Der Stürmer

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

Category: Speeches & Lectures

David Duke Radio: Why the Media Hates Nationalism

Hosted by David Duke; April 16, 2019 broadcast

Dr. Duke and Andy Hitchcock of UK on Why the ZioMedia Hates Nationalism & Examples of their promotion of Genocide!

Advertisements

David Duke Responds to Trump State of the Union

The Importance of Leadership

Source: Free Speech magazine, July 2002, Volume VIII, Number VII

by Dr. William L. Pierce

Every time I fly somewhere for a meeting or a speaking engagement, I have to spend an hour or two in airports. That’s a very democratic experience. One really sees the dregs of humanity in airports these days. It used to be that what bothered me most was seeing young White women with mongrel offspring in tow. What irritates me at least as much these days is the sight of young White males trying to look and act like Blacks. In every airport one sees these sorry specimens wearing hip-hop garb: backward baseball caps, baggy shorts or trousers, and clueless expressions on their faces. More and more one sees these slack-jawed cretins with their hair done in cornrows and pieces of metal through their lips or cheeks or nostrils.

I mentioned in a recent broadcast that I saw young Whites like this shuffling along the sidewalks of Philadelphia during one of my rare visits to that urban pesthole last month. The more White males I see garbed and groomed like Blacks, the less surprised I am to see White females leading by the hand the disgusting proof that they have been dabbling in bestiality. It’s obvious that this sort of degeneracy is rapidly becoming much more widespread. When I did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine nearly two years ago, they sent along a German photographer who had his blond hair done in dreadlocks. I don’t know why I should expect more of Germans than that. After all, they have had 57 years – two generations – of Judaeo-American forced education in democracy now. Turn on any TV receiver in Germany, and you will see much of the same poisonous, race-destroying filth from Hollywood that you see here. Young Germans watch Sumner Redstone’s MTV just about as much as young Americans do. And in Germany as in America: monkey see, monkey do.

Last year the first-place photojournalism award for the best photograph by a newspaper photographer went to Mike Urban of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for a photograph he took during the Mardi Gras riot there. I talked about that riot on this program last year. Gangs of Blacks ran through the mostly White crowd of Mardi Gras revelers, snatching purses, punching White women in the face, throwing them to the ground, and kicking them senseless, while Seattle’s cops stood on the sidelines and refused to interfere, lest they be accused of “racial profiling.” One young White man who tried to help a young White woman who had been knocked down and was being kicked by Blacks, was smashed in the head by a Black wielding a bottle and was killed. I repeatedly watched the newsreel footage of the riot, and it clearly was a Black-on-White riot.

But not entirely. There were some Whites among the rioters: “wiggers” I call them. That means “White niggers.” They’re the ones with the backward baseball caps. Mike Urban’s prize-winning photograph, which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not have the courage to publish, is of a young White woman in the crowd who has been stripped naked by a gang of men and is being pawed and sexually abused by some of them while others constrain her. Most of the 20 or so men holding the naked girl down and pawing her are non-Whites: mestizos or Blacks. But in the photograph one can see clearly three or four White males – wiggers – grinning as they help the Blacks hold the struggling girl: a shocking and sickening portrait of the reality of multiculturalism.

What should be done with wiggers? In my view they are a thousand times worse than Blacks, and when the time of cleansing for America comes, they certainly will be dealt with first.

And there’s another class of White people we can do without. They don’t wear hip-hop clothes or have their hair done in cornrows. On the socioeconomic ladder they’re a rung or two above wiggers, but they’re at least as bad as wiggers. They are the Whites who collaborate with the Jews. With the exception of the German photographer for Rolling Stone, who was a wigger, virtually all the other journalists with whom I’ve dealt are in the collaborator class. They don’t help rioting Blacks tear the clothes off White girls and sexually abuse them, but they help the Jews generate the social climate in which that sort of thing can happen. They help the Jews disseminate their multicultural propaganda. They help the Jews teach young Whites that they shouldn’t resist Blacks, that it’s all right to mix with them. They help the Jews indoctrinate politicians and police officials with Political Correctness, so that White cops are less likely to intervene to protect Whites from Blacks. Sumner Redstone could not spread his poisonous, racially destructive, hip-hop filth through his MTV channel without the active collaboration of thousands of White helpers.

