“There is no doubt that the…Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre.” (A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, James Parkes, p. 81; The Iron Curtain Over America, John Beaty, p. 194).
“Christianity, therefore is unhistoric and unmoral.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 121).
“The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.
Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: ‘The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood.
Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.'” (Defender Magazine, October 1933).
“The time will come when all Christians will become mature, they will all embrace Judaism, and they will all justify themselves by deeds. Then the Christians will become Jews.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 174).
“With deep insight into history Jesus foresaw what would happen to the Christians, that they would waste the treasure with harlots, but in due time the Christians will come back to Jehovah, and Jehovah will be glad to receive them.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p 176).
“A rabbi cannot teach you your Christian duty to the Jewish people.”
“Jewish Rabbis Should Not Teach Christians; in the ecumenical mania that grips the churches, Judeophiles especially are scurrying about trying to outdo one another in inviting Jewish speakers to their pulpits. It’s almost a fetish. While darkly contemplating this prima facie evidence of blissful ignorance, a refreshing breath of oxygen floated across this writer’s desk. It came from an unexpected, therefore a more greatly appreciated, source. The headline of the newsletter asked this question: ‘Should your Church Invite the Rabbi? In the center of the front page the box below appeared:
The newsletter was from Jews for Jesus. The article was written by Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus. Although the organization is operated by ‘Jewish Christians’ some of whom are probably Zionists, Mr. Rosen did a good job in advising churches that they should not invite rabbis to teach them. In response to a woman whose church had invited a rabbi, he stated: ‘…I will first say that I am very pleased that your church cares about the Jewish people. I’m impressed that your minister has become friends with the local rabbi. As always, I appreciate any kindness to the Jewish people because I know how very much Jews need demonstrations of Christian kindness. Nevertheless, in all honesty, I’m chagrined that the rabbi was invited to speak at the church. He is a teacher who wants you to learn why he doesn’t believe in Jesus. He will tell you: ‘If you really respect the Jewish people, you must not proselytize or presume that we Jews need your religion.’ How could I be pleased about the church receiving that message?”
“Christianity does not concern itself about the material world its sole concern is immortality; it does not concern itself about conduct, its sole concern is faith.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 118).
“I am gong to show that real religious persecution is uniquely Jewish…In the time of Justinian, in the sixth century, the Jews massacred Christians in Caesarea and destroyed their churches. When Stephanus, the governor attempted to defend the Christians, the Jews fell on him and slew him. In 608 A.D., the Jews of Antioch fell upon their Christians neighbors and killed them with fire and sword…About 614 A.D., the Persians advanced upon Palestine and the Jews, after joining their standard, massacred the Christians and destroyed their churches. Ninety thousand Christians perished in Jerusalem alone.” (The International Jew, Henry Ford (1922), pp. 171, 173; Who is Esau-Edom? Charles A. Weisman, p.100)
“This regenerated and true Christianity must identify itself with Marxism and Communism.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 124).
“Between the Christians and the Communists there is a life and death struggle because the Christians regard their idea of co-operation as being right, true and good, while the idea of co-operation of the Communists the Christians regard as wrong, false and evil.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 136).
“I shall use such influence as I have in emphasizing the basic truths common to all denominations, in lowering denominational barriers and in promoting effective cooperation among Christians of whatever creed.” (John D. Rockefeller, The Messenger of the Covenant, December 1935 issue; And Men Wept, by Catherine Palfrey Baldwin, p. 46).
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Elazar wrote: “For my Jewish brethren searching for a Biblical basis for sanctioning homosexuality, I provide you with words from Rabbis Marc Angel, Hillel Goldberg and Pinchas Stopler in their joint article published in the Winter, 1992-93 edition of Jewish Action Magazine;” Well, here’s another viewpoint: Bible Review, December 1993, p. 11 DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY? by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom: “The Biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale.
This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading, the list of forbidden sexual liaisons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights. This Biblical prohibition is addressed only to the Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.
But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous column, I noted that the Bible’s impurity rules are part of a symbol system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, “You shall heed my statutes and my rules, by doing them one shall live” (Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life.
Note also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST LESBIANISM. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite)
Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women. IN LESBIANISM THERE IS NO SPILLING OF SEED. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to Noah, is “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1,7). The descendants of Noah–the entire human race–are duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean, however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in force–especially among Jews, who have lost a third of their members in our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, “Must you do it all by yourself?”
I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just between themselves, but with the >Jewish people. The problem has worsened for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the divine command, “Be fruitful and multiply” is truly in force.
To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no Biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, “Here is my maid Bilhah–go into her that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children” (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today.
Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can become the natural mother of her children.
Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably half of the world’s homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this >prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution. I hope the Eternal, in love and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit. Jacob Milgrom.” (Bible Review, a publication of the Biblical Archeology Society 3000 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20008, 202 387 8888
“The doctrines which the Jews had been spreading throughout the land for years could not but have helped to undermine the Church’s power.” (Rabbi Lewis Browne, Stranger than Fiction, p. 222).
“Protestantism includes every type of religious thought and organization from ‘high church’ Anglicanism to high-principled Quakerism, from ecstatic Methodism to relentlessly intellectual Unitarism. Only slowly, and with many pangs is even Protestantism shaking off the religion about Christ.” (Rabbi Lewis Browne, This Believing World, p. 300).
“Christianity has always looked on sex as in some way indecent and sinful; and for that reason Christians cannot possibly associate a truly religious nature ‘with an unsuppressed libido. But that is more than a prejudice.'” (Rabbi Lewish Browne, This Believing World, p. 326).
