attire and will don their yellow and green flag.
“The purpose of the drill is to test the fitness of the Northern Command and the relevant battalions during an emergency,” one IDF officer told Haaretz. In the exercise, Israel was to give the armed forces an order to “vanquish” Hezbollah, “the state in which Hezbollah either has no ability or desire to attack anymore,” the IDF officer explained.
The drill, known as the “Light of the Grain” drill, took 18 months to plan. It utilizes fighter planes, ships, submarines, drones, cyber and canine units, and Israel’s missile defense system.
Speaking of Israel’s missile defense system, Defense News recently reported that Israel is readying its Iron Dome defense system for its first intercept test in the U.S., part and parcel of the U.S. Army’s demonstration aimed at selecting an interim solution for a medium and short-range air defense system.
The Iron Dome has proven very effective, scoring over 1,500 intercepts against Gaza-launched rockets since it was first deployed in 2011. However, it is now being tested to see if it can defend Israel against other potential threats, as its proven capabilities “don’t even come close” to the full extent of the system’s capabilities, according to Ari Sacher, Rafael Ltd.’s Iron Dome Systems Project Manager.
Clearly, Israel is preparing its defense systems for something far greater than the standard home-made rockets found flying out of the Gaza strip. Considering the fact that an Israeli military general is drafting a defense policy document with the specific goal of launching a war with Iran, this might give us some clues about what Israel is preparing for specifically.
Over a decade ago, Israel fought a major short-lived war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has been preparing for its rematch with Hezbollah for some time now, as well as striking Hezbollah targets from within Syria. Hezbollah has been a natural ally of Syria, even dating back to the reign of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad’s father.
Israel also continues to strike Syrian territory to this day in a flagrant disregard for international law, specifically targeting Syrian government facilities with ties to Hezbollah. Syria and Hezbollah have not responded yet, but no one seems to be able to answer the question: what happens if Iran, Syria and/or Hezbollah decide to respond in kind with an equally aggressive act?
A senior Israeli official warned the Russian government that if Iran continues to expand its presence in Syria, Israel plans to respond by bombing the Syrian president’s palaces. This is all while Israel knows full well that it cannot realistically take on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah by itself and without American intervention.
Hezbollah is a quasi-ally of not only Iran, but Russia, too. Russia recently threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolution that describes Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Russia also warned Israel indirectly not to attack Iran in Syria, explaining that parties that violate international law and undermine Syria’s sovereignty will not be tolerated.
Not to mention that in response to Donald Trump’s April strike on the Syrian government, Russia and Iran issued a joint statement with Hezbollah warning that the next time such an attack occurs, they will all respond in kind.
It is also worth noting that Hezbollah has spent six years in the brutal Syrian battle arena, during which time they have attained new recruits, battle-hardened their members, and developed the belief that they can successfully take on a number of military forces in the region. As the Hill explains:
The new cadre of fighters Hezbollah is bringing in is also professionalizing what was previously an explicitly guerrilla-oriented organization. The fight for Syria against the nominally Sunni ‘Takfiri’ (apostate) ISIS, has been a gift to the Shia Hezbollah, spurring recruitment efforts. Put simply, Hezbollah is not just getting better at fighting, its army is also getting bigger.”
Prior to the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah had approximately 13,000 rockets. It now boasts some 150,000 rockets and missiles, as well as Russian-supplied missiles that “can hit anywhere in Israel,” according to one Lebanese commander.
Unsurprisingly, none of this is headline news. Only those paying attention are aware of these looming developments and the dangers of a direct confrontation involving Israel – a stalwart American ally – approaching the Middle East’s numerous battle theaters. Whether or not the world will sleep-walk into this war remains to be seen; perhaps, and, ideally, Israel’s invasion simulation will act as a deterrent only and ensure that cooler heads will prevail in order to diffuse the situation between these regional adversaries.
By Jayne Gardener
Dr. Duke comments
Who drives the abortion industry in the United States? Want to hazard a guess?
If you said that the main movers and shakers behind the pro-abortion movement in the U.S. are Jews, you win the grand prize.
While there are, of course, pro-life Jews who are disturbed by the abortion rates in both the United States and Israel, I would venture to say that they are certainly in the minority, especially in the U.S. Their low regard for Gentile life at any stage of development is reflected in the number of abortions performed by Jewish doctors (about half of all abortion providers are Jewish)  in Jewish owned “women’s clinics” (about a half of all such clinics are owned by Jews)  which is way out of proportion when you consider what a small percentage of our population Jews comprise.