And its not just the Whites who help Redstone by buying advertising on MTV or working for him as announcers or scriptwriters who are collaborators. Here’s an example: a month ago a small, nearly all-White South Dakota college town was turned upside down when it was discovered that a Black basketball player, whom the local college recently had imported from Chicago, was infected with HIV and was having sex with the White girls at the college: with lots of them. Nearly everybody at the college had to have an HIV test, and it turned out that several of the girls there already had become infected by the Black. It’s likely that a few of the White boys will be testing positive for HIV pretty soon.

The only reason this story made the news is that the Black basketball player knew he was infected and was having sex with White girls without telling them of his infection. He had found out he was infected after a routine blood test, but he kept the news to himself so as not to interfere with his sex life. Well, there’s a law against that sort of thing in South Dakota, and so now the Black is locked up and out of circulation. To me the shocking thing is not that the Black was deliberately infecting his sex partners; the shocking thing is that White college girls were willing to have sex with him, and that White college boys were willing to tolerate that sort of behavior and to have sex themselves with girls they knew had been having sex with a Black. So far as I am concerned, every White woman who has sex with any Black deserves to be infected with HIV and to die a horrible death from AIDS.

But the really reprehensible people in this story are the White college officials who imported this Black basketball player from Chicago. I imagine that before they found out that he was spreading HIV through the whole student body they were quite proud of themselves for having brought some “diversity” to this White college. I have a pretty strong suspicion that these academic idiots wouldn’t have been bothered a bit about White girls having sex with the Black if it hadn’t been for the HIV. They would be proud that they had taught the girls to be so “tolerant.” They would be happy that the White girls aren’t “racists.”

These South Dakota college officials almost certainly aren’t Jews, but they are doing the Jews’ work for them. Sumner Redstone and the other media Jews have been working for decades to create the moral and ideological climate where this sort of thing could happen – they have been making racial mixing fashionable – but without the active collaboration of White college officials and White journalists and White politicians and White Christian preachers, all of the Jews’ racially destructive efforts would have been in vain.

I’m sure that everyone listening is familiar with situations similar to that at the South Dakota college, but without the HIV. There are Christians in small communities all across the Whiter areas of America who feel guilty that their communities are so White, and many of these guilt-stricken Christians have tried to remedy the situation by importing Blacks or other non-Whites into their churches or their communities. Some of them even bring in the Blacks from as far away as Africa. And again, the Jewish media people have been the biggest factor in generating the moral and ideological climate in which being White is something to feel guilty about, but it is local Gentile preachers and teachers and politicians and journalists who actually do the destructive work of making their communities more racially “diverse.”

So what’s to be done with all of these collaborators if we want one day to have a clean America again?

The reason we’re discussing this subject today is that there is a difference of opinion among members in my own organization, the National Alliance, about what attitude we should have toward wiggers and collaborators. Some members believe that we should take the hardest possible line toward them. Whether they are wiggers or White women who consort with Blacks or White journalists who follow the Jewish party line or White politicians who do the Jews’ bidding in order to get themselves elected or any other sort of collaborator, they should all be put up against a wall and given traitors’ justice.

And some members of the National Alliance believe that we should be more understanding of the conditions, of the environment, that made these wiggers and collaborators opt for treason.

Now, all of this is pretty academic at this time, since we’re still a long way from being able to punish anybody for anything. About all we can do now is try to understand what is happening in the world around us and communicate with others, help others understand. But I should tell you that until a few years ago I was pretty much in agreement with the hard liners. I was in favor of getting rid of all of the wiggers and all of the collaborators as a first step toward building a healthy society for our people.

But my views on this have changed as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. What I have come to understand about people – our people, White people – is that there are very few, probably only a fraction of a per cent, who are consciously evil: a fraction of a per cent who collaborate with the Jews knowing that they are helping the Jews destroy our people but who do it anyway for reasons of personal gain. These collaborators fit the clinical definition of psychopath: people without conscience. I believe that most politicians are in this category.

