Boston: A Harvard Divinity School professor, John Strugnell, was removed this week as chief editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls not only because of his poor health, but because of a tirade against Israel and Judaism, his colleagues said. The remarks, in which he called Judaism „a horrible religion“ that „should have disappeared,“ came as a surprise to some colleagues working with him to decipher the ancient texts of the Old Testament. Strugnell made the remarks in a recent interview published in Haaretz, a Tel Aviv news-paper. In the Haaretz interview, Strugnell, 60, said he was not against Jews but their religion, according to an account soon to be published in the Biblical Archaeology Review. „I can’t allow the word anti-Semitism to be used,“ he is quoted as saying, „Anti-Judaist, that’s what I am.“
In other words… what you are about to read are other people’s strong and often quite inflammatory Reactions… to a Hateful and very destructive Belief System… The believers of which, intent upon World Dominion and enslaving the masses, are following a carefully planned and systematic scheme… seemingly unconcerned about the Reproach and often Violent anger brought down upon the Whole of their people as a Consequence.
BTW: The ADL will not be able to defend you from IaHUeH on that soon coming day!… And if you would start reading the TORAH more instead of your Tragically Twisted Talmudic Traditions.. you would quickly redifine „anti-semite“ not to mention your whole way of thinking and relating with your Neighbors!!
POPE CLEMENT VIII: „All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.“
THE GEORGIA COLONY IN AMERICA. On January 5, 1734, the trustees ordered that three Jews who had been sending coreligionists into the colony without authorization „use their endeavors that the said Jews may be removed from the Colony of Georgia, as the best and only satisfaction that they can give to the Trustees for such an indignity offered to Gentlemen acting under His Majesty’s Charter.“ (C. Jones, HISTORY OF SAVANNAH)
MRS. CLARE SHERIDAN, Traveler, Lecturer in NEW YORK WORLD, December 15, 1923: „The Communists are Jews, and Russia is being entirely administered by them. They are in every government office, bureau and newspaper. They are driving out the Russians and are responsible for the anti-Semitic feeling which is increasing.“
JOSEPH STALIN in a reply given on January 12, 1931 to an enquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America (Stars and Sand, page 316): „Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death.“
PIUS VII. Known generally as an ‘anti-Semite’ by Jewish writers.
„A careful study of anti-Semitism prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict.“ (Letter of November 11, 1933)
„Nothing more contemptible could be done than the reception of the Jews by you. I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the most vile nation in the world.“ (Letter to his brother Jerome, King of Westphalia, March 6, 1808)
COMMUNITY OF STRASBOURG, FRANCE. In an address to the ASSEMBLEE in 1790, the city’s revolutionary leaders opposed citizenship for Jews, because: „Everyone knew the inherent bad character of the Jews and no one doubted they were foreigners… Let the ‘enlighteners’ stop defaming the Gentiles by blaming them for what is wrong with the Jews. Their conduct is their own fault. Perhaps the Jews might eventually give up every aspect of their separation and all the characteristics of their nature. Let us sit and wait until that happens; we might them judge them to be worthy of equality. (Tres Humble Adresse qui Presente la Commune de la Ville Strasbourg)
H. BEAMISH, in a New York address, October 30 – November 1, 1937: „In 1848 the word „anti-Semitic“ was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word „Jew.“ The right word for them is „Jew“…
„I implore all of you to be accurate – call them Jews. There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free. No he has got you absolutely by the throat – that is your reward.“
CHRISTEA, PATRIARCH. 20th century Romanian prelate: „The Jews have caused an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. They monopolize the press, which, with foreign help, flays all the spiritual treasures of the Romanians. To defend ourselves is a national and patriotic duty – not anti-Semitism. Lack of measures to get rid of the plague would indicate that we are lazy cowards who let ourselves be carried alive to our graves. Why should we not get rid of these parasites who suck Romanian and Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them.“ (New York Herald Tribune, August 17, 1937)
Topics David Duke lectures about: The rapes by Hollywood Jewish mogul Harvey Weinstein are critical in exposing Jewish domination of America.
