Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Month: May, 2016

14 Words

Famous People about Jews

Part I


VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:

“Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race…”


“The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous – cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” (Essai sur le Moeurs)

“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des Quelques Objections…dans L’Essai sur le Moeurs.)


CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer. In La Renovation, journal of the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER: “Jews! To the heights of your Sinai…I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades accuse you: Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest people, go there!!! (“Israel”)


“We come now to the libel involving the gold, the Jewish gold. This is obviously why the present case is being tried close to the Aurelian Steps. It is because of this particular charge that you have sought out this location, Laelius (the prosecutor), and that mob (referring to the noisy crowd of Jews whom Laelius had assembled to create a commotion at the trial). You know how large a group they (the Jews) are, and how influential they are in politics. I will lower my voice and speak just loudly enough for the jury to hear me; for there are plenty of individuals to stir up those Jews against me and against every good Roman, and I don’t intend to make it any easier for them to do this. Since gold was regularly exported each year in the name of the Jews from Italy and all our provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict forbidding its exportation from Asia. Who is there, gentlemen of the jury, who cannot sincerely commend this action? The exportation of gold had been forbidden by the Seanate on many previous occasions, and most strictly of all during my consulship. Further, that Flaccus was opposed to this barbarous Jewish superstition was proof of his strong character that he defended the Republci by frequently denying the aggressiveness of the Jewish mobs at political gatherings was an evidence of his high sense of responsibility.” (Speech of Cicero, which is one of the few revelations of Jewish subversion which survived the burning of libraries. The great consul of Rome, Cicero, had to lower his voice to avoid stirring up the Jews. A Roman aristocrat, Flaccus, was removed from office and dragged back to Rome to face a false charge. Why? Because he had tried to enforce the Roman law banning the Jewish traffic in gold. The outcome of this trial was that Flaccus ban on the shipping of gold was removed. Thus the Jews won their objective, and Flaccus was lucky to escape with his life after he had opposed them. (Harry J. Leon of the University of Texas, p. 3, Jews of Ancient Rome).


“He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots.” (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249).


“Judaism is a unique gift to this land that people of myriad faiths and cultures call home …The Talmudic teachings of mercy and justice, and those who have sought to uphold these ideals, grace the pages of American history. We can draw strength and inspiration fromt he enduring lessons of Judaism, and it is entirely fitting that we honor the great traditions of its followers.” (April 20, 1005 President Clinton signed a Jewish Heritage Week Proclamation).


This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a “CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION,” at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina: “I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. “In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian Religion upon which that nation is founded by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within a state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

For over 1700 years the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, they call Palestine. But, Gentlemen, should the world today give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some cogent reason for not returning. Why? Because they are Vampires, and Vampires do not live on Vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.

If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution in less than 200 years they will have swarmed in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land, and change our form of government [which they have done — they have changed it from a Republic to a Democracy], for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them sustenance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, Gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, Gentlemen, are Asiatics; let them be born where they will, or how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A Leopard cannot change its spots.

Jews are asiatics, they are a menace to this country if permitted entrance and should be excluded by this Constitution.” (by Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the six founding fathers designated to draw up The Declaration of Independence. He spoke before the Constitutional Congress in May 1787, and asked that Jews be barred from immigrating to America. (The above are his exact words as quoted from the diary of General Charles Pickney of Charleston, S.C.).


“I believe that the active Jews of today have a tendency to think that the Christians have organized and set up and run the world of injustice, unfairness, cruelty, misery. I am not taking any part in this, but I have heard it expressed, and I believe they feel it that way. Jews have lived for the past 2000 years and developed in a Christian World. They are a part of that Christian World even when they suffer from it or be in opposition with it, and they cannot dissociate themselves from this Christian World and from what it has done. And I think that the Jews are bumptious enough to think that perhaps some form of Jewish solution to the problems of the world could be found which would be better, which would be an improvement. It is up to them to find a Jewish answer to the problems of the world, the problems of today.” (Baron Guy de Rothschild, NBC-TV, The Remnant, August 18, 1974)


“From the days of Adam (Spartacus) Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman. This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing…There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international, and for the most part, atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one: it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.” (Winston Churchill, Sunday Illustrated Herald, London, England, February 8, 1920)


It seems to me that it is principally with Mr. Neufville we have to do; and tho’ I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would have attempted to enforce his Demands (which I doubt not will be extravagant enough) by a Proceeding so abominable.” (The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 8, The MacMillian Co., p. 332).