“One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the Crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle the job. If I’d had charge of executing Christ, I’d have handled it differently. You see, what I’d have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed him to the lions. They could never have made a savior out of mincement!” (Rabbi Ben Hecht)
The Rabbis of Judaism understand this just as do the leaders in the Christian movement. Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo-Christian was relatively new, “There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other.” (National Jewish Information Service).
“It is useless to insist upon the differences which proceed from this opposition between the two different views in the respective attitudes of the pious Jew and the pious Christian regarding the acquisition of wealth. While the pious Christian, who had been guilty of usury, was tormented on his death-bed by the tortures of repentance and was ready to give up all that he owned, for the possessions unjustly acquired were scorching his soul, the pious Jews, at the end of his days looked with affection upon his coffers and chests filled to the top with the accumulated sequins taken during his long life from poor Christians and even from poor Moslems; a sight which could cause his impious heart to rejoice, for every penny of interest enclosed therein was like a sacrifice offered to his God.” (Wierner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie economique, p. 286; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 164)
“Our adversaries, numerous and formidable, will say, and will have the right to say, that our Principe CrÇateur is identical with the Principe GÇnÇrateur of the Indians and Egyptians, and may fitly be symbolized as it was symbolized anciently, by the linage…To accept this in lieu of a personal God is to abandon Christianity and worship of Jehovah and return to wallow in the styles of Paganism.” (Albert Pike, Supreme Council of the 33rd degree, New York, August 15, 1876).
“The Jew…is not content merely to destroy Christianity, but he preaches the gospel of Judaism; he not only assails the Catholic or the Protestant faith, but he incites to the unbelief, and then imposes on those whose faith he has undermined his own conception of the world, of morality and of life. He is engaged in his historic mission, the annihilation of the religion of Christ.” (Benard Lazare, Antisemitism: It’s History and Causes, Translated by Britons Publishing Co., London (1967), p. 158).
“The Christians are always singing about the blood. Let us give them enough of it! Let us cut their throats and drag them over the altar! And let them drown in their own blood! I dream of the day when the last priest is strangled on the guts of the last preacher.” (Jewish Chairman of the American Communist Party, Gus Hall).
“Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100-million of them, and the end is not yet.” (Chief Rabbi in France, in 1859, Rabbi Reichorn).
“Israel won the war [WW I]; we made it; we thrived on it; we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity.” (The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918).
“We shall drive the Christians into war by exploiting their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre each other, thus giving room for our own people.” (Rabbi Reichorn, in Le Contemporain, July 1st, 1880)
“Dear beloved brethren in Moses: We have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following: As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it; since you cannot do otherwise…As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs. As for what you say about their attempts on your lives; make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christian lives. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues; make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that you sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.” (Constantinople Elders of Jewry).
“The confusion of the average Christian comes from the action of the clergy. Confusion creates doubt! Doubt brings loss of confidence! Loss of confidence brings loss of interest! There need be no confusion in the minds of Christians concerning the fundamentals of the faith. It would not exist of the clergy were not ‘aiding and abetting’ their worst enemies [Jews]. Many clergymen are their [Jews] allies, without realizing it, while other have become deliberate ‘male prostitutes’ to their cause.
When Christians see their leaders in retreat which can only bring defeat they are confused and afraid. To stop this surrender, the clergy must make an about face immediately and take a stand against the invisible and intangible ideological war which is subversively being waged against the Christian faith.” (Facts Are Facts, Dr. Benjamin Freedman who was born a Jew and died a Christian).
“The strongest supporters of Judaism cannot deny that Judaism is anti-Christian.” (Jewish World, March 15, 1924)
“I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-ideological blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish.” (Rabbi Martin Siegel, New York Magazine, p. 32, January 18, 1972)
The Rabbis of Judaism understand this just as do the leaders in the Christian movement. Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo-Christian was relatively new, “There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other.” (National Jewish Information Service, 6412 W. Olympic Blvd. L.A. CA).
“The current expression ‘Judeo-Christian’ is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men’s mind, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity; for by abolishing the fundamental distinctions between Jewish and Christian messianism, it seeks to bring together two ideas that are radically in opposition. By laying the accent exclusively on the ‘Christian’ idea to the detriment of the ‘Judean’ it conjures away monotheistic messianism – a valuable discipline at all levels of thought, and reduces it to a purely confessional messianism, preoccupied like Christian messianism with the salvation of the individual soul. If the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea.
It is based on a ‘contrdictio in adjecto’ which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or Black and White, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a civilization. Christianity offers to the world a limited messianism which it wishes to impose as the only valid one…Even Spinoza, who was further than any other thinker from the historic messianism of Israel, wrote: ‘As for what certain churches say, that God assumed human nature, I must confess that this seems to me as absurd as saying that a circle assumed the shape of a square…’
The dogmatic exclusiveness professed by Christianity must finally end…It is the obstinate Christian claim to be the sole heir to Israel which propagates-anti-Semitism. This scandal must terminate sooner or later; the sooner it goes, the sooner the world will be rid of the issue of lies in which anti-Semitism shrouds itself.” (Joshua Jehouda, l’Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde, pp. 135-136; Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 30-31).