What the Jewish press in Israel writes for themselves is very different than what the Jewish owned press writes for the gentiles.
by Dr. William Luther Pierce
When anyone wants to eliminate a problem or overcome an obstacle, it’s usually a big help to him to understand the nature of the problem or the obstacle. If he misunderstands the nature of the problem and bases his attempt to eliminate it on that misunderstanding, he’s far more likely to fail than if he tackles the problem with a thorough understanding of its nature. That’s self- evident, and probably my worst enemies would agree with me on that. And yet there are some very important problems that are frustrating us in our efforts to solve them simply because most of us have made no serious effort to understand their true nature. We have just assumed that the nature of the problems is self-evident when in fact it is not.
The most important example of this is the assumption that the reason our civilization is self- destructing is so-called „liberal“ social and political policies. There is a general belief that we have a preponderance of liberals in our government, in the media, among school administrators, among Christian preachers, and so on, and that most of the White public goes along with the destructive policies of these leading liberals because most members of the public also are liberals.
And I’m using the word „liberal“ to designate a person who has a particular set of beliefs, much in the way a Christian has a particular set of beliefs. That is, a Christian believes, among other things, that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, born approximately 2,000 years ago in Palestine, was the son of God; that he walked on water, resurrected the dead, and performed other miracles; and that after he was crucified at the demand of the Jews he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. And a liberal believes, among other things, that all featherless bipeds are „equal“ – that is, that they all are born with the same potential and would be equal in their accomplishments if they all had the same advantages and opportunities.
And as I said, there is a very common assumption made that the ongoing destruction of our society and our civilization is the consequence of applying the fallacious belief system of the liberals to the formulation of public policy. But this very common assumption is incorrect – or perhaps it would be better to say that it misses the point. Liberal policies certainly are destructive, but they aren’t the ultimate driving force behind the assault on Western civilization and our race. And so any attempt to restore our society to health and save our civilization from ruin based on an effort to change the beliefs of liberals – to convince liberals of the incorrectness of their ideas – is likely to fail. It is likely to fail because the problem is only superficially, but not fundamentally, the consequence of a group of people – namely, liberals – basing their policies on a particular set of incorrect ideas, such as the innate equality of all featherless bipeds. The problem is not one of belief, but one of psychology, of human nature, and of the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by hidden agents.
I am sure that there are real liberals: that is, people who have thought about the world around them and then consciously adopted the liberal ideology. They constitute a fraction of a percent of the people who adhere to liberal policies and pay lip service to liberal ideas. The rest – that is, nearly all so-called „liberals“ – are liberals for the same reason that Catholics are Catholics and Lutherans are Lutherans and Buddhists are Buddhists. It has nothing to do with the ideologies of the various religions and everything to do with psychology. With a few rare exceptions, a Catholic is not a Catholic because he has thought about the world around him and decided that Catholicism is what makes the most sense. He is a Catholic because his parents and his neighbors are Catholics. He is a Catholic – or a Lutheran or a Buddhist – because he is a lemming, and lemmings don’t make up their own minds about anything. They believe – really believe – whatever they think the people around them believe.
With liberals today it’s not so much a matter of believing what one’s parents or neighbors believe as it is believing what one perceives to be fashionable in one’s peer group, and the perception most often comes from one’s television screen. It is possible to persuade an occasional liberal that his view of the world is incorrect and his policies are destructive and he should straighten out his thinking, just as it is possible to persuade an occasional Lutheran that Martin Luther really was the Antichrist and that Lutherans should beg the Pope for forgiveness and return to Holy Mother Church. It’s a hard sell in either case. And as I said, it misses the point.