And there are only a small minority of our people who have an innate moral sense, a minority of two or three or four per cent of the White population who are able to think independently and form their own views about what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong.

And the remaining 95 per cent or so of the population simply don’t have minds or consciences of their own. They may be bright or they may be dull, they may have good work habits or they may be lazy and careless, they may be well disciplined and have good character or they may be weak and self-indulgent slobs, but all of them conform their opinions about what is right and what is wrong, about what is proper behavior and what is unacceptable, to their perception of the opinions and behavior of their peers.

No matter how foolish we may think their opinions, no matter how perverse we may consider their behavior, they have no innate compass for judging these things; they can only conform their thinking and their behavior to the thinking and behavior they perceive in their peers. Sometimes – that is, at most times in the past, prior to the last century – what they perceived was real. They observed and listened to their neighbors at first hand. And especially they observed and listened to community leaders, to role models, to authority figures, including especially parents. So what we had in the past among this 95 per cent of our people were patterns of thinking and behavior that varied primarily with social class. But the patterns were based on perceptions of real behavior among peers.

Since the rise of the mass media during the past century, however – and especially since the rise of television during the past half-century – what has been perceived has been increasingly artificial. What has been perceived has to a large degree not been the thinking and behavior of their flesh-and-blood peers that have evolved naturally over the course of generations, but rather the artificially contrived behavior and pretended thinking of actors and actresses and commentators on movie screens and TV screens and of models in magazine advertising. Scriptwriters and film directors and spin doctors and advertising executives have to a very large degree taken the place of parents and of other natural role models in shaping the thinking and behavior of the masses. And of course, perception gradually becomes reality. Eventually we observe among our peers behavior that is very similar to that we see on our television screens. But the mass media – especially the mass media of entertainment – continue to lead and to move and to shape public thinking and public behavior.

That is a fact with profound implications. I’ll recapitulate: Most people – probably 95 per cent of the population – are neither good nor evil. They are morally neutral. Their attitudes and opinions and aspirations – their moral judgments and their behavior – are determined not by any innate sense of right and wrong but rather are conformed to the attitudes and behavior they perceive in their peers, real or artificial, and especially to the attitudes and behavior they perceive in role models and authority figures. When those role models and authority figures incorporate and display what is best in a people, then the attitudes and behavior of the masses will be good and progressive and characteristic of the best tendencies in the race. If the leaders and role models display noble qualities and greatness, then the masses will strive toward nobility and greatness. They won’t all get there, of course, but they will strive for those qualities, and many will achieve them.

If their leaders show their racial consciousness and pride and their respect for the best traditions of their people, then the masses also will be racially conscious and will try to behave in a way that displays racial pride and respect for tradition. They will not even consider mixing with non-Whites or imitating their ways, and they will not tolerate such behavior in their peers. The concept of racial treason will be abhorrent to them.

But if their role models and authority figures display the worst and weakest traits in the people, then that behavior will be reflected in the behavior of the masses. And if their role models and authority figures are mere puppets controlled by aliens whose aim is the demoralization and destruction of the people, then the masses will behave in the way we can see them behaving on the streets of Philadelphia or in our airport terminals today. That is the consequence of permitting the Jews to gain a dominant influence over our mass media of news and entertainment.

And so what is the point in shooting wiggers or collaborators, except as an educational measure, to provide an example of behavior that will not be tolerated in a healthy society? Or perhaps, in the case of wiggers, we might consider shooting the most slack-jawed among them as a eugenic measure.

The point is that what we need to aim for is not eliminating the great mass of people who have bad behavior or bad attitudes, but rather changing their role models and authority figures. We should not even think about getting rid of the lemmings, just because they have been behaving badly. They make up the great majority of every society, and it is necessary that they do so. They provide the stability and cohesiveness necessary for a viable society. A society cannot tolerate too many independent thinkers, just as it cannot tolerate too many psychopaths.