Various people have commented publicly about the disproportionate number of Jews in the abortion rights movement. For instance, Kenneth Mitzner, founder of an organization entitled The Pro-life League Against Neo-Hitlerism said:
“It is tragic but demonstrably true that most of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement are of Jewish extraction.” 
First, let’s take a look at the Talmudic view on abortion. The Mishnah, comprising the first part of the Talmud, provides a source for understanding the Jewish position which assumes that life arises only at birth which is when they believe that ensoulment takes place. So long as the fetus, or the most important part of it, its head, has not come out into the world, it is not called nefresh (a human soul) and therefore an unborn fetus is not to be considered a living being until birth.
The Old Testament, in Exodus 21:22-23 shows us that the Jews did not regard unborn lives as human beings as reflected in the laws during that period:
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
“Literally and by interpretation, this passage poses the basic legal principal that the destruction of the fetus is not to be considered punishable murder. Death of the unborn child is punishable by fine only, and capital punishment does not apply. Only if the mother is harmed, i.e. killed, does the law of capital punishment take effect.” 
Clearly, the Jewish Talmudic view on abortion is a disturbing one since if a fetus is not considered a living being until birth it can only mean that Talmudic Jews would have no problem with abortion at any stage of gestation for any reason, up until birth. It is unarguable that a fetus is a living being and it is abhorrent to think that pro-abortion Jews would be fine with the destruction of a healthy, viable fetus no matter how late in pregnancy the abortion would take place.
Abortion has pretty wide support among Jews in this country and various Jewish organizations in the U.S. are openly and unashamedly pro-abortion, organizations such as:
Many Jewish doctors as well as non-professional men and women are vastly overrepresented among American proponents of abortion on demand. Here is but a partial list:
“All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers in the United States — the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) — were of Jewish birth, including now pro-life Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
Dr. Christopher Tietze worked for the Population Institute and International Planned Parenthood Federation, and did more to promote the worldwide slaughter of innocent unborn children than any other person.
Dr. Alan Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for more than a decade, founded Planned Parenthood Physicians, and did more than any other doctor to promote abortion in this country. He also advocated mandatory abortion and sterilization for certain groups in the United States.
Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, inventor of the RU-486 abortion pill, was born in 1926 to a physician named Leon Blum. He changed his name in 1942.
Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich is the ‘father’ of the overpopulation myth. His ‘work,’ The Population Bomb, was the ‘spark’ that ignited the anti-natalist movement.
Lawrence Lader, (New York University professor and co-founder of NARAL) king of the abortion propagandists, has written several books crammed with fabrications and outright lies that have helped advance abortion all around the world… Lader was quoted 11 times in Roe v. Wade, because he had a message that the Justices wanted to hear. (In the same decision, testimony from the world’s leading fetologist, Dr. A. W. Liley, was totally ignored because it decisively undercut the Court’s decision)… Lader also founded Abortion Rights Mobilization (ARM), which sued the Internal Revenue Service in court in a failed attempt to get the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church revoked for opposing abortion too effectively. He also was one of the leading proponents of the abortion pill RU-486.” 
The above mentioned Dr. Christopher Tietze, who died some years ago has left a legacy, albeit a somewhat distressing one. There is a Dr. Tietze Humanitarian Award from the National Abortion Federation which is awarded to doctors in the abortion industry for their contributions to, and advancement of, quality care in the abortion field.
Of course it isn’t only Jewish members of the medical profession leading the way. They have certainly been aided and abetted in their morbid cause by various legislators, especially state senators Anthony Bielenson in California and Albert Blumenthal in New York who were the leading proponents of legalized abortion in their respective states and in this country.
It is certainly a fact that there are other left-wing organizations who are ardent supporters of abortion on demand which have large Jewish involvement, namely The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has opposed most proposed bills to restrict access to abortion and Norman Lear’s organization, The People For The American Way, which stands firmly on the pro-abortion side.
Not surprisingly, even the Anti-Defamation League sits squarely and firmly on the pro-abortion side of the issue. On April 19th of 2007, the ADL publicly voiced its disappointment that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled to uphold the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act by saying:
“We are deeply troubled by the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. By upholding, for the first time, an abortion statute which contains no exception for the health of the woman, the Supreme Court has undermined a woman’s right to choose and to act in accordance with her conscience and the dictates of her faith. We continue to believe that Americans should have the freedom to make difficult decisions of conscience and health without government interference.” 