The point is this: Liberals are tools. Most of them are not inherently evil or destructive, any more than a hammer used to smash a statue by Phidias is evil or a match used to burn a great library is evil. Liberals are morally neutral, like the hammer and the match. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. The evil is in the mind that plans the destruction and then uses the liberals to carry it out. And that force is the force that controls our mass media of news and entertainment. That mind is the mind that formulates the slant of the news and the content of the media entertainment; the mind that determines which news will be reported and how it will be reported, and which news will be suppressed; the mind that determines which trends will be made fashionable and which ideas will be deemed Politically Correct.
And it is that force, that mind, that malevolent spirit that we must counter: that we must be aware of in making our plan to restore our society to health and halt the ruin of our civilization. When I said a moment ago that our problem is not one of belief but one of psychology, of human nature, I meant that we should not focus our efforts on trying to change the beliefs of the liberals but rather on exposing and then destroying the malevolent entity that manipulates the liberals by exploiting their psychological compulsion to conform to perceived norms.
That’s a fact, but as I said at the beginning, most people who are interested in eliminating the problem fail to see it that way. They still want to fight the liberals rather than the hidden force behind the liberals. What I’ll do now is try to persuade you that my understanding of the nature of the problem is correct by providing a few examples or illustrations of the way in which the problem manifests itself.
We might note first the global nature of the problem, the global way in which it is being orchestrated. Almost everywhere one looks in the White world, one sees the same destructive forces at work, the same governmental policies, the same wrongheaded attitudes and fashions being promoted by the media. There are, of course, local differences of detail. The United States had a large population of Black slaves until 136 years ago, and no country in Europe has that sort of history. One would expect this difference to have a strong effect on racial attitudes and policies, but in fact the policies of governments throughout Europe and the party line promoted by the mass media of news and entertainment throughout Europe are in broad outline the same as those in the United States.
The denial of racial differences and the doctrinaire promotion of egalitarianism are as much policies of the mass media and the government in Germany, in France, and in the United Kingdom, for example, as in the United States. Most European countries have no common border with a non-White country, as the United States does, and yet one sees the same insanely destructive policy regarding non-White immigration nearly everywhere in Europe that one sees in the United States. Nowhere is non-White immigration popular, and yet every government pursues a policy of bringing non-White immigrants into the country and then favoring and protecting them after they are in. One sees the same sort of corruption of the society by Turks, by Arabs, by Blacks, by Pakistanis, by Vietnamese, by Chinese, or by other non-Whites in the big cities of Sweden or Denmark or England as in the United States. The majority of the Whites everywhere are against it, while their supposedly democratic governments and the media are for it.
A good example of this is what’s been happening in northern England recently, where Asian gangs have been attacking and terrorizing Whites, and the government and the media have been trying to blame it on „White racists,“ such as members of the British National Party, the BNP. In fact the dynamics of the current racial rioting in the Manchester, England, area and in nearby Leeds is remarkably similar to the racial conflicts we’ve seen in places like Seattle and Cincinnati recently in this country. In Seattle and Cincinnati, Blacks were attacking Whites – specifically targeting Whites, especially young, White women, for vicious beatings fueled by racial hatred – while the media tried hard to persuade the public that race had nothing to do with the attacks, and the politicians were making promises of more handouts to the Blacks and looking for Whites to arrest in connection with the rioting so that they could not be accused of „racial profiling“ because they arrested more Blacks than Whites. In the Manchester suburb of Oldham, with a population of nearly a quarter of a million-15 percent of which consists of Asian immigrants brought in by the British government against the will of the British people since the Second World War-gangs of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indians have been attacking Whites, while the media and the politicians have been trying to blame it on Whites, who supposedly provoked the Asians. Change the names of the cities, and the news stories in England about the Oldham race war or the race riot just three days ago in Leeds could have been written in this country about the riots in Seattle and Cincinnati.