“The Gulag Archipelago, ‘he informed an incredulous world that the blood-maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered sixty-six million victims in Russia from 1918 to 1957! Solzhenitsyn cited Cheka Order No. 10, issued on January 8, 1921: ‘To intensify the repression of the bourgeoisie.'” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago)


“The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age.” (Napoleon Bonaparte)


“A Jew is anyone who says he is.” (David Ben Gurion)


“They are the carrion birds of humanity…[speaking of the Jews] are a state within a state. They are certainly not real citizens…The evils of Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of these people.” (Napoleon Bonaparte, Stated in Reflections and Speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806)


“The Jew continues to monopolize money, and he loosens or strangles the throat of the state with the loosening or strengthening of his purse strings…He has empowered himself with the engines of the press, which he uses to batter at the foundations of society. He is at the bottom of…every enterprise that will demolish first of all thrones, afterwards the altar, afterwards civil law.” (Hungarian composer Franz Liszt (1811-1886) in Die Israeliten.)


“The Jews are the most hateful and the most shameful of the small nations.” (Voltaire, God and His Men)


“There had been observed in this country certain streams of influence which are causing a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct…a nasty Orientalism which had insidiously affected every channel of expression…The fact that these influences are all traceable to one racial source [Judaism] is something to be reckoned with…Our opposition is only in ideas, false ideas, which are sapping the moral stamina of the people.” (My Life and Work, by Henry Ford)


“You’ve seen every single race besmirched, but you never saw an unfavorable image of a kike because the Jews are ever watchful for that. They never allowed it to be shown on the screen!” (Marlon Brando, Playboy, Jan. 1979)


“It is rather surprising is it not? That whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews. In sports corruption, a group of Jews. In exploiting finance, a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy, a group of Jews. In liquor propaganda, a group of Jews. Absolutely dominating the wireless communications of the world, a group of Jews. The menace of the movies, a group of Jews. In control of the press through business and financial pressure, a group of Jews. War profiteers, 80 percent of them, Jews. The mezmia of so-called popular music, which combines weak mindedness, with every suggestion of lewdness, Jews. Organizations of anti-Christian laws and customs, again Jews. It is time to show that the cry of bigot is raised mostly by bigots. There is a religious prejudice in this country; there is, indeed, a religious persecution, there is a forcible shoving aside of the religious liberties of the majority of the people. And this prejudice and persecution and use of force, is Jewish and nothing but Jewish.

If it is anti-Semitism to say that Communism in the United States is Jewish, so be it. But to the unprejudiced mind it will look very much like Americanism. Communism all over the world and not only in Russia is Jewish.” (International Jew, by Henry Ford, 1922)


“The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developed place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race, such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ, be not allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony, to the detraction of your worships and dissatisfaction of your worships’ most affectionate subjects.” (Peter Stuyvesant, in a letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, from New Amsterdam (New York), September 22, 1654).


“They {the Jews} work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in…It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.” (George Washington, in Maxims of George Washington by A.A. Appleton & Co.)


“The Jews form a state, and, obeying their own laws, they evade those of their host country. the Jews always considered an oath regarding a Christian not binding. During the Campaign of 1812 the Jews were spies, they were paid by both sides, they betrayed both sides. It is seldom that the police investigate a robbery in which a Jew is not found either to be an accomplice or a receiver.” (Count Helmuth von Molthke, Prussian General)


“The Jews are a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also department orders and are herein expelled from the department within 24 hours from receipt of this order.” (President Ulysses S. Grant)


 

Israeli Terrorism Against America

Nothing can show the Zionist control over American media and politics more than the fact that Israel has committed cold-blooded, murderous terrorism and treachery against America without any reprisal. The fact that most Americans are not even aware of Israeli terrorist attacks against us speaks volumes as to the extent of media control that we are under.