Abortion rights have pretty much become the litmus test for being an elected Democratic representative in this country as evidenced by the pro-abortion stance of Catholics like Sen. Ted Kennedy and others. “Of the 41 Jewish-born members of the U.S. Senate over the last 20 years, 32 (or 80 percent) have been stridently pro-abortion.” 
The radical feminist movement, headed by Jewish women like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, has been a staunch driving force behind the pro-abortion movement since its inception. Their disdain for families and imagined female oppression by men in this country and their belief that gender roles are a social construct and not innate has caused them to push for abortion as being the great equalizer, liberating women from their ‘oppressive’ role as mothers.
Simone Weil, former French health minister and Auschwitz survivor who led the drive to legalize abortion in France was quoted as saying: “We are out to destroy the family. The best way to do that is by attacking its weakest member, the unborn child.” 
Kate Michelman is another example. For many years, Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1985 to 2004, has been at the forefront of one of this country’s most contentious and divisive debates. Ever since Roe Vs Wade, NARAL Pro-Choice America, boasting in excess of one million members and supporters, has been the nation’s leading advocate for a “woman’s right to choose.”
NARAL actively supports the election of pro-abortion candidates through various political action committees. They are heavily invested in lobbying Congress to fight any anti-abortion legislation as well as supporting bills which would protect abortion rights and expand women’s access to “reproductive health care.”
The Lichter-Rothman (both Jewish by the way) study was officially suppressed and one can well imagine why. It’s information regarding members of the media and their proabortion stance was staggering, but not surprising. It’s findings?
“Leaders of the motion picture industry: 95% pro-abortion, 62% Jewish:
Leaders of the television industry: 97% pro-abortion, 59% Jewish:
Leaders of the news media industry: 90% pro-abortion, 23% Jewish.” 
Jewish groups are constantly involved in fundraising efforts to keep abortion rights in the forefront, spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure that abortion remains legal. On February 28th, 1989, The American Jewish Congress ran a full page ad in the New York Times entitled Abortion And The Sacredness Of Life which cost them a staggering $30,000.
Securing the right to kill unborn children comes with a high price tag.
The press often gives pro-abortion Jews considerable coverage as well as considerable leeway. When Dr. Barnett Slepian (an abortion provider who was later shot to death by an anti-abortion activist) slugged a pro-life demonstrator over the head with a baseball bat (causing serious injury) for daring to picket his home, they not only demonstrated a double standard by excusing his behaviour, they also claimed that he was targeted for picketing because he was Jewish and therefore the actions by pro-life proponents were anti-semitic.
Marilynn Buckham, an abortion clinic owner told the Buffalo News that the picketing of Slepian’s home was nothing short of religious persecution and attacked Christians for not respecting other people’s relgious beliefs. As a result of Slepian’s assault trial, the picketing of abortion provider’s homes in New York state was declared unlawful and subject to a $500.00 fine and 6 months imprisonment.
In Canada, the leading proponent of abortion is Dr. Henry Morgentaler, another concentration camp survivor who became one of Canada’s most proficient, prolific and notorious abortion providers who flaunted Canadian law and established illegal clinics in Canada where he performed abortions in direct opposition to Canadian law and for which security was provided by Canadian police. Morgentaler was once quoted as saying: “It took me years to get rid of this image [of myself helpless in the concentration camps]. And to do that, it was absolutely necessary to oppose authority — whatever the authority may be.” 
It is a sad reality that Morgentaler has become somewhat of an icon in Canada, a man who is revered as being a champion for the rights of women. In 2005, Henry Morgentaler, at that time 82 years old, was given an honorary doctorate in law by the University of Western Ontario. Morgentaler spoke before the audience, saying he shared in the celebration of those receiving their degrees and told them that he believed that his work to make abortions safe and legal has “benefited society”, urging the graduates to stand up for their rights. Polls show that the vast majority of Canadians are pro-abortion and certainly many Canadians hold that view largely due to Henry Morgentaler’s influence.
And there you have it. Although it is absolutely factual that there is considerable gentile involvement in the abortion industry in this country there is certainly a disproportionate representation of Jews as proponents of abortion rights as well as Jews accounting for about half of all abortion providers and clinic owners; a staggering fact considering that Jews in this country comprise only about 2% of the population.
And why is this the case? Because they hate Gentiles and promote our destruction by any means at their disposal. Obviously there are Jews who oppose abortion but there are certainly many who not only condone it but push for it. And they not only push for it in the early stages of pregnancy but a lot of them have no qualms about abortions performed at any stage of pregnancy for reasons not encompassed by maternal risk or gross fetal abnormality. They are fine with it at any time for any reason.