Think about these things. I know that it took me a lot of thinking and a lot of observing to become quite sure that what I have just told you is, in fact, correct. Twenty years ago, I believed that people are born with all of the fundamental traits that they will display as adults. And at one level – a very basic level – that is true. Intelligence – various types of intelligence – is a group of fundamental traits that individuals are born with. And there certainly are inherited tendencies toward certain types of behavior as well. But these are underlying tendencies, and the ways in which these underlying tendencies are expressed in individuals – the ways in which they manifest themselves as the individuals mature – are very much subject to external influences.

The 15-year-old, slack-jawed White boy encountered on a Philadelphia sidewalk who wears a backward baseball cap and baggy trousers and collects basketball cards with pictures of Black players could have turned out to be a decent White teenager instead, with pride of race and aspirations to be a policeman or a soldier or a craftsman: perhaps not a brilliant member of White society, but at least a constructive member. The 20-year-old White woman encountered in an airport terminal with needle marks on her arms and three mulatto offspring trailing behind her could have turned out to be that White policeman or soldier or craftsman’s wife, living a clean life and proudly bearing and caring for his children.

For the masses, everything depends on the examples that are set for them, on their role models and authority figures. Monkey see; monkey do.

That is why it does not behoove us to think of ourselves at war against wiggers and collaborators. When I see a White kid wearing hip-hop clothing, I still feel a strong urge to kick. And when I see a White woman with mongrel offspring, I wish that I could call in an air strike against New York or Washington or Philadelphia or Los Angeles; I really have an urge to lay waste to the whole society that tolerates such abominations.

But I understand that our task is not to kick and shoot and bomb; instead it is to communicate and to teach. We don’t need to try to communicate with the wiggers and the collaborators now. But we do need to communicate with those of our people capable of being positive role models and authority figures, and we do need to continue to build our means – our media – for reaching ever larger numbers of ordinary White people: those who have not yet been completely corrupted by the aliens who have subverted our mass media into a weapon for waging genocide against our people.

When the time comes there will be enough punishment for those who need it. But what most of our people, who are behaving badly now, need is not punishment but good leadership, good examples. And that is what we must strive to give them.

* * *

Pete McCloskey “The machinations of the ADL”

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/6567/?lang=en

By Paul N. Mccloskey
Published: 2019-03-12

Former Congressman Pete McCloskey speaks at the 13th Institute for Historical Review conference in the year 2000. His topic of speech is Israel, the Anti-Defamation League and Free Speech.

David Duke with Brian Ruhe. The Values of Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Prostitution Slavery

Fighting Together for the Future: On Occupied Germany (1999)

WATCH ON BITCHUTE

Original title: Fighting Together for the Future
Free Speech – December 1999 – Volume V, No. 12

by Dr. William L. Pierce

This week I was in Germany. I was there to participate in a congress of the youth division of the National Democratic Party of Germany: the NPD. I had been invited to address the congress. Now, don’t let that word “democratic” in the name of the party fool you. These are really decent people: nothing democratic about them at all. Political life in Germany has been rather strange since the end of the Second World War. Germany, of course, was divided into two major occupation zones at the end of the war, East and West. In the East, the only political party permitted by our Soviet ally was the Communist Party. In the Western Occupation Zone, the democratic allies, chiefly the United States, ruled. And of course, the United States did things the correct way, the “democratic” way. We had, after all, brought “freedom” to Germany, we claimed.

Our way was to permit any political party to operate and to participate in elections – as long as it was “democratic” and had approved policies. It was the same way with newspapers, magazines, and so on. There was “freedom of the press.” Anyone who wanted could publish a newspaper – so long as he was given a license to do so by the U.S. Occupation authorities. And the only people who were given licenses to publish were those certified as “democrats.” The same policy applied in Germany whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party was in power back in the United States.

Anyway, what this policy in Germany meant in practice was that publishing licenses were given only to people who could prove that they had been opponents of the prewar German government: which is to say, communists, social democrats, draft dodgers who had fled abroad to avoid military service, Jews, and the like. Jews automatically qualified for everything. And it is absolutely astounding how many of them who had miraculously managed to survive the so-called “Holocaust” suddenly appeared.