I’ll read to you excerpts from a couple of news reports that came from Oldham during the last two weeks. An Associated Press International story from Sunday, May 27, reported:
At the height of the clashes – which continued off and on for seven hours, into the early hours of Sunday – up to 500 youths fought pitched battles with police in full riot gear. The fighting left the main thoroughfare in the town’s Glodwick district littered with broken bricks, shards of glass, and the hulks of several burned-out cars.
Paul Barrow, proprietor of a pub that was trashed in the fighting, said rioters burst in and began beating his patrons. „The first of them got through the door and attacked the customers with whatever they could get their hands on – bottles, stools, and glasses,“ he said.
Did you hear anything about that? I’m sure that you would have heard plenty and would still be hearing about it if 500 Whites had been the ones rioting and beating up Asians. And do you know how the rioting started? The same Associated Press International story says:
The riot apparently was sparked when a gang of white youths attacked a home in a neighborhood where most residents are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Indian origin, police said. Soon after, a group of about 100 youths from the neighborhood attacked a pub mainly patronized by whites.
Actually, gangs of Asians have been attacking Whites in Oldham for months. Most of these attacks have been ignored by the media, although an especially vicious incident earlier this year did make national headlines. In that incident Asians nearly killed a 76-year-old White man, Walter Chamberlain, when they smashed his face with bricks while screaming anti-White insults at him.
I’ll read you another news report, this one from the May 30 issue of London’s The Times:
White families barricaded the windows of their homes with planks of wood last night as residents in the Oldham riot zone retreated behind ethnic lines….
Earlier Jack Straw, the home secretary, tried to blame racial conflict in the town on intervention by the British National Party, but angry local white people told a different story. After Chief Superintendent Eric Hewitt said on television that all but a few of the 20 people arrested overnight were white, The Times sought the views of the town’s shrinking white community.
People described themselves as being under siege. Neighbors told of sending children to stay with families in Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne so that they were not injured by bricks flying through windows or kept awake at night by police helicopters….
Mr. Straw told the Oldham Evening Chronicle yesterday: „It is plain beyond doubt that relations between different sections of the community can only be poisoned by the intervention of extremists like the BNP. I utterly deplore their attempts to exploit the situation in the town.“
Straw’s comments about the BNP are nearly identical to those of the local media and government people in York, Pennsylvania, about me and the National Alliance when some of our material was distributed in York recently. I told you about that in my broadcast two weeks ago. If one isn’t aware of the underlying forces involved, that sort of global unanimity might be surprising.
By the way, Jack Straw, the United Kingdom’s minister of home affairs, who among other things is in charge of the country’s police agencies, is a Jew. So was his predecessor as home secretary, Michael Howard. I have no idea how he managed to appropriate a good English name like „Howard,“ but while he was in office Howard banned me from the United Kingdom. He told me that if I ever attempted to enter that country again I would be arrested. The reason for my banning, he said, is that I might cause a breach of the public order. I told him that I had never in my life caused a breach of the public order anywhere. But the banning still stands. A Jew is able to tell me that I cannot visit the land of my ancestors, and his order is enforced by English policemen!
What do you think is the likelihood that the present Jewish home secretary, Jack Straw, will ban any of the Pakistanis or other Asians who smashed in Walter Chamberlain’s head with bricks? Well of course, you know that there’s no chance at all of that because the same unwritten rules apply in Britain that apply here. An attack on a White by a non-White is not regarded as a breach of the public order. It’s only when a White defends himself against non-Whites that the media begin yapping about „hate crimes,“ and the government politicians spring into action.
And it’s not just Britain and the United States. The same controlling force is at work in Germany, in Scandinavia, in France, in Canada, in Australia, and everywhere else in the White world. From Switzerland to Sweden it is against the law to question the Jews’ claims about how many of them died during the Second World War in the so-called „Holocaust“ or how they died. In Switzerland people are in prison now for saying, „I’m not convinced that six million Jews were killed in gas chambers by the Germans. I think that fewer than six million Jews died during the war, and most of them died from disease in the concentration camps, rather than from poison gas.“ Say that over here, and the media will denounce you hysterically as a „Holocaust denier.“ Say it in Canada or Australia or Switzerland or almost any other country in Europe, and the government will lock you up.