It is just another part of the Jewish supremacist agenda to destroy their enemy, the Goyim, no matter what they must do to secure our destruction. We are what stands in the way of the successful achievement of their agenda.
They must be opposed. While I do not call for an outright ban on abortion, I do think that abortion on demand has become a national tragedy, leading to the destruction of close to one million American unborn children a year, some at stages where the fetus is clearly healthy, viable and could be safely delivered.
While I am not a believer in the notion that women abort “5 minutes before birth,” as some pro-life advocates have claimed during debate, I do know from personal experience that many people in the pro-choice/pro-abortion movement would certainly and unequivocally be okay with that, should it be legal. As the mother of two children I find that immensely unsettling.
A compassionate society based on Christian traditions cannot, in my opinion, enact laws that create unreasonable risk or hardship for women but we must balance the needs of women with a respect for the lives of the unborn, especially in the later stages of pregnancy.
To not protect them at that point is unconscionable.
By John Wear
The genocide of European Jewry by National Socialist Germany is considered by many to be the most thoroughly documented event in human history. Tens of thousands of books, magazine, and newspaper articles have been written and numerous criminal trials have been conducted to document the mass extermination of European Jewry. The crimes of Germany against Jews are considered to be so uniquely evil that the term „the Holocaust” has been invented to describe the alleged genocide of European Jewry. I have been asked the questions: „Why was the Holocaust story invented? Who benefits from this falsification of history?” This article will answer these questions.
Justification for War with Germany
World War II was by far the bloodiest and most destructive war in human history. Many people wondered whether all of the death and destruction caused by the war had been necessary.
The so-called Holocaust was used by the Allies to demonize Germany and prove that their war effort was necessary to defeat such an evil nation.
With the liberation of Ohrdruf, Buchenwald and Dachau by the American army and the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops, large groups of Western observers confronted the horrors of the German camps for the first time. The gruesome scenes of huge piles of dead bodies and emaciated and diseased surviving inmates were filmed and photographed for posterity by the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to Germany to see the harrowing evidence at the camps for themselves. The horrific scenes in the German camps were used by the Allies to justify their participation in the war.
„To the Allies, the discovery of the camps proved a final justification of their war effort. In 1940, Churchill had proclaimed that a Nazi victory would bring „a new Dark Age made more sinister by perverted science.” The liberation of the camps proved that Churchill had not exaggerated the danger. And even though Auschwitz had been liberated by the Russians, the English and Americans heard many stories about that camp.”
Establishment of Israel
„The creation of Israel was the only possible and the only correct reaction to Auschwitz. There had to be a country in the world where the Jews were the landlords instead of tolerated guests, a place of refuge in the truest meaning of the word, even for Jews who live in other countries.”
David Ben-Gurion stated at the beginning of World War II that the war should end by giving the Zionists their own state. After the war, Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders said that the Holocaust had proven once again that the only solution to the Jewish problem was an independent state in Israel. David Ben-Gurion again mentioned during Adolf Eichmann’s trial that the Holocaust happened because Jews did not live in their own country.
„Israel differs from other countries in its need to justify – to the rest of the world, and to itself – its very right to exist. Most countries need no such ideological justifications. But Israel does – because most of its Arab neighbors have not recognized it and because most of the Jews of the world prefer to live in other countries. So long as these factors remain true, Zionism will be on the defensive. As a justification for the State of Israel, the Holocaust is comparable only to the divine promise contained in the Bible: It seems to be definitive proof of the Zionist argument that Jews can live in security and with full equal rights only in their own country and that they therefore must have an autonomous and sovereign state, strong enough to defend its existence.”
„The demonization of Nazism and its mythologizing, in general, were also necessary since the Holocaust served as the main justification for the creation and existence of the State of Israel.”
Justification of Israeli Violence
There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages during Israel’s „War of Independence.” Zionist forces were larger and better equipped than their opponents, and by the end of the war over 750,000 Palestinians were ruthlessly expelled from their homes. As Tom Segev writes:
„Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and of cruelty.”
Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Jewish immigrants numbered 100,000 in April 1949, most of them survivors of the so-called Holocaust. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants to Israel stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed.
The Holocaust story has been repeatedly used to justify Israel’s aggression against its neighbors. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin justified the demolition of an alleged Iraqi nuclear facility in June 1981 with the words:
„We must protect our nation, a million and a half of whose children were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers.”