And what the policy meant for political parties was that if the Occupation authorities decided that they were not sufficiently “democratic” they were simply banned, and their leaders were thrown into prison. And the eventual withdrawal of most of the Occupation forces, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and so on didn’t change this policy. The present German government is a lineal descendant of the one installed by the U.S. Occupation army.

So today in Germany any genuinely patriotic political party is obliged to employ a good deal of camouflage in order to avoid being banned. Nobody is really fooled by the camouflage, though. Certainly, the enemies of the German people aren’t fooled: Communists, Jews, homosexuals, feminists, anarchists, and the rest generally protest outside NPD meetings and attempt to disrupt them. That happened at an NPD meeting I attended last year, but the one this week was peaceful – perhaps because it was held in a lovely, little Bavarian town, Falkenberg, where the supply of local Jews, feminists, etc. was very limited; also, because several dozen heavily armed riot police patrolled the area outside the meeting hall. If protestors had appeared, and the police hadn’t been there to protect them, there were at least 200 very sturdy, young NPD members with shaved heads and heavy boots among those attending the meeting, who would have loved nothing better than to send at least twice their number of protestors to the nearest hospital emergency room.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of political life in Germany today is the consequence of Occupation legislation prohibiting any Politically Incorrect speech: at least, any Politically Incorrect speech touching on such ultra-taboo topics as race, the Second World War, and – most of all – the Jews. There is a special branch of the German secret police called the Verfassungschutz – ironically, that means “Defense of the Constitution” – whose principal responsibility is to ferret out and arrest anyone suspected of having published or said anything in public that might be offensive to Jews. The Verfassungschutz also arrests people for displaying banned symbols or for making forbidden gestures. A German patriot must be careful never to raise his right arm in any way that might be considered “provocative” by the Verfassungschutz, even if he is only shielding his eyes from the sun or greeting a friend. A great many German patriots are in prison today for having gone afoul of the Verfassungschutz in one way or another.

What all this means is that speeches like the one I gave at the NPD meeting this week must employ what amounts to a code. One cannot say in public something like, “Jews in New York, Washington, and Tel Aviv are the principal moving force behind the immigration policy that is bringing millions of non-White immigrants into Germany.” One must say instead something like: “Those who are the enemies of every nation but their own are behind the immigration policy that is bringing millions of non-Whites into Germany.” Using this code is a bit of a nuisance, but at least everyone at an NPD meeting – and indeed, every politically aware German – understands exactly what is meant.

Unfortunately, however, millions of ordinary Germans don’t understand. Just as is the case with White Americans, most Germans are lemmings and couch potatoes. They are self-centered, addicted to comfort, materialistic, conformist, consumption-oriented, and very fashion-conscious; in fact, they are desperately eager to be fashionable, and every fashion comes to them through their television screens, just as in America. In the various German hotel rooms I was in this week, I scanned the television channels in order to sample the fare being fed to the Germans. On about half the channels were exactly the same programs seen by Americans: programs made in Hollywood or in New York by Jews, but with German speech dubbed in instead of English. On a couple of channels they didn’t even bother to dub in German.

Judaeo-American garbage culture has so thoroughly penetrated Germany that on some of the programs for the lowest-grade lemmings, programs with the dialogue consisting mostly of slang expressions and standard clichés, the average German viewer can follow the primitive English as well as the average American. MTV is an example of this. German teenagers receive their daily dose of poison from New York television Jew Sumner Redstone in precisely the same flavor as American teenagers do. And the television channels with original German programming are not really much better. No such thing as an independent idea ever appears on German television. If it did, the Verfassungschutz certainly would haul the offending programmer off to prison.

And the poison has its effect. German teenagers, at least in the cities, are looking more and more like American teenagers: slovenly and undisciplined and addicted to Negroid music, Negroid grooming, and Negroid life-styles. A disgustingly common sight is a blonde German girl walking along hand in hand with a Negro from Africa or the West Indies. All too often there is one or more flat-nosed, dusky-hued offspring toddling along after them. To the establishment politicians and the Christian clergy, there is nothing at all wrong with this. The Christian clergy, in fact, encourage it in every way they can.