It is not just an amazing coincidence that we have this global similarity in conditions at this instant in time. What we can see is the same organized campaigns, the same well-oiled legislative and social programs, the same hidden forces behind these campaigns in every country. As I said, there are differences in detail, but the same evil minds, the same schemers are at work globally. Take any program, any campaign – the current campaign by Jewish groups to have more „speech crime“ legislation enacted in the United States, for example – and if you want to see where it is headed, look at any other White country where the same program has met a little less resistance and been able to gain more ground. Where the campaign has gone in one country is where it is headed in every country, because the same malevolent force is behind it.
I’ll give you another indication that it’s not soft, weepy liberal sentiment that’s wrecking our society today, but rather a cold, hard, cunning, evil force behind the liberalism, using the liberalism to push a hidden agenda. It’s not some soggy, mushy idea that everything that somehow qualifies as „human“ is equal that is the driving force behind the ruin of our civilization, but rather it is a strongly cohesive group of people that consider themselves superior to everyone not in their ethnic/racial/religious group and only use egalitarianism as a wrecking tool against our society. My organization, the National Alliance, has for several years been publishing information on the racial differences in the incidence of HIV infection in the United States. One of our leaflets, which we have distributed widely on university campuses, points out that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely as heterosexual White males to be carriers of the AIDS-causing virus. We’ve also pointed out that while AIDS among Whites is largely a disease of homosexuals, among Blacks it’s largely a heterosexual disease. Well, when we point out this startling difference between Black and White HIV infection rates for heterosexual males, with Blacks 14 times as likely to be infected, liberals don’t want to believe it. They don’t want to believe it because it is contrary to their primary belief in equality, in the essential sameness of Blacks and Whites.
But of course, the people behind the scenes – the schemers – are concerned with facts, with reality, not with nutty notions of equality. The sophomore college girls can squeal in disbelief when we present our information about racial disparities in the spread of AIDS and can denounce us as „haters,“ but the AIDS professionals, the experts, understand the truth of the matter. I have in front of me, on my desk at this moment, a poster – a large, colorful poster – published by the Florida Department of Health, intended for distribution in Black neighborhoods. It says, in large black and red letters „1 in 50 Blacks in Florida has HIV.“ And it gives an 800 number for Blacks to call for free HIV testing.
So why aren’t the White college girls in Florida told that two percent of Blacks are HIV infected? The government is telling the Blacks this but hoping that Whites won’t find out. Why is that? Could it be that the people behind the scenes don’t want White college girls to be wary of having sex with Blacks? Could it be that they want White college girls to become infected with HIV?
I believe that’s exactly what they want. I believe that the people behind the scenes want the destruction of our people by any means, including racial mixing with Blacks. That’s why the experts, the people who know the facts about AIDS, are afraid to speak up and tell the college girls that the National Alliance is correct. They are afraid of bucking the Jews behind the scenes. I have seen this fear manifested over and over again, and it is another evidence of the powerful forces that simply use liberalism as a destructive tool against our people.
Controversial Issues Cross-Examined
Third, revised and expanded edition of 2017. Did you know that the mass media were reporting an impending holocaust of six million Jews since the late eighteen-hundreds? Did you know that the media have repeatedly exposed the stories of Holocaust survivors to be lies? Did you know that many mainstream scholars have expressed doubts about the accuracy of Holocaust history books? Did you know that historians critically investigating the Holocaust narrative are thrown into jail in most European countries, and are not allowed to defend themselves in court?