„You know what I have done and what we have all done to prevent war and loss of life. But such is our fate in Israel. There is no way other than to fight selflessly. Believe me, the alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will be no more Treblinkas.”
A few weeks after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Begin stated that after the Holocaust the international community had lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions. Begin declared in the Knesset, „No one, anywhere in the world, can preach morality to our people.” A similar statement was included in the resolution adopted by Begin’s cabinet after the massacres in Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut.
By the late 1980s there was hardly a day when the Holocaust story was not mentioned in one of the Israeli newspapers. Such constant exposure encouraged many Israeli soldiers to plan ways to exterminate the Arabs. According to Israeli education-corps officer Ehud Praver, „too many soldiers were deducing that the Holocaust justifies every kind of disgraceful action.”
„Decades would not fully erase the simple but compelling sentiment…‘I am ashamed to be German.’”
Friedrich Grimm, a renowned German authority on international law, was shown samples of new leaflets printed soon after the war in German to be distributed by the Allies throughout Germany. Describing German war crimes, the leaflets were the first step in the reeducation program designed for Germany. Grimm suggested to an Allied officer that since the war was over, it was time to stop the libel. The Allied officer replied:
„Why no, we’re just getting started. We’ll continue this atrocity campaign, we’ll increase it till no one will want to hear a good word about the Germans anymore, till whatever sympathy there is for you in other countries is completely destroyed, and until the Germans themselves become so mixed up they won’t know what they’re doing!”
The Allied campaign to make Germans feel guilty concerning the so-called Holocaust has been highly successful. German guilt is so powerful that it has caused the German government to make enormous reparations and offer humble apologies to the Allies. Millions of German expellees have paid reparations to survivors of the German concentration camps even though these German expellees had their land and personal possessions stolen from them.
„Guilt pervades Germany like a religion. It is the ‘Canossa Republic,’ penitent in pain before its judges. Guilt is so powerful that it has caused the Canossa Republic repeatedly to deny any intention of reclaiming sovereignty over the eastern lands, although it is a well-established UN principle that no government has the right to waive the claims of individuals to their property. Nor may it impede their right of return to their former homeland.”
Allied Crimes Against Germans
The Holocaust story has also been used to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans after World War II. German deaths after the war can be divided into three groups of people. The first group is the German prisoners of war (POW) in both Europe and the Soviet Union. The second group is the German expellees, and the third group is the Germans already residing in Germany. While no one will ever know exactly how many Germans died from 1945 to 1950, it is certain that the deaths far exceed most traditional estimates. The great majority of these deaths were caused by the lethal policies imposed by the Allies against Germany after the war.
A conservative estimate of German deaths in the Allied POW camps is 1.5 million. This includes over 517,000 POW deaths in the Soviet Union, 100,000 POW deaths in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries, with the remaining POW deaths in U.S. and French camps. The Germans who died in these Allied POW camps suffered miserably from exposure, disease and slow starvation. This well-documented Allied atrocity is still denied by most historians today.
Probably a minimum of 2.1 million German expellees died in what was supposed to be an „orderly and humane” transfer. The estimate of 2.1 million German expellee deaths is acknowledged to be valid by most traditional historians. Notable authorities have estimated a much higher number of German expellee deaths.
An estimated 5.7 million Germans already residing in Germany died from the starvation policies implemented by the Allies after the war. James Bacque details how this 5.7 million death total is calculated:
The population of all occupied Germany in October 1946 was 65,000,000, according to the census prepared under the ACC. The returning prisoners who were added to the population in the period October 1946-September 1950 numbered 2,600,000 (rounded), according to records in the archives of the four principal Allies. Births according to the official German statistical agency, Statistisches Bundesamt, added another 4,176,430 newcomers to Germany. The expellees arriving totaled 6,000,000. Thus, the total population in 1950 before losses would have been 77,776,430, according to the Allies themselves. Deaths officially recorded in the period 1946-50 were 3,235,539, according to the UN Yearbook and the German government. Emigration was about 600,000, according to the German government. Thus, the population found should have been 73,940,891. But the census of 1950 done by the German government under Allied supervision found only 68,230,796. There was a shortage of 5,710,095 people, according to the official Allied figures (rounded to 5,700,000).
The sum of 1.5 million German POWs, 2.1 million German expellees, and 5.7 million German residents equals the minimum estimate of 9.3 million Germans who died needlessly after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children, and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported by the Allies, the German government, or most historians. Instead, all we ever hear about is the alleged genocide of European Jewry
Allied Guilt and Apathy
„A real antipathy toward Jews certainly affected the Allied response. While no one among the Allies or in the press wanted to see Jews killed, virtually no one was willing to advocate that steps be taken to try to stop the carnage. Many Allied officials in positions of power in London and Washington were tired of hearing about Jews and even more tired of being asked to do something about them even though there were steps that could have been taken.”