“A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and Atheist always remains a Jew.” (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
“A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and Atheist always remains a Jew.” (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
“The inward thought of Moscow (the Jews) indeed appears to be that for twenty centuries while humanity has been following Christ, it has been on the wrong word. It is now high time to correct this error of direction by creating a new moral code, a new civilization, founded on quite different principles (Talmudic Principles). And it appears that it is this idea which the communist leaders wished to symbolize when a few months ago they proposed to erect in Moscow a Statue to Judas Iscariot, to Judas, this great honest misunderstood man, who hanged himself, not at all, as it is usually and foolishly believed, because of remorse for having sold his master, but because of despair, poor man, at the thought that humanity would pay for by innumerable misfortunes the wrong path which it was about to follow.” (J. and J. Tharaud, Causerie sur Israel, p. 38; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 143-144)
Dr. David Duke discusses Donald Trump and why his candidacy is important.
by Dr. William Pierce
Another friend of mine recently went through a very traumatic marital breakup. The breakup was worse than most because my friend and his wife have three small children. When I took an inventory of all of the people I know, well over half of them had had at least one failed marriage. Most of the ones I know who have never had a divorce are those who are over 70. I guess that about 60 per cent of my younger friends have been divorced one or more times. And I guess that the rising national statistics on divorce agree with this personal inventory: as time goes on, it’s getting harder and harder to keep marriages together.
So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along? I’ve thought about this problem for quite a while, and I believe that I understand the reasons. Some of the reasons for the decline of marital stability are economic, some are social, and some are psychological. Historically, marriage has been based on the bedrock economic fact that a well-defined division of labor results in greater survivability. If a man and a woman worked together as a team, with the woman keeping the home front under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper – not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.
This economic basis for marriage survived even the enormous social changes brought about byte Industrial Revolution, but economic developments in this century began undermining it. There was the large-scale recruitment of married women into the non-domestic work force during the past 60 years, at the same time many men found that their income alone could no longer support a family. Another development was the advent of the welfare state.
When employers came to regard their employees simply as interchangeable economic units, they no longer could see any reason why they shouldn’t hire married women, even married women with children, for any sort of work women could handle – especially since doing so increased the size of the labor pool and lowered the price of labor. The transition of America from an industrial economy to a service economy during the past 30 years or so has greatly accelerated this tendency by decreasing the percentage of jobs which require a man’s strength.
At the same time that the percentage of married women employed outside the home was rising from nearly zero 60 years ago to its present level of around 70 per cent, technology was greatly reducing the burden of maintaining a home. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washing board and a washtub. Modern fabrics hadn’t been invented, and so everything that was washed then had to be ironed. Homes didn’t have electric or gas refrigerators, and only those in urban areas where there was an icehouse even had iceboxes. Kitchen work took substantially more time and effort, and so did shopping; there was no such thing as popping a frozen dinner into the microwave.
In other words, at the same time new employment opportunities for women meant that they weren’t as economically dependent on their husbands as in the past, men were finding that a woman’s work in the home was less essential than it had been: with all of the modern appliances and shortcuts, a man could get by in reasonable comfort alone. The introduction of the welfare state after the Second World War meant that a woman dissatisfied with married life didn’t even have to worry about finding employment if she left her husband.
A century ago couples had fights just like they do today, but they had strong economic motivesfor making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, „Idon’t have to put up with this crap,“ and walk out the door.
Paralleling these economic changes were social changes which also worked to the detriment of marriage. A century ago, when most of us lived in a rural environment or small towns, there was strong social pressure on a couple to stay together. A divorce was almost scandalous. In today’s urban environment this social pressure and the accompanying stigma of divorce are entirely absent.
After the Second World War the rise of feminism and so-called „women’s liberation“ also took their toll on marital stability. The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn’t need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.
Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men responded by deciding that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support or protect a woman.
Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.
So what’s to be done?
Unfortunately, about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you’re a man, when you’re looking for a mate steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you’re a woman, be on your guard against men who have been “sensitized“ by the feminists.
In the long run, we can make the institution of marriage healthy again only after we have cured the social and economic problems in our society. One of the easiest things we can do is simply stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we’ll be a long way ahead.
Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so that one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution all by itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.
We don’t need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a new society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs – no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that’s their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won’t work, male or female – nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.
And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in this direction. And women could just forget about careers as soldiers.
We don’t need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on a healthy track again. Their inherently different natures will reassert themselves again. Perhaps we can’t make things quite as sound as they were a century ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.
Whenever I talk about the things we need to do to make a better future for our people, I hear many people telling me, „Oh, you can’t do that. You can’t just take the welfare class off the dole. They’ll riot. They’ll burn the cities. And you can’t expect women to give up their careers and become housewives. You can’t just take away all of the privileges the government has given them. You’ll lose their support if you try to do that”.
Well, let me assure you, with a healthy government in place, the welfare class will not riot – at least, not more than once. We know how to deal with rioters. All it takes is will power. It will be a good training exercise for our military people. That’s not a hard problem at all.
As for losing the support of women, I’m sure that will be true in some cases, because the enemies of our people have convinced many of them that being a housewife or a mother is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I’m not proposing making a law that they can’t be corporate executives if they want to. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t pump them full of propaganda to convince them that that’s what they should be. And we shouldn’t have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives: just not quite so many as we have today.
One thing I must admit: it would be easier not to do anything, just to leave things as they are. If we just keep feeding the welfare class, then we don’t have to machine-gun them when they start demanding what they think they’re entitled to. And if we leave the government quotas alone, many feminists won’t hate us as much for trying to take something away from them.
But, you know, leaving things as they are really isn’t an option. If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women in America is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with every passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons that the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father’s standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.
So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies, or we die. Our race dies. Our country dies.
We will do what we have to do. We don’t want to be unpopular, we don’t want to make anyone hate us, but we will if we must. Those who hate us will be those who hate our people and want our people to die, or who have become so self-centered, so individualistic, so alienated and rootless that they don’t care what happens to our people, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them personally. Let them hate us. It is a mark of honor, a mark of distinction.