Although I was never in Germany before the disaster of 1945, I have seen enough German films from the 1930s and the early 1940s to make comparisons. One of the mental comparisons I made during my trip this week was between the apathetic, brainwashed, “democratic” German youth of today and the clean, healthy, athletic, enthusiastic, and disciplined boys and girls in the German youth organizations instituted by Hitler. The boys of the Hitler Youth and the girls in the League of German Girls were proud of their nation and proud of their race and were eager to become proud citizens of a strong, healthy and progressive Germany and march forward together into a bright future. What a difference a few decades of Jewish television propaganda can make!

And television is not the only medium through which Judaeo-American “culture” has penetrated Europe. Indeed, one sees familiar American advertising slogans, in English, on about half the storefronts and billboards in the larger German cities, just as one sees graffiti in English scrawled on walls and in subway cars. This contamination of European culture – and not just German culture – has always seemed to me even worse than what the Jew has done to culture in America. Even before the Second World War the Jew had built a new nest for himself in America and moved his center of operations here from Europe. Hitler, of course, helped him make his move with a good, strong kick in the backside. Now the Jew is throwing his filth from his new nest back into the old one, fouling the source of our cultural spring. And of course, this is deliberate.

The really unfortunate thing about it is that, outside the NPD and a few other patriotic organizations, Germans do not really care about this cultural contamination, nor do they object to it. As with Americans, as long as there is plenty of beer in the refrigerator and entertainment on television, they don’t care what is happening to their country, their culture, or their race. They don’t see anything amiss in turning on their television receivers and seeing Oprah’s Black face grinning back at them.

I’ll get back to this subject of Judaeo-American cultural contamination in a minute. First, I want to mention that, despite my horror and disgust at what 54 years of contact with America has done to Germany, my whole purpose in being in Germany this week was to increase at least one facet of that contact: namely collaboration between my organization, the National Alliance, which operates mostly in America, and the NPD, which operates exclusively in Germany. In fact, as I told the NPD congress in my talk, it is essential – not just helpful, but necessary – for genuine nationalist groups everywhere to increase their degree of collaboration across national borders. The natural tendency for a nationalist group, of course, is to devote all its effort to building its strength in its own country and to educating the people of its own nation. The National Alliance is really unique in that it has no geographical restrictions on membership; we define nationality in terms of race, not geography.

Our enemy also does that. To the Jews it makes no difference whether another Jew was born in Russia or Canada or England or Brazil or the United States. All that matters is whether or not he was born a Jew. And the fact is that the Jew is the common enemy of every nation but his own and of every nationalism but his own. The same Jews who are attempting to plunder and weaken and destroy White America also are attempting to plunder and weaken and destroy Germany. And the Jews in Germany are in constant and total collaboration with the Jews in Russia, in England, in the United States, and in every other nation which is being used as a host by them. And they have had centuries of experience at such collaboration.

So if nationalists are to gain real strength anywhere – ultimately, if we are to survive anywhere – we must overcome the international Jew, and we can only do that through collaboration across national borders. If a genuine nationalist movement gained governmental power anywhere and began taking appropriate cleansing action in its own country to undo the damage done by decades of Jewish policies, then the Jews in every other country would not hesitate to combine forces and unleash all of their military strength against that one country. They wouldn’t stop even at unleashing a nuclear war if faced with the prospect of completely losing their grip on a major nation. We have seen that happen before, 60 years ago, and we must not let it happen again.

Perhaps a nationalist movement in the United States might be able to become successful without having to worry about being suppressed by outside forces, but really, we’re just about the only country for which that’s the case. Nationalists in every other country need to worry very much about Jew-instigated suppression from outside, as the Serbs certainly know. In fact, that’s what the New World Order is all about. Even in the United States, nationalists – the National Alliance, for example – can benefit from nationalist successes elsewhere.