„It almost seems as if both diplomats and statesmen spent more time inventing reasons not to save the Jews than trying to find a way to save them.”
U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have all made statements that the United States will never again fail to act to stop something as evil as the genocide of European Jewry. At the dedication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, President Bill Clinton spoke in a similar vein:
„For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”
„The museum stands as a grim reminder that for all its purported ideals, America nevertheless turned its back on Jews fleeing Hitler…Hence, the museum’s recalling what happened to Jews in the past may move Americans and their national policymakers in Washington to support Israel in the present, lest in the future, the same fate lie in store for Jews again–and the same moral failure await Americans once more.”
Of course, President Obama forgot to tell his audience that most of the inmates at Dachau died of natural causes. Obama also conveniently failed to mention that the single biggest atrocity that occurred at Dachau was the mass murder by American troops of 520 German guards on the day Dachau was liberated.
Reparations to Jews
German guilt for the so-called Holocaust has resulted in massive reparations being paid to Holocaust survivors and the State of Israel. German reparations to Jews were discussed from the beginning of World War II. Tom Segev writes:
„The idea [of reparations] seems to have been in the air from the time the war started, apparently sparked by the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. Ben-Guiron received a memorandum on the subject as early as 1940. Berl Katznelson spoke of it publicly toward the end of that year. By December 1942, there was already a private organization in Tel Aviv called Justicia that offered to help Nazi victims draft compensation demands.”
Hatred of Germans in Israel was intense after the war. Many advocated a special law barring Israelis from all social contacts with German citizens. However, since most Israelis felt that the Germans owed them massive reparations for the so-called Holocaust, Germany and Israel began negotiating reparations on March 20, 1952. The Luxembourg Agreement was reached six months later and committed the German government to paying massive reparations to Holocaust survivors.
Nahum Goldmann said in a 1976 interview that the Luxembourg Agreement „constituted an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights.” Goldmann also boasted that he had obtained 10 to 14 times more from the Bonn government than he had originally expected.
Millions of Jews eventually received personal compensation for their pain and suffering in the so-called Holocaust. The German federal government as of 1998 had paid reparations to Israel and Third Reich victims of about $61.8 billion. In addition, Germans had paid many additional billions in private and other public funds to wartime forced laborers. German reparations to Israel and Jews continue to this day.
The Holocaust story is described by many Jewish leaders as a uniquely evil event. An example of this view was expressed by Abraham H. Foxman when he was the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith:
„The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.”
„As the Holocaust has become many contemporary Jews’ master story, so, too, its perpetual observance has become their paramount Jewish practice, its veneration their religion. And as with any organized church, this Holocaust cult has its own tenets of faith, rites, and shrines.“
Israelis are obsessed with the history and heritage of the Holocaust. A 1992 study of Israeli college students found that close to 80% of those asked identified with the statement, „We are all Holocaust survivors.” The so-called Holocaust has become a way for secular Jews to feel connected to their Jewish heritage.
The Holocaust, which is remembered ritually through the observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day, is a major means of creating solidarity among Jews. While some Jewish communities experience conflicts among Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, they set aside their differences and join together to remember the so-called Holocaust. Any truth in Judaism’s slogan of „Jews Are One” manifests itself ritually on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
The alleged genocide of European Jewry has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the State of Israel, to justify Israeli violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the Holocaust story in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that this falsification of history will continue in the future.