The truly unfortunate fact now is that those who hate our people and want us to die are in control of most of the organs of influence, the media of influence. On our side we have American Dissident Voices and we have a growing presence on the Internet, but those who hate us have nearly everything else. They have the television networks, and they have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and Time and Newsweek, and they have all of the slick, trendy, shallow, feminist-oriented magazines available at every magazine rack. Because they control the media, they also control the government. No politician, from Bill Clinton down to the least significant Congressman, dares to contradict them.
If we are ever to have any hope of making the institution of marriage healthy again, any hope of getting the White birthrate up to the replacement level again, any hope of keeping our people from becoming extinct, then we must gain for ourselves a much greater influence: eventually more influence than the enemies of our people have. The only way to do this is to build our own media for communicating with our people: to reach more of our people with American Dissident Voices broadcasts, Free Speech, and our other media.
Our enemies would like for everyone to believe that the only people who are concerned about the things I have talked about today – the decay of our marriage institution and the declining White birthrate – are what they like to call „right wing extremists“ or „White supremacists.“ Ordinary people, they will tell you, don’t share my concerns, my feeling that we must do something about what is happening to our people.
But our enemies are wrong. I know that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns. I know that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about what has happened to our marriage institution. I know that a great many of our most intelligent and perceptive people are as alarmed as I am over the catastrophic decline in the White birthrate. Not all of them have been quite so rude as I have in placing the blame for these things where it belongs. Not all of them are willing to be shrieked at by the controlled media as „anti-Semites“ and „racists,“ so they keep quiet. But they are concerned; they are distressed.
My task – our task – is to persuade them to speak up, to persuade them to give voice to their concerns, to stop letting themselves be intimidated by those who want to destroy our people. And it also is to make many more of our people think about these things. So many of our people today are so busy, so wrapped up in their own affairs, that they haven’t taken time to look at what is happening to our society and to think about it, to try to understand its long-range implications: its implications for their children and their grandchildren. I believe that when they do understand these implications, they too will share my concerns.
We need to continue talking with them, to talk with more and more of them. We need to get our radio program on more and more stations and our publications read by more and more people. Everything counts on it. You can help. I hope that you will.
By Robert Faurisson
Each year, around April 19, the media and politicians commemorate what they call the Warsaw ghetto “uprising,” “revolt” or “insurrection.”  In journalistic accounts the affair has taken on increasingly epic and symbolic proportions. At a Holocaust ceremony in New York in April 1993, American Vice President Al Gore declared: “The story of the Warsaw ghetto is sacred text for our time.” In fact, this “story” is a legend based only partially on historical reality.
“An insurrection never took place.” This remark is by Marek Edelman, who was a leader of one of the armed Jewish groups in the ghetto. He added: “We didn’t even choose the day; the Germans set it by entering the ghetto to find the last Jews.” Edelman also stated that the number of Jews who took up arms never exceeded 220. (Other estimates of the number of Jewish ghetto fighters range from several hundred to as many as 2,000. In any case, no more than a minute portion of the ghetto population took part in the fighting.)
Edelman’s view has been confirmed by Yitzhak Zuckerman, another leader of the main Jewish armed group in the ghetto. Zuckerman has defined the “war aims” of the Jewish fighters in these words: “For us it was a question of organizing a defense, not an uprising. In an uprising, the initiative is with the one rising up. We, we sought only to defend ourselves; the initiative was entirely on the side of the Germans.”
This was no uprising of an entire community to gain its freedom or to resist deportation. It was, rather, the reaction of only a relative handful of young Jews who, seeing German troops penetrate their sanctuary, first fought back, then on the third day tried unsuccessfully to flee, and then, finally, surrounded, put up sustained armed resistance.
The whole thing should more accurately be called a German police operation rather than an “uprising” or “insurrection” by the Jews of Warsaw. By contrast, a real uprising was staged in Warsaw, August-October 1944, by the Polish Home Army, commanded by General “Bor” Komorowski. However, the media scarcely notes this heroic insurrection, which the Soviets allowed the Germans to crush at their leisure. The Poles fought with such courage that the Germans permitted them to surrender with full military honors, treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention rather than as terrorist insurgents.
To understand what happened in the Warsaw ghetto in April-May 1943, it is important to know why the Germans decided to launch a police operation. In the city’s “Jewish quarter” or “ghetto” were 36,000 officially registered residents, as well as, in all probability, more than 20,000 clandestine inhabitants. The ghetto was, in a sense, a city within a city, administered by a “Jewish Council” (Judenrat), and a Jewish police force, which collaborated with the German occupation authorities, even against Jewish “terrorists.” Many thousands of Jewish workers toiled in ghetto workshops and factories, supplying products vital to the German war effort.
Following the first Soviet air attack against central Warsaw on August 21, 1942, bomb shelters were built, on German orders, everywhere in the city, including the ghetto, for the protection of the residents. The Germans furnished the Jews with the cement and other necessary materials for these shelters, which legend has transformed into “blockhouses” and “bunkers.” So extensive was this “network of subterranean refuges and hiding places” that, according to one prominent Holocaust historian, “in the end, every Jew in the ghetto had his own spot in one of the shelters set up in the central part of the ghetto.”
Small armed Jewish groups, numbering no more than 220 persons, were active. The most important of these was the “Jewish Combat Organization” (JCO), whose members were mostly young men in their twenties. Its “general directives for combat” specified “acts of terror” against the Jewish police, the Jewish Council, and the Werkschutz (protection service for the factories and workshops). This JCO directive stated specifically: “The general staff works out the central plan of action — sabotage and terror — directed against the enemy.”
Accordingly, these “fighters” or “terrorists” used “sabotage and terror” to shake down Jewish ghetto police, Jewish Council officials, and workshop guards. The “terrorists” also profited from the ghetto’s intensive industrial and commercial life, shaking down merchants and other residents by threat and blackmail, even holding them prisoner in their homes for ransom. They were able to buy weapons from soldiers stationed in Warsaw, who, like troops stationed elsewhere well behind the front lines, often served in patchwork units, ill-trained and poorly motivated. The ghetto “terrorists” even carried out murderous attacks against German troops and Jewish collaborators.