The present book addresses these and many more such issues. In the first section, it starts by defining what “the Holocaust” is and why it is an important topic. It then gives examples demonstrating that it is well to keep an open, critical mind. The second section tells the tale of many a mainstream scholar expressing doubts and subsequently falling from grace due to this “heresy.” The third section discusses in detail the physical traces and documents about the various claimed crime scenes, such as the camps at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. It investigates the claimed murder weapons: gas chambers, gas vans, crematoria and cremation pits. The fourth section thoroughly examines to what degree we can rely on witness testimony, and it analyzes the pertinent aspects of the most prominent among them. In the last section, the author lobbies for free inquiry and a free exchange of ideas about this topic, exactly because the powers that be can’t face critical questions.
Of all the thousands of books on this topic, this one gives the most-comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the critical research into the Holocaust. With its dialog style, it is pleasant to read, and with its logical organization and index, it can even be used as an encyclopedic compendium.
At half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose names are given below fell in front of the Feldherrnhalle and in the forecourt of the former War Ministry in Munich for their loyal faith in the resurrection of their people:
Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901
Bauriedl, Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879
Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, born August 8th, 1900
Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894
Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901
Hechenberger, Anton, Locksmith, born September 28th, 1902
Koerner, Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875
Kuhn, Karl, Head Waiter, born July 25th, 1897
Laforce, Karl, Student of Engineering, born October 28th, 1904
Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899
Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904
Pfordten, Theodor von der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court, born May 14th, 1873
Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th, 1881
Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, born January 9th, 1884
Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March 14th, 1899
Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898
So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes a common burial. So I dedicate the first volume of this work to them as a common memorial, that the memory of those martyrs may be a permanent source of light for the followers of our Movement.
The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech,
October 16th, 1924
Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45.
The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.
By M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D., assistant editor of TBR;
published here with kind permission from TBR.
This digitalized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.
eMail TBR – subscribe to TBR here
Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II – the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership – not the Third Reich – that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer (above right) was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a “holy war.”
Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the “New Germany” at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.
The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel – a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.
To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.
While there were sporadic eruptions of violence against Jews in Germany after Hitler came to power, this was not officially sanctioned or encouraged. And the truth is that anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) were actually nothing new. As all Jewish historians attest with much fervor, anti-Semitic uprisings of various degrees had been ever-present in European history.
In any case, in early 1933, Hitler was not the undisputed leader of Germany, nor did he have full command of the armed forces. Hitler was a major figure in a coalition government, but he was far from being the government himself. That was the result of a process of consolidation which evolved later.
Even Germany’s Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, contested the suggestion (made by some Jewish leaders outside Germany) that the new government was deliberately provoking anti-Jewish uprisings.
The Verein issued a statement that “the responsible government authorities [i.e. the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation,” saying, “we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews.”
Despite this, Jewish leaders in the United States and Britain determined on their own that it was necessary to launch a war against the Hitler government.
On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. At that time the commander in chief of the Jewish War Veterans called for an American boycott of German goods. In the meantime, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York’s City Hall as rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.
According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read “Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.” The article described a forthcoming “holy war” and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:
The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.
The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.
The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry…. In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”
The article said “worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations,” and reported that “the old and reunited nation of Israel gets in formation with new and modern weapons to fight out its age old battle against its persecutors.”
This truly could be described as “the first shot fired in the Second World War.”
In a similar vein, the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:
The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses… by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.
The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time…. In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.
However, note well that the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as “propaganda,” “mendacious” and “sensational.”
In fact, the Zionist faction had every reason to ensure the permanence of National Socialist ideology in Germany. Klaus Polkehn, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies (“The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”; JPS v. 3/4, spring/summer 1976), claims that the moderate attitude of the Zionists was due to their vested interest in seeing the financial victory of National Socialism to force immigration to Palestine. This little-known factor would ultimately come to play a pivotal part in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Jews.
In the meantime, though, German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath complained of the “vilification campaign” and said:
As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no service by giving the German public, through their distorted and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even at lies and calumny, to fight the present German government.