|||Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 165.|
|||Wiesenthal, Simon, Justice Not Vengeance: New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989, p. 224.|
|||Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 82, 185, 330.|
|||Ibid., p. 514.|
|||Ibid., p. 480.|
|||Weir, Alison, Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the U.S. was Used to Create Israel, 2014, p. 58.|
|||Segev, Tom, op. cit. (note 4), p. 63.|
|||Ibid., pp. 161f.|
|||Ibid., p. 399.|
|||Ibid., pp. 407, 412.|
|||Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-45: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 840.|
|||Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 263; the German original can be found in Grimm, Friedrich W., Politische Justiz, die Krankheit unserer Zeit, Scheur, Bonn1953, S. 146-148; also in idem, Mit offenem Visier, Leoni: 1961, pp. 248f.|
|||Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 175-176.|
|||Ibid., p. 124.|
|||Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 115-116.|
|||Lipstadt, Deborah E., Beyond Belief: The American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, New York: The Free Press, 1986, p. 277.|
|||Wyman, David S., The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, New York: The New Press, 2007, p. x.|
|||Ibid., pp. 342f.|
|||Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 55|
|||Buechner, Howard A., Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger, Metairie, LA: Thunderbird Press, Inc., 1986, pp. 5, 29, 96-97.|
|||Segev, Tom, op. cit. (note 4), p. 104.|
|||Ibid., pp. 190f., 227, 233.|
|||„West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1988, p. 245.|
|||„Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 6, November/December 1998, p. 19; for a more recent figure see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wiedergutmachungspolitik#Summe, listing a total of 73.422 billion Euros (some 100 billion dollars) as of the end of 2015.|
|||See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/europe/for-60th-year-germany-honors-duty-to-pay-holocaust-victims.html and http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-to-pay-250-Million-to-child-Holocaust-survivors-374596.|
|||ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2.|
|||Goldberg, Michael, op. cit. (note 22), p. 41.|
|||Segev, Tom, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 513, 515f.|
|||Goldberg, Michael, op. cit. (note 22), p. 50.|
Renegade Editor’s Note: Arrest the Rothschilds and their minions and seize their goddamn assets!
In what is a sure signal to oligarchs across the globe, Lord Jacob Rothschild, founder and chairman of RIT Capital Partners, has substantially minimized his exposure to what he views as a risky and unstable U.S. capital market. In the half-yearly financial report for RIT Capital Partners, Rothschild explained the company’s aggressive moves to significantly reduce exposure to U.S. assets.
“We do not believe this is an appropriate time to add to risk. Share prices have in many cases risen to unprecedented levels at a time when economic growth is by no means assured,” Rothschild said in his semi-annual report.
Additionally, Rothschild stated that he believes quantitative easing (QE) programs employed by central banks, such as the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S. will “come to an end.”
Rothschild was quoted in the report as saying, “The period of monetary accommodation may well be coming to an end.”
Signaling a potential disaster in the making in the United States financial markets, Rothschild reduced the investments RIT Capital Partners has in the U.S. dollar by nearly fifty percent. On December 31, 2016, RIT Capital Partners reported a 62 percent net value asset investment in U.S. dollars. In the latest report released by RIT Capital Partners on June 30, 2017, the company has a 37 percent net value asset investment in U.S. dollars.
Over that same period of time, Rothschild increased RIT’s investment in Sterling and the Euro.
Just last year, the bond manager of what was once the world’s largest bond fund had a dire prediction about how “all of this” will all end. And by “all of this,” he means the propping up of financial markets by central banks.
Gross: Global yields lowest in 500 years of recorded history. $10 trillion of neg. rate bonds. This is a supernova that will explode one day
— Janus Henderson U.S. (@JHIAdvisorsUS) June 9, 2016
When the U.S. stock market is trading at all-time highs, but Lord Rothschild is divesting RIT from those same markets, the central bank manipulation of market valuations becomes apparent.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that Rothschild’s RIT investment portfolio has returned roughly 2,000% since its formation – so he obviously understands how to position his assets to get big returns on investments, thus these recent moves should be a red flag to every American.
In explaining his recent investment moves, Rothschild, the RIT chairman stated:
We have a particular interest in investments which will benefit from the impact of new technologies, and Far Eastern markets, influenced by the growing demand from Asian consumers.”
The report also noted that RIT had invested in Social Capital, a tech investment firm based in Silicon Valley, and that Francesco Goedhuis, Chief Executive of J. Rothschild Capital Management, will serve on the company’s advisory board. Social Capital provides seed funding for companies in the education, finance, and health care business sectors.
Rothschild also mentioned the advent of a fourth industrial revolution in the RIT Capital Partners report, noting, “As the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ develops, it becomes increasingly important for your Company to be able to assess investment opportunities in the innovation driven changes which are affecting almost every business sector.”
The fourth industrial revolution will be driven by new technologies that work to integrate the digital, biological, and physical worlds. Rothschild indicated in the report that the fourth industrial revolution was a driving factor in his investment in Social Capital.
The latest report is simply a continuation of a narrative that was clearly seen in Rothschild’s last half-yearly RIT report when he stated:
The six months under review have seen central bankers continuing what is surely the greatest experiment in monetary policy in the history of the world. We are therefore in uncharted waters and it is impossible to predict the unintended consequences of very low interest rates, with some 30% of global government debt at negative yields, combined with quantitative easing on a massive scale.