This video exposes the only nation in Israel- Arab conflict that has committed terrorism against us. That nation is Israel. In the Lavon Affair terrorist attacks Israel was caught red-handed. In the attack on the USS Liberty was proven to be deliberate terrorism against us by people no less than the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Dean Rusk, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer. In the repeated spying against America by Israel, we see no “friend” but an enemy of everyone but their own Zionist agenda. It is illustrated by the Pollard Spy Case which is considered the most damaging spying done to America in our nation’s history. Yet, still our government sends billions of our tax dollars to Israel. — David Duke

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1939 – Part 6

07.July-1939-10

07.July-1939-11

07.July-1939-12

07.July-1939-13

07.July-1939-14

07.July-1939-16

07.July-1939-17

07.July-1939-19

07.July-1939-20

07.July-1939-21

The Feminization of America

by Dr. William Pierce

I always have been very fond of women — perhaps too much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.

Having said this I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.

This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh’s statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.

But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren’t even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.

Many other people besides me have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political Incorrectness, the height of “insensitivity.” As far back as the 1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.

We have always had both soft, dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this isn’t enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.

Something written by the American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my attention. Adams wrote “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.” Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing interest in such matters — he was a lifelong student of these things and also was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at that university were expected to know what they were talking about — so we ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America’s most distinguished families. He was a great grandson of the founding father and second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth President, John Quincy Adams.

Henry’s brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.

He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even considering the Jews or Chinese.

Most of us are a mixture of the two types, and it’s difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, say — and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame.

So what does this have to do with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity.

When I say “loss,” I am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine elements, masculine characteristics; it’s just that they are weaker now than they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews characterize our society in large part today — they are symptoms of the pathology afflicting our society — but we must look deeper for the cause of our decay.

Let me repeat Henry Adams’ observation. He wrote: “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.”

If he were writing today, he might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.

Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams’ position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?

Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values — egalitarian values — are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature’s majesty are unknown to the materialist.

As spiritual man gives way to economic man, when one historical era merges into another — as idealism gives way to materialism — society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God’s children are loved equally. Pickaninnies are considered “cute” or even “adorable.” The role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need.

It is not just society which changes, not just government, not just public policy; individual attitudes and behavior also change. The way in which children are raised changes. Girls no longer are raised to be mothers and homemakers but rather to be self-indulgent careerists. Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule during the formative years. A disciplined environment gives way to a permissive one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline. Spanking becomes a criminal offense. The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given the opportunity to fail and to learn from this the penalties that the real world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification they seek eludes them.

The move from masculine idealism to feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism, egoism, and eventually narcissism. Henry Adams also claimed that we have lost our taste for wine and women. Well, certainly not in the sense that we have become less interested in alcohol or sex. What he meant is that we have lost the keen edge of our appreciation for civilization’s refinements, for the finest and most subtle things in life: that our appetites have become grosser as they have become less disciplined. Our interest now is in alcohol for its ability to give us a momentary buzz, not in fine wine for its inherent artistry.

A similar consideration applies to the way in which our taste for women has changed. And is this not to be expected? It is the masculine spirit which appreciates woman, which appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which homosexuality is open, tolerated, and increasingly common; Madonna is a celebrated symbol of American womanhood; and feminine beauty is a mere commodity, like soybeans or crude oil: an age in which parents dump their daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America’s schools and cities have become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it otherwise — to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example — would be a blow against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth and nail by the feminists as a limitation on women’s freedom.