The ghetto became increasingly insecure. Because of this, the Polish population became more and more hostile to its existence, while the Germans, for their part, feared that it could become a threat to the city’s important role as a rail nexus in the war economy and as a hub for transport of troops to the Eastern front. Himmler therefore decided to relocate the Jewish population, along with the workshops and factories, to the Lublin region, and to raze the ghetto, replacing it with a park. At first the Germans tried to convince the Jews to voluntarily accept relocation. But the “terrorists” refused to accept this, aware that such a transfer would mean for them losing, simultaneously, their financial base as well as their freedom of movement. They devoted all their efforts to opposing this, until on April 19, 1943, a police operation to forcibly evacuate the remaining Jews was begun on Himmler’s order.
At 6:00 a.m. that morning, troops under the command of SS Colonel Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg entered the ghetto, supported by a single tracked vehicle (captured during the invasion of France) and two armored cars. Initially the “terrorists” or guerrillas offered stiff resistance, wounding 16 German SS men, six Ukrainians (so-called “Askaris”), and two Polish policemen. One Polish policeman was killed.
Himmler, eager to minimize casualties, was angered. That same morning, he relieved von Sammern-Frankenegg of command and replaced him with SS General Jürgen Stroop. Stroop, ordered to carry out the operation slowly to minimize casualties, did so in the following manner: each morning, the troops would enter the ghetto, clear buildings of their residents and use smoke candles (not poison gas) to drive out the Jews hiding in the air-raid shelters; the buildings were destroyed as they were evacuated. Each evening the troops sealed the ghetto so that nobody could escape during the night.
Skirmishes lasted from April 19 to May 16, 1943, so that altogether the operation required 28 days. On the third day, many of the Jewish armed fighters tried to escape, most whom where shot or captured. Contrary to some reports, the German command never called for air support to destroy the ghetto, and the operation involved no aerial bombardment.
The number of Jewish dead is unknown. An often-cited figure of 56,065 is, in fact, the number of Jews who were apprehended. The great majority of these were deported, many to the transit camp at Treblinka from where they were taken to Majdanek (Lublin). German deaths in the operation totalled 16. (This included one Polish policeman.)
One should not doubt either the courage of the Jewish resistance in the ghetto or the tragic nature of the whole affair, with the civilian population trapped in the cross-fire between various heterogeneous German units and small groups of Jewish guerrillas scattered throughout the ghetto. Contrary to some grandiose propaganda claims, though, what took place was far from an “apocalyptic” revolt, as one writer has recently called it, particularly when one is mindful of the tens of thousands of deaths, civilian and military, that occurred during those same 28 days, on battlefields around the globe and in the European cities bombarded by British and American air forces.
In the entry, “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: 1990), historian Israel Gutman writes: “The Warsaw ghetto uprising was the first instance in occupied Europe of an uprising by an urban population. Its unique feature was the fact that it was a general rebellion in which armed fighters took part together with masses of Jews hiding out in bunkers and refuges.” (Vol. 4, p. 1631).
S. Birnbaum, JTA dispatch, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California (San Francisco), April 23, 1993, p. 9.
Libération (Paris), April 18, 1988, p. 27.; In an interview published in the Austrian news magazine Profil, April 19, 1993, p. 86, Edelman likewise referred to “our 200 fighters.”
Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer contends that altogether there were 750 Jewish ghetto fighters, organized in two combat organizations. See: Y. Bauer, A History of the Holocaust (New York: 1982), p. 262. According to Jewish Holocaust specialist Israel Gutman, “the total Jewish fighting forces in the ghetto numbered 700 to 750.” See: Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York, 1990), Vol. 4, p. 1628. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg likewise puts the “total armed strength” of the Jewish ghetto fighters at “about 750.” See: R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (Holmes & Meier, 1985), p. 512. Richard Lukas, a specialist of Polish history, cites estimates of between 1,000 and 2,000 Jewish ghetto fighters, noting that the combatants were thus only about three to five percent of the ghetto’s population. See: Richard C. Lukas, The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939–1944 (Lexington, Ky.: 1986), pp. 172, 178, 267 (n. 106).
Jewish historian Ber Mark contends that there were perhaps a thousand “organized” Jewish fighters, with many others helping in the struggle. See: Ber Mark, Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto (New York: Schocken, 1975) p. 15, and, Ber Mark, “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in: Yuri Suhl, ed., They Fought Back (1967), p. 93.
N. Weill, “L’Insurrection du ghetto de Varsovie,” Le Monde (Paris), April 18–19, 1993, p. 2.; Zuckerman (1915–1981), whose name is sometimes spelled “Cukierman,” was also known by his nom de guerre, “Antek.” His memoir was published in 1993 under the title A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Univ. of Calif. Press).
Forty survivors of the original group of 200 fighters, including Marek Edelman, succeeded in escaping from the ghetto, May 8–10, 1943. See: M. Edelman interview in Profil (Vienna), April 19, 1993, p. 86.
Even though it had a wall around it, the Warsaw ghetto was largely “open.” In this sense, it deserved to be designated as a “residential district” or “quarter” rather than a “ghetto.”
|||See: Leon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate (New York: 1979), p. 230.|
Israel Gutman, “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: 1990), p. 1628.