The fledgling Hitler government itself was clearly trying to contain the growing tension – both within Germany and without. In the United States, even U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull wired Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and urged caution:
Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated…. A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment…. I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.
This New York Daily News front page headline hailed the massive anti-German protest rally held in Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. Despite efforts by the German government to alleviate tensions and prevent the escalation of name-calling and threats by the international Jewish leadership, the rally was held as scheduled. Similar rallies and protest marches were also being held in other cities during the same time frame. The intensity of the Jewish campaign against Germany was such that the Hitler government vowed that if the campaign did not stop, there would be a one-day boycott in Germany of Jewish-owned stores. Despite this, the hate campaign continued, forcing Germany to take defensive measures that created a situation wherein the Jews of Germany became increasingly marginalized. The truth about the Jewish war on Germany has been suppressed by most histories of the period.
Despite all this, the leaders of the Jewish community refused to relent. On March 27 there were simultaneous protest rallies at Madison Square Garden, in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations. The New York rally was broadcast worldwide. The bottom line is that “the New Germany” was declared to be an enemy of Jewish interests and thus needed to be economically strangled. This was beforeHitler decided to boycott Jewish goods.
It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1. German Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels announced that if, after the one-day boycott, there were no further attacks on Germany, the boycott would be stopped. Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 – four days after the original Jewish declaration of war – saying:
Now that the domestic enemies of the nation have been eliminated by the Volk itself, what we have long been waiting for will not come to pass.
The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish-intellectual instigators, who, having made off with their capital stocks across the border in the nick of time, are now unfolding an unscrupulous, treasonous campaign of agitation against the German Volk as a whole from there….
Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched about Germany. Horror stories of dismembered Jewish corpses, gouged out eyes and hacked off hands are circulating for the purpose of defaming the German Volk in the world for the second time, just as they had succeeded in doing once before in 1914.
Thus, the fact – one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject – is that Hitler’s March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. Today, Hitler’s boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the full circumstances leading up to his order are seldom described in even the most ponderous and detailed histories of “the Holocaust”.
Not even Saul Friedlander in his otherwise comprehensive overview of German policy, Nazi Germany and the Jews, mentions the fact that the Jewish declaration of war and boycott preceded Hitler’s speech of March 28, 1933. Discerning readers would be wise to ask why Friedlander felt this item of history so irrelevant.
The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity – and not even the German Jewish community per se – that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.
“Germans! Defend yourselves!
Don’t shop at Jewish stores!”
Photo not part of original TBR article –
added by The Scriptorium.
Germany’s response was a defensive – not an offensive – measure. Were that fact widely known today, it would cast new light on the subsequent events that ultimately led to the world-wide conflagration that followed.
To understand Hitler’s reaction to the Jewish declaration of war, it is vital to understand the critical state of the German economy at the time. In 1933, the German economy was in a shambles. Some 3 million Germans were on public assistance with a total of 6 million unemployed. Hyper-inflation had destroyed the economic vitality of the German nation. Furthermore, the anti-German propaganda pouring out of the global press strengthened the resolve of Germany’s enemies, especially the Poles and their hawkish military high command.
The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable.
The boycott, in fact, was quite crippling to Germany. Jewish scholars such as Edwin Black have reported that, in response to the boycott, German exports were cut by 10 percent, and that many were demanding seizing German assets in foreign countries (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement – The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, New York, 1984).
The attacks on Germany did not cease. The worldwide Jewish leadership became ever the more belligerent and worked itself into a frenzy. An International Jewish Boycott Conference was held in Amsterdam to coordinate the ongoing boycott campaign. It was held under the auspices of the self-styled World Jewish Economic Federation, of which famous New York City attorney and longtime political power broker, Samuel Untermyer, was elected president.
Upon returning to the United States in the wake of the conference, Untermyer delivered a speech over WABC Radio (New York), a transcript of which was printed in The New York Times on August 7, 1933.