This subject is a little fuzzy, and I’ve been speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. For almost everything I’ve said, an opponent could produce a counterexample. And that’s because I’m talking about very large-scale phenomena, involving many people, many institutions, and many types of interactions. Even during periods of history which I would characterize as masculine or as dominated by the masculine spirit, one can find examples of feminine tendencies and of institutions with a feminine spirit, just as one can find masculine tendencies in our society today. For example, while I claim that our society is becoming more effeminate today, someone can attempt to counter that by noting that masculinized women are more prominent today — female lawyers, female executives, female military officers — and one can attribute that to masculine influences in our society. I would counter that by saying that when men become less masculine, women become less feminine.

Likewise, when I relate materialism and feminism, or when I say that the rise of the economic spirit is associated with a decline in masculinity, someone else can find plenty of men with no shortage of testosterone — strong, aggressive capitalists — who are epitomes of what Brooks Adams called “economic man.”

What it really amounts to is that the masculine character, like the feminine character, has many components. The component I have emphasized today is the spiritual component — and there are other components. It is a complex subject. But I still believe that we can meaningfully describe what has happened to our society and our civilization during the past couple of centuries as a decline in masculinity. I believe that such a description sheds a useful light on one aspect of what has happened to us. And I believe that Henry Adams’ comment on our society’s loss of its artistic sense and of its sense of reverence, along with its warrior spirit, is a generally true statement which has value in helping us to understand our predicament. Adams, to be sure, was a scholar of considerable depth, and he wrote a great deal of carefully reasoned material to support the one-sentence summary which I quoted.

By the way, one subject with which Henry Adams — and his brother Brooks too — were familiar in this regard was the role of the Jew in undermining civilization. Henry made a number of comments about the destructive role of the Jews in the economic and cultural aspects of European civilization. His observations on this subject are perhaps best summed up by something he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1896: “The Jew,” he wrote, “has got into the soul . . . and wherever he . . . [that is, the Jew] goes, there must remain a taint in the blood forever.” How much worse that taint has become during the century since Henry Adams made that observation!

I apologize for being so abstract in my own comments today. But I believe that it’s useful to back off every now and then and try to see the big picture, to try to develop an intuitive sort of understanding of our situation, even if it means talking about things which are by their nature somewhat fuzzy.

Reichsminister Dr. Joseph Goebbels – Speech on the Bolshevism (1937)

“Masonry was founded by Jews as a cosmopolitical institution”

Source: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.de/2012/12/masonry-was-founded-by-jews-as.html

Last week I posted on the claim from 1855 that “Masonry is a Jewish institution” by “the founder of American Judaism“, but I had to rely on a secondary source albeit a scholarly and Jewish one. Now thanks to Henry, I have the original source. Henry’s an frequent commenter on my blog, and his knowledgeable insights are usually far more informative than my posts that he’s commenting on. So a public thank you to Henry for his success in obtaining and sending me the two 157-year-old newspaper pages below.

Isaac Mayer Wise

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819 — 1900), 32nd Degree Freemason. “America’s outstanding Jew and leading rabbi during the 19th Century

In August 1855, when Wise wrote the articles below, he would have been 36 years old, and was both the editor, founder and proprietor of the Cincinnati Jewish newspaper in which they appear, The Israelite, since 1874, known as The American Israelite. With with the full articles, we are able to learn in what context he made his assertions (turns out he did it repeatedly) that Masonry was a Jewish institution.

Wise had clearly been incensed by a letter which had been published in The Boston Morning Times from an anonymous Mason from Massachusetts, in which he had claimed:

“… here in Massachusetts Masonry is a Christian, or rather Protestant institution ; Christian, as it merely TOLERATES Jews ; Protestant, as it abhors Catholics,”

Wise reprinted the letter from the Massachusetts Mason in the August 3, 1855 edition of The Israelite, and penned a response, in which he stated:

“We characterize the above principles as anti Masonic, because we know that not only Catholics but Israelites in this country and in Europe are prominent and bright Masons. We know still more, viz. that Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explenations (sic) are Jewish from the beginning to the end, with the exception of one by-degree and a few words in the obligation, which true to their origin in the middle ages, are Roman Catholic. (…) it is impossible to be well posted in Masonry without having a Jewish teacher,”

A fortnight later, in the August 17, 1855 edition of The Israelite, Wise published a letter from “A Young Mason” from Boston, Massachusetts, responding to Wise’s original article. Once again, Wise followed it with a response. This time he wrote:

“Masonry never was especially Jewish, nor is it now especially Christian, it always sustained, and according to its nature must sustain cosmopolitical character.”