Cited by Adam Rutkowski in an article reprinted in a special issue of the French periodical, Le Monde Juif, April-August 1993, p. 162.; The “Jewish Combat Organization” (JCO) or “Jewish Fighting Organization,” was known in Polish as the “Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa” (ZOB).; Details about the methods employed by the JCO are provided by Yisrael Gutman in his book, The Jews of Warsaw, 1939–1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt (1982), pp. 344–349.
These methods scarcely differed from those of the Mafia. The Germans knew that they faced strong opposition. They sought to convince the Jews to allow themselves to be transferred to the Lublin region, along with the factories and workshops that served the German war effort. In March 1943 a strange “poster war” took place between the Jewish Combat Organization (JCO) and Walter C. Többens, who was responsible for evacuating the Jews. The JCO’s notices called on the Jewish residents to refuse transfer to what it called the death camps. The Germans left these handbills in place, content to put up alongside them notices signed “Walter C. Többens,” in which the claims of the JCO were refuted point by point.
On these points, as well as many others, see, notably: The Jews of Warsaw, 1939–1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt, by Yisrael Gutman, translated from the Hebrew by Ina Friedman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982, 487+xxii pages), and, Il y a 50 ans: le soulèvement du ghetto de Varsovie (“Fifty Years Ago: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”), special edition of Le Monde Juif, April-August 1993, 336 pages. The latter work includes a reprint of an article by Adam Rutkowski, published in 1969 under the title “Quelques documents sur la révolte du ghetto de Varsovie” (“Some Documents on the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt”), pp. 160–169. On page 162 appear the “general directives for combat of the Jewish Combat Organization.”
The “Stroop Report,” dated May 16, 1943, is entitled “Es gibt keinen jüdischen Wohnbezirk in Warschau mehr!” (“The Jewish Residential District in Warsaw Is No More!”). Text published as Nuremberg document PS-1061 (USA-275) in: International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (“blue series”), Vol. 26, pp. 628–694, followed by a selection of 18 photographs (of 52). A purported facsimile edition of the German original of this report, including Stroop’s telex reports, along with an English-language translation, has been published in the US as: The Stroop Report: The Jewish Quarter in Warsaw Is No More! (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979), Translated from the German and annotated by Sybil Milton, Introduction by Andrzej Wirth.
In his telex report of May 24, 1943, General Stroop stated: “Of the total 56,065 Jews apprehended, about 7,000 were annihilated directly in the course of the large-scale operation in the former Jewish quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed through transport to T II [an apparent reference to the Treblinka II camp], making a total of 13,929 annihilated Jews. In addition to this figure of 56,065, an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 Jews were annihilated in explosions or fires.” See: The Stroop Report (New York: 1979), [pages not numbered].
“After the people had been taken out of the Ghetto — they numbered between 50,000 and 60,000 — they were brought to the railway station. The Security Police [Sicherheits-polizei] had complete supervision of these people and were in charge of the transport of these people to Lublin.” From an affidavit of Jürgen Stroop, which was quoted as document 3841-PS (USA-804) by American prosecutor Col. Amen at the Nuremberg Tribunal on April 12, 1946. Text published in: International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (“blue series”), Vol. 11, pp. 354–355.
“The terrible, exemplary, and apocalyptic revolt of the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto is at once an act of despair and of heroism.” See: D. Desthomas, La Montagne, April 17, 1993, p. 12.
Exaggerations about “the Warsaw ghetto uprising” appear regularly in the media around the world. A comparison of exaggerations and inventions in the Brazilian press on this subject with the facts recently appeared in a revisionist periodical in Brazil. See: S.E. Castan, “Documento: A Verdadeira História do Levante do Gueto de Varsóvia,” Boletim-EP (Esclarcimento ao Pais), June 1993, pp. 7–14. Address: Boletim-EP, Caixa Postal 11.011, Ag. Menino Deus, 90880-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
No one can deny that multiculturalism and mass immigration are a reality in Sweden today. However, it hasn’t always been so. As late as 1965, the social democratic Prime Minister of Sweden Tage Erlander said: “We Swedes live in an infinitely luckier situation. Our country’s population is homogeneous, not only in terms of race, but also in many other respects.” The demographic transformation of Sweden did not just happen to happen. It was a direct result of political decisions, which in turn could be undertaken because of some actor’s conscious agenda and very active advocacy in the 1960s and 1970s. Earlier, Sweden had an approach towards immigrants and ethnic minorities that was based either on expulsion or assimilation. Immigrants who were ethnically and culturally closely related would assimilate while non-European immigrants, Gypsies and Sami would be excluded from the community. Now, however, suddenly a new approach prevailed: Sweden would become a pluralistic multicultural society and the multicultural paradigm would become the overall goal of Swedish culture, politics and society.
In 1930, 1 percent of the population in Sweden was born in a foreign country and the vast majority of them came from other northern European countries. During the 1950’s and 1960’s there was a relatively large labor immigration from other European countries. Many of these immigrants returned home after service in Sweden and those who remained were mostly assimilated without major problems. In 2000, Sweden’s total population was slightly more than 8.8 million of which one million was foreign born. A fifth of the total population had at least one parent born outside of Sweden of which 547,907 people had at least one parent born outside of Europe and U.S. (Source: Statistics Sweden). In 2011, 93,134 people were granted residence and during the whole period 1980-2011 the figure was 1,529,666 (source: The Swedish Migration Board), of which approximately one million came from non-Western countries (see previous source and add to family reunification). Ethnic Swedes are expected to be a minority in Sweden before 2050 if immigration continues at the same rate.
According to Tomas Hammar’s (et al.) comparative study European Immigration Policy (Cambridge University Press, 1985) of Swedish and European immigration policy, organized interests have had great influence over political decisions in Sweden and elsewhere. Immigration policy is an example of interest groups’ (but also bureaucrats’) ability to influence decisions. Hammar writes that the political parties have upheld the decisions but they did not initiate them.