To date, at least in stock market terms, the policy has been successful with markets near their highs, while volatility on the whole has remained low. Nearly all classes of investment have been boosted by the rising monetary tide. Meanwhile, growth remains anaemic, with weak demand and deflation in many parts of the developed world.
Many of the risks which I underlined in my 2015 statement remain; indeed the geo-political situation has deteriorated with the UK having voted to leave the European Union, the presidential election in the US in November is likely to be unusually fraught, while the situation in China remains opaque and the slowing down of economic growth will surely lead to problems. Conflict in the Middle East continues and is unlikely to be resolved for many years. We have already felt the consequences of this in France, Germany and the USA in terrorist attacks.
With global yields at their lowest in recorded history, and with $10 trillion of neg. rate bonds, there is likely only one way that this ends – with a massive global financial collapse, the likes of which would make the Great Depression look like the “good old days.” Make no mistake that when Lord Rothschild begins to move his assets out of the U.S., it is surely a sign of ominous things on the horizon.
“Poles did not like Jews and they were worse than Germans.” (Menachem Begin)
“Once we perceive that it is Judaism which is the root cause of antisemitism, otherwise irrational or inexplicable aspects of antisemitism become rationally explicable…Only something representing a threat to the core values, allegiances and beliefs of others could cause such universal, deep and lasting hatred. This Judaism has done…” (Why the Jews: by Denis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, 1985)
“The ultimate cause of antisemitism is that which has made Jews Jewish – Judaism. There are four basic reasons for this and each revolves around the Jewish challenge to the values of non Jews…By affirming what they considered to be the one and only God of all mankind, thereby denying legitimacy to everyone else’s gods, the Jews entered history; and have often been since, at war with other people’s cherished values. And by continually asserting their own national identity in addition or instead of the national identity of the non-Jews among whom they lived, Jews have created or intensified anti-Semitic passions…This attempt to change the world, to challenge the gods, religious or secular, of the societies around them, and to make moral demands upon others…has constantly been a source of tension between Jews and non-Jews…”
“The idea of authority, and therefore the respect for authority, is an anti-Semitic notion. It is in Catholicism, in Christianity, in the very teachings of Jesus that it finds at once its lay and its religious consecration.” Kadmi Cohen, p. 60; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, p. 192)
“If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown towards the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very distant from each other, since they were ruled by very different laws, governed by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did not permit them to judge of anything in the some way, it must be therefore that the general cause of anti-Semitism has always resided in Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.” (Bernard Lazare, L’Antisemitism, The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 183)
“What virtues and what vices brought upon the Jew this universal enmity? Why was he in turn equally maltreated and hated by the Alexandrians and the Romans, by the Persians and the Arabs, by the Turks and by the Christian nations? Because everywhere and up to the present day, the Jew was an unsociable being. Why was he unsociable? Because he was exclusive and his exclusiveness was at the same time political and religious, or, in other words, he kept to his political, religious cult and his law.” (B. Lazare, L’Antisemitism, p. 3)
“We always come back to the same misunderstanding. The Jews because of their spirit of revolt, their exclusiveness and the Messianic tendencies which animate them are in essence revolutionaries, but they do not realize it and believe that they are working for ‘progress.’…but that which they call justice is the triumph of Jewish principles in the world of which the two extremes are plutocracy and socialism. Present day Anti-Semitism is a revolt against the world of today, the product of Judaism.” (The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, p. 225)
“The Jews as outcasts: Jews have been a wondering people from the time of the beginning. History is filled with preemptory edicts, expelling Jews from where they had made their homes. At times the edicts were the result of trumped up charges against the Jews or Judaism, and later proved to be false. At other times they were the consequence of economic situation, which the authorities believed would be improved if the Jews were removed. Almost always the bands were only temporary as below. The culminate impact on the psychic on the Jewish people however, has been traumatic. And may very well be indelible. The following is a list, far from complete. Hardly a major Jewish community has not been expelled by its Host Country. Only to be let back in again, later to be expelled once more.” (Jewish Almanac 1981, p. 127)
“The dynamics of the anti-Semitic group has changed since war’s end. Activists today have shifted their emphasis to a greater and more wide-spread publication of hate-literature, in contrast to previous stress on holding meetings, demonstrating and picketing. They now tie-in their bigotry with typical, burning issues, and are veering from reliance upon The Protocols and other staples.” (American Jewish Committee Budget, 1953, p. 28)
The Jews have been run out of every country in Europe.