But that was in direct response to an assertion by “A Young Mason”, that a Rev. Brother Randall (presumably, a Protestant clergyman and Mason in the Massachusetts), insists that Masonry “was once mainly Jewish but now it is mainly Christian.”

A clearly enraged, and at times sarcastic Rabbi Wise, went on to clarify his position that Masonry was a Jewish institution. He also insisted that Jews gave the world Christianity to gradually convert the heathens to the teachings of Israel’s prophets. And then mocks the Rev. Brother Randall, by stating that the Jews did not do him personally a favour, although he is a privileged position, being a preacher in a faith which the Jews created (as Henry pointed out: Jewish scholar Samuel Oppenheim declined to quote these passages from Wise, even though he quotes from this article in his 1910 book on Jews and Masonry):

“It is a great favour, the Rev. R. believes that the Jews are admitted in the lodges etc. of which they must be sensible and grateful. Why does he not consider it a favor, that we have the privilege of living in our houses. Masonry was founded by Jews as a cosmopolitical institution, hence it is a favor for the Jew to be admitted in the lodges, viz. in our own house. How sapient!

We Jews have given birth to the masonic fraternity as a cosmopolitical institution; but we consider it no favor to admit you in the lodge, provided, however, you leave your secterianism outside of the consecrated walls. We have given you Christianity to convert the heathens gradually to the pure deism and ethics of Moses and the Prophets; still, we consider it no special favor bestowed on you from our side, that you have the privilege of being a preacher in one of the churches.”

Masonry was founded by Jews as a cosmopolitical institution1

The Israelite, August 3, 1855 (enlarged version)

Masonry was founded by Jews as a cosmopolitical institution2

The Israelite, August 17, 1855 (enlarged version)

Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials

Published: 1996-01-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/231/

“It is the victors who write the history.”
Patrick J. Buchanan

  1. “[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.”

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,
Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148\.

  1. “Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, ‘The winner is always right’.”

Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17\.

  1. “It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority… The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan… I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority…the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration.”

Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7\.

  1. “I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria.”

Vice Admiral, Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39\.

  1. “No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Kennedy,
Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.

  1. “I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world…I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty…This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.”

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168\.

  1. “I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials… the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.”

T.S. Eliot, English poet and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51\.

  1. “I shall always have doubts about the whole ‘War Crimes Trials,’ both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.”

George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111\.

  1. “My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.”

Major General J.F.C. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43\.

  1. “This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’ That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians…. At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.”

Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII\.

  1. “I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations.”

Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H., British historian and author.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87\.

  1. “It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people’s sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier’s death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.”

Reichsmarschall Herman Göring
David Irving,
Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506\.

  1. “I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future.”

Honorable Justice Learned Hand
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.

  1. “I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since.”

The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50\.

  1. “The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege” – a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.”

In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future\.

William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx\.

  1. “The Nuremberg Trials… had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? …The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.”

U.S. President, John F. Kennedy
John Kennedy,
Profiles in Courage p.189-190\.

  1. “The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors.”

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42\.

  1. “I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure.”

Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3\.

  1. “About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”

U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft
Kennedy,
Profiles in Courage, p.191\.

  1. “I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges.”

Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47\.

  1. “To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government\.
    If an officer… should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.”

Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39\.

  1. “My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority… The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral\.

One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.”

Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67\.

  1. “The Tribunal claimed in theory the right — it certainly had the power –to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence, any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.”

F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146\.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1939 – Part 5

06.June-1939-08

06.June-1939-10

07.July-1939-01

07.July-1939-02

07.July-1939-04

07.July-1939-05

07.July-1939-06

07.July-1939-07

07.July-1939-08

07.July-1939-09

Kosher Satanic Slaughter Method