Lars-Erik Hansen’s dissertation Equality and freedom to choose. A study in the emergence of Swedish Immigration Policy (Stockholm University, Department of History, 2001) lists the actors who were a driving force in the debate to introduce the new multicultural policy. Regarding the actors, the study confirms previous academic research on how multiculturalism arose, such as Henry Román’s study En invandrarpolitisk oppositionell : debattören David Schwarz syn på svensk invandrarpolitik åren 1964-1993 [An immigration policy opponent: commentator David Schwarz’s view of Swedish immigration policy 1964-1993] who attributes Schwarz “a crucial role” in the game behind the introduction of the new policy.
Thus, the ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and “Holocaust” survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books. Hansen (2001) writes in his thesis (p. 115):
The leading debaters who were the first to claim minority rights and conditions were especially David Schwarz, Inga Gottfarb, Amadeo Cottio, Voldemer Kiviaed, Géza Thinsz and Lukasz Winiarki – all of which had an immigrant background.
Besides Schwarz, Gottfarb had Jewish descent. Kiviaed was Estonian, Géza Thinsz immigrated from Hungary in 1956 (the same year as the massive persecution of Jews started which would have the effect that within a few decades half of Hungary’s Jews had fled the country) and Lukasz Winiarki immigrated from Poland. Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. Hansen writes (pp. 114, 126-128, 217):
An increasing number of commentators and publishers made similar criticisms against what they saw as the majority’s lack of understanding of minorities’ conditions, particularly in the non-clearly stated, yet what many saw as a real policy of assimilation, which they feared would lead to an erasure of the different minority cultures and life patterns to amount to the rectifying or conformist national majority’s established pattern. Strongest in this criticism was David Schwarz and Voldemar Kiviaed – they claimed that the assimilation zealots appeared in the spirit of the Russians in the Baltic states and that their approach could also be compared with Eichmann’s ‘final solution’, although in more humane shape. Increased government action was required to avoid assimilation, partly by direct financial support to minorities, partly by an official policy for a pluralistic society. […]
The policy toward Jewish immigration to Sweden, especially during World War II, was put forward as a blot in the Swedish political history. Bruno Kaplan, head of the teaching of the Jewish community in Stockholm and represented in the World Jewish Congress, lined up a number of examples of this regulatory policy (exclusion model), partly student protest against importation of some Jewish doctors in 1938, partly a number of leading newspapers which warned of this immigration. Leif Zern [who, like Kaplan, is Jewish, blogger’s note] emphasized Kaplan’s view that it was clear from the then existing policy that there was anti-Semitism, and stressed: “Of course there are no statistics on how many Jews the feature (the regulation of Jewish immigration) led to the gas chambers.” […]
Bruno Kaplan was convinced that the survival of a small Jewish minority depended on how the state and municipalities acted – a policy that advocated tolerance and respect for minority distinctiveness was necessary. In this spirit should the Jewish minority, in their efforts to preserve their identity, get the full support from Swedish society. […]
David Schwarz was the most active debater in the immigrant issue, his views and values had a major impact. David Schwarz became the first and foremost spokesman of the pluralistic state intervention model […]
In the official immigrant debate, some players played a big role in the policy process, especially adherents of multiculturalism. […] They encouraged the political parties to address the issue of ethnic equality on the agenda. Then, a veritable race began to see who was the biggest and best in the immigrant issue.
The debate gave rise to government investigations such as Invandrarutredningen (The Immigrant Investigation) 1968 which formed the basis for the government’s bill (1975:26) on guidelines for immigrant and minority policy which was adopted by a totally unanimous Swedish Parliament in 1975. David Schwarz got what he wanted, which was to be a fateful decision whose consequences we see the results of today. The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. The integration goal would be a reciprocal process in which both parties meet on the road (which in practice means increasing rootlessness). Moreover, increased internationalization of Swedish society was seen as an overall objective in the whole community planning.
The established academic research done in this area thus confirm the presented facts in Hur Sverige blev en mångkultur (How Sweden became Multicultural), a classic book in Swedish nationalist circles, written by pseudonym M. Eckehart. It also repeats a pattern that is reflected throughout the West about the power interests and ethnic motives which was behind the transformation of formerly homogeneous Western countries into ethnically heterogeneous societies. Professor Kevin MacDonald writes about the shaping of U.S. immigration policy in his classic work The Culture of Critique and provides evidence that organized Jewish minority interests played a crucial role in the policy change. MacDonald’s conclusion is supported by scholars like Hugh Davis Graham (Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America. Oxford University Press, 2002).
As mentioned above, the political unity was total at the time of the Parliament’s decision in 1975 that Sweden would radically be transformed into a multicultural society. Unlike what one might think, it was the conservative Rightist Party which first embraced the idea of cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent. In the beginning, the Social Democrats and unions saw ethnic equality as a threat to social and economic equality, and therefore advocated assimilation of immigrants. Hansen (2001) quotes a motion from the Rightist Party to the Parliament in 1968 (p. 149):
The disappearance of a culture is always a loss, no matter how small or large the group is which supports the culture in question. Therefore, it seems important to us that Sweden, besides the application of a proper immigration policy for the country, also feel responsibility for the organized minorities and offer their cultures opportunity for continued existence and further development on Swedish ground.
The following year, the Rightist Party changed its name to the Moderate Party and put another motion to the Parliament which propagated even more for ethnic minorities. They demanded that the government seriously need to take responsibility for preserving immigrants’ original identity (p. 162):
Society should as far as possible meet the minority community’s expectations and immigration and minority policy should therefore be designed so that individuals in minority groups have freedom to choose concerning the convergence with the native population, mainly in terms of such cultural activities as the maintenance and further development of language skills, religion, special arts and other special knowledge, and that society guarantees freedom through active material and personnel support to various minorities’ cultural and other activities.