What this means is that success for nationalists everywhere – even those in the United States – will be much more likely if all nationalists coordinate their activities: if they grow together. We must not become too successful anywhere before we have become at least moderately successful in a few other places.

Well, I talked to the NPD congress about specific ways in which we ought to be collaborating across international borders: ways beyond merely exchanging publications and inviting one another to our big meetings. I talked about nuts-and-bolts details that I won’t bore you with now.

I also talked about the spiritual side of nationalist collaboration across borders. In the long and difficult struggle that lies ahead of us, nothing is more important than a deep belief in the rightness and the necessity and the beauty of our cause. Belief should be able to exist alone, in a single individual, but in fact it thrives best in company. One person who believes very strongly in something may devote his entire life to serving his belief, but if he knows that tens of thousands of his kinsmen around the world also are serving the same belief, then he has a great advantage: the advantage of confidence, of optimism, of enthusiasm. Most of all, he will act more boldly, with more daring, in the knowledge that he is not alone. And really, there’s nothing more important for us, outnumbered and outgunned as we are, than courage, than boldness, than audacity.

Certainly, we must be wise; we must plan tactics and strategy with the greatest care; we must avoid serious errors; but above everything else we must act with confidence and boldness, and the greatest guarantor of boldness is the assurance that many others share our belief and are acting with us, that they will cheer our successes and aid us in our difficulties. And if our allies are spread throughout many nations, so much the better. That makes the rightness of our cause universal. It is not just I who believes that we ought to be free, that we ought to be the masters of our own fate: the Germans agree with me; the Russians agree; the Irish agree; the Poles agree; the Magyars agree; the Swedes agree; the Romanians agree. In every country in Europe voices are being raised now for the same cause. This certainly strengthens our mutual conviction that we are right and that we must prevail.

That, among other things, is what I told the delegates at the NPD congress in Germany, except, of course, that I had to phrase everything in the peculiar sort of double-talk required by the Verfassungschutz. And let me tell you, in plain language, nationalists everywhere need all of the moral support they can give each other, and that is nowhere more true than in Germany. The Jews really are doing a job on Germany. Munich, where I spent more time than anywhere else this week, already is one-third non-German. Turks and other Asians are everywhere. Blacks are increasingly numerous. The kindergartens and public elementary schools in Germany’s larger cities are as much as 80 percent non-German. And non-Germans continue to pour into Germany. One non-German group whose numbers in Germany have increased especially rapidly in the past two years is the Jews. They have been pouring into Germany from the former Soviet Union. The German government welcomes them with open arms and gives them a number of valuable subsidies to start them off on a more prosperous track than other immigrants. Jews from Russia and Ukraine already completely dominate organized crime, including the White slave trade, in Germany.

Whenever a German complains in public about what is being done to his country, if he phrases his complaint carefully enough so that the Verfassungschutz doesn’t lock him up for “hate speech,” the sold-out politicians, the Christian clergy, the Jews – and all too many of his brainwashed, guilt-ridden fellow Germans – are all over him, accusing him of “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” “fascism,” you name it. In Austria, which was torn away from the rest of Germany by the victorious democrats and communists at the end of the war, a conservative leader, Jorg Haider, won a surprisingly strong second-place in the elections last month. The Jews in Germany immediately went into their Chicken Little act, shrieking that the sky was falling. “Oi, veh! Vasn’t six million enough, already? Vhy do you vant to make us suffer even more, already?” Et cetera. They made the sort of viciously intemperate remarks about Jorg Haider that they make over here about Patrick Buchanan. And the really unfortunate thing about it is that Haider is not an anti-Semite. He has appointed Jews to high positions in his party. He merely opposes some Jewish policies, especially the one which is flooding Austria with non-German immigrants. But even that opposition, especially on the part of a German, is enough to send the Jews into a spitting, shrieking rage.