Untermyer’s inflammatory oratory called for a “sacred war” against Germany, making the flat-out allegation that Germany was engaged in a plan to “exterminate the Jews.” He said (in part):
…Germany [has] been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.
We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage….
Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the… slaughter, starvation and annihilation… fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children….
When the tale is told… the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people…
The Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell….
…What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.
…We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand….
Untermyer then proceeded to provide his listeners with a wholly fraudulent history of the circumstances of the German boycott and how it originated. He also proclaimed that the Germans were bent on a plan to “exterminate the Jews”:
The Hitler regime originated and are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps and starving and torturing them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.
Untermyer concluded his largely fantastic and hysterical address by declaring that with the support of “Christian friends… we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism….”
The Biggest Secret of WWII?
Why Germany Began Rounding Up Jews
and Deporting Them to the East
Why did the Germans begin rounding up the Jews and interning them in the concentration camps to begin with? Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained “free” inside Germany – albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges – prior to the outbreak of World War II.
That his allegations against Germany were made long before even Jewish historians today claim there were any gas chambers or even a plan to “exterminate” the Jews, displays the nature of the propaganda campaign confronting Germany.
However, during this same period there were some unusual developments at work: The spring of 1933 also witnessed the beginning of a period of private cooperation between the German government and the Zionist movement in Germany and Palestine (and actually worldwide) to increase the flow of German-Jewish immigrants and capital to Palestine.
The modern-day supporters of Zionist Israel and many historians have succeeded in keeping this Nazi-Zionist pact a secret to the general public for decades and while most Americans have no concept of the possibility that there could have been outright collaboration between the Nazi leadership and the founders of what became the state of Israel, the truth has begun to emerge.
Dissident Jewish writer Lenni Brennar’s Zionism In the Age of the Dictators, published by a small press and not given the publicity it deserves by the so-called “mainstream” media (which is otherwise obsessed with the Holocaust era), was perhaps the first major endeavor in this realm.
In response to Brennar and others, the Zionist reaction has usually consisted of declarations that their collaboration with Nazi Germany was undertaken solely to save the lives of Jews. But the collaboration was all the more remarkable because it took place at a time when many Jews and Jewish organizations demanded a boycott of Germany.
To the Zionist leaders, Hitler’s assumption of power held out the possibility of a flow of immigrants to Palestine. Previously, the majority of German Jews, who identified themselves as Germans, had little sympathy with the Zionist cause of promoting the ingathering of world Jewry to Palestine. But the Zionists saw that only the anti-Semitic Hitler was likely to push the anti-Zionist German Jews into the arms of Zionism.
For all the modern-day wailing by worldwide supporters of Israel (not to mention the Israelis themselves) about “the Holocaust”, they neglect to mention that making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible – in cooperation with German National Socialism – was part of the plan.
|Note to readers of this article who can also read German: a booklet discussing the emigration of Jews from Third Reich Germany, and the Transfer Agreement that facilitated their emigration, may be found here!|
This was the genesis of the so-called Transfer Agreement, the agreement between Zionist Jews and the National Socialist government to transfer German Jewry to Palestine.
According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German Jews were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German Jews refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders, it is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of Jews to the Middle East.
Edwin Black, in his massive tome The Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most Jews did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist movement’s influence within Nazi Germany a Jew’s best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.
Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.
The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:
A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in blocked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigrants with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.
Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not one merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:
It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German Jews, and merchandise was the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.
Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist Jews (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.
On the other hand, one can see the judicious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at this) that Zionism believed that, since Jews would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.
The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.
It served the Zionist interests at the time that Jews be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the Jews to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that “The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency.” In other words, the Zionist leadership of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world’s Jews that immigration was the only escape.
The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German Jews in 1933.
On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany’s “cruelties” to the world’s Jews while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.
For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it “proved” to many Jews that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of Jews solely by trickery and cooperation with Adolf Hitler.
For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards Jews (to keep Jews frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So the fraud continues.