The answer to the question why Jews seem to have a predilection for multiculturalism in the host countries they reside in, is that they as a seemingly invisible minority among lots of other more visible and apparently problematic minorities no more appear as a social category, and thus they can undisturbed continue to exercise their power by promoting their ethnic group interests at the expense of the indigenous peoples. The aim is to destroy the traditional Western culture and weaken its civilization; to divide and weaken the northern European-derived populations, break down their ethnic consciousness and national cohesion, so that they never again will have the opportunity to organize an ethnically conscious and collectivist movement like the German National Socialism of the 1930s.
Thus, reduced solidarity and cohesion in society favors the ethnic interest of the Jewish minority group. Multiculturalism is a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to minimize the presence of potential anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish majority population in each country where the policy has been introduced. The Jewish minority is safer in ethnically heterogeneous countries because they don’t stand out from the crowd there. Consequently, persecution of Jews has historically occurred mainly in homogeneous countries. For example, Swedish-Jewish journalist Göran Rosenberg acknowledged this on December 18th 2008 at a panel discussion on The Future for Jews in Multicultural Europe, organized by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and The Centre for the Study of European Politics & Society at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Göran Rosenberg recalled that historically, Jews had always thrived in nations and empires with multicultural, pluralistic and tolerant environments, while they fared badly in strong ethnic or nationalistic societies. European Jews have always been the emblematic stranger or ‘other’. Therefore, by definition, a society where the stranger is welcome is good for the Jews, although they have not always appreciated this link.[…]The future of European Jewry is dependant on our ability to shape a multicultural, pluralistic and diverse society.
Just as it is not a coincidence that Europe’s organized Jews consistently dissociate themselves from politically organized critics of Islam, because every negative generalization towards a minority group ultimately can hit the Jews.
Note that very wealthy democratic countries in East Asia such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, are almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, due to the lack of Jewish influence and multicultural policies over there. One must not forget the traditional Jewish animosity towards Christianity and the West as a reason why Jews are at the forefront of the socially destructive immigration policy. Jews tend to see anti-Semitism as a basic feature of Christianity and many even claim that the Christian religion was the cause of the “Holocaust”. For example, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin wrote in The Jewish Week on September 5th 2012 that the Christian church would not have changed so drastically during the 20th century if it had not been for “the miraculous establishment of the State of Israel and the realization by honest and authoritative Church leaders that the Holocaust could not have taken place had it not been for the seeds of anti-Semitism sown by Christian teachings over the last two millennia.”
The multicultural policy has also been made possible because of Jewish influence in anthropology during the 20th century. For example, Jewish anthropologist Gelya Frank writes in her article Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology in American Anthropologist that egalitarian anthropology was so Jewish that it should be classed as “part of Jewish history”. Ironically, Jewish anti-racist anthropologists are often proud of their own special racial purity.
Standard histories of American anthropology have downplayed the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of later anthropologists. Jewish histories, however, foreground the roles and deeds of Jews. This essay brings together these various discourses for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially those concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism. Although Boas’s anthropology was apolitical in terms of theory, in message and purpose it was an antiracist science.
Read more in chapter 2 of professor Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique on how ethnocentric Jews such as Franz Boas, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould and Claude Lévi-Strauss with unscientific methods influenced the genetics and anthropological sciences and thus managed to get Westerners to believe that there are no human races or average differences between them. Just as influential Jews played a decisive role in the shaping of immigration policy through lobbying in the countries they immigrated to, they have also played a central role for the intellectual movements that opposed the former prevailing evolutionary perspective in the social sciences and biological explanations regarding human behavior. The basically erroneous dogma that all races are identical in genetic conditions and characteristics has been the premise of the multicultural and multiethnic political paradigm.
This article is translated from Swedish and was originally published on the blog Obekväma sanningar (“Uncomfortable Truths”) September 8, 2012.
Citing multiple sources, the Israeli business presses are now reporting that Israel is the main recipient of ISIS oil:
Kurdish and Turkish smugglers are transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and selling it to Israel, according to several reports in the Arab and Russian media. An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit for the terrorist organization.
The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
In August, the “Financial Times” reported that Israel obtained 75% of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan, which the FT describes as a “potential gateway for ISIS-smuggled crude.”
It’s been well-established that Turkey is a major transportation hub for ISIS oil smuggling operations. But where is the oil sent? Someone has to buy it. The answer, apparently, is: Israel.
Al-Araby published an extensive investigation which lays out in detail how oil is transported from ISIS-controlled wells to Israel via Turkey.
London Forum, Saturday 25th July 2015
Captain Sir Basil Liddle Hart, described the saturation bombing of civilian areas by the allies during WWII as ‘’The most uncivilised means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions.’’
But, just who is to blame? Just who started the saturation bombing of civilian areas programme that has come to equal the worst excesses of World War Two? It killed over two million Germans, French, Poles, Belgians, and Dutch civilians alike, and Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg have become by-words for war time atrocities beyond compare. Although saturation bombing of civilian areas is now acknowledged as a War Crime, and a Geneva Convention prohibits the targeting of civilians under the guise of military bombardment, it was NEVER condemned in any post-war tribunal. David Irving is the world’s MOST respected historian, he’s the world’s TOP expert on World War II, and he’s the historian whose works are MOST used by other historians, but VERY RARELY cited or quoted by them. He will tell us just WHO initiated this war crime and why, unless there is a profound shift in political power in the world, they will NEVER be labelled as the criminals they so truly were.