Fortunately, there are Germans, though Haider seems not to be among them, who want to send the Jews into something besides a rage. I was with a group of them this week in Bavaria. And their number is growing. There remains much, much more work to be done in Germany, however. The average German is still inclined to grovel and begin apologizing whenever the Jews begin complaining about how persecuted they are and how much the Germans owe them. The Germans as a whole, probably too polite and too civilized to begin with, have let themselves be beaten down by the anti-German propaganda of the postwar period until they are in a truly pitiful moral state today, with no pride and no backbone: nothing but guilt and self-hatred. With a birthrate well below the replacement level, the number of Germans is declining every year, while the number of non-Germans on German soil grows.

But the resistance also is beginning to grow, as I mentioned. The Jews and their collaborators in the government and the Christian churches are desperate to keep this resistance under control. My personal opinion is that they will fail. I want to do whatever I can do to assure that they fail, because, as I told the Germans at the NPD congress, our destinies are linked. If the Jews succeed in destroying the German nation, they will have an easier time destroying us. And if the Germans successfully resist their efforts, then our own success in overcoming the Jews and their collaborators will be much more likely.

David Duke Why James Watson was censored

Watch on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yPQrC4PIesg/

Shakespeare and Democracy: Our Culture is Not Being Passed on to Future Generations

Source: Free Speech – March 1997 – Vol. III, No. 3

by Dr. William L. Pierce

William Shakespeare is out. Maya Angelou, Frantz Fanon, and W.E.B. DuBois are in. I’m talking about fashion at American universities.

There’s been some discussion in the mass media recently about the fact that American universities are phasing out Shakespeare and the other creators of our European culture and replacing them with non-Whites of various stripes, such as the three Black writers I just named. The impression is left by the media discussion that this is some sort of fad, which, hopefully, will pass soon. The discussion was sparked by a decision on the part of the faculty at Georgetown University, the prestigious Jesuit school in Washington, to drop the requirement that their English majors study the works of at least two authors from among Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare. Now Georgetown’s English majors can graduate without ever having read anything by Shakespeare. I’m not talking about Georgetown’s basketball players or her business majors. I’m talking about the students who are seeking degrees in English literature. An acquaintance with Shakespeare is no longer necessary. Nor is an acquaintance with the writings of any other dead White European males, or “dwems,” as they are referred to contemptuously by the Politically Correct elements at our universities these days.

And this is not a fad, nor is it restricted to Georgetown University. After Georgetown made its move, a survey was conducted among the top 70 universities in America by the National Alumni Forum, and it was found that two-thirds of them have made similar moves. Instead of studying Hamlet or Julius Caesar or Macbeth. . . or Milton’s Paradise Lost or Il Penseroso or the works of any other great writers of English literature . . . students of English literature are studying the scribblings of miscellaneous non-White non-entities, or they are taking courses in such pop-culture topics as “The Gangster Film,” which is now offered to English majors at Georgetown in lieu of Shakespeare, or “Melodrama and Soap Opera,” which Duke University offers to its English majors instead of Milton and Chaucer.

Other universities have courses on comic books or checkout-stand tabloids or rap ditties. The ones with real pretensions to seriousness have scraped together English literature courses which actually require the study of books written in the English language, so long as they were not written by a White male — at least, not by a White male who has been dead for a long time. Jewish males, of course, are A-OK, and so the students spend plenty of time with the works of J.D. Salinger, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud, Herman Wouk, Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, and scores of other Jews. Unfortunately, the students are taught that the books of these Jews constitute serious English literature. It was a little harder to convince students of that when they also studied Shakespeare and Milton and could compare their writing with that of the aforementioned Jews. Now it will be easier.

As I said, this is not just a passing fad, something very trendy and liberal to suit the Clinton era. It is the outcome of a campaign which goes back more than 30 years. In the 1960s, when I was a university professor myself, anyone who had suggested that Shakespeare should be phased out of university teaching would have been thought crazy — at least, he would have been thought crazy at the university where I was teaching, which was a bit more conservative than some. But even at my university there were faculty and administration people pushing for more democracy and more “diversity.” They were promoting the idea that universities were too White and too elitist, that we needed more “diversity” among students and professors and that we should give the students more of a say in the running of the university and not leave it all to the professors.

It was really very subtle. It wasn’t until they had established their idea about the need for more democracy and more “diversity” that they moved to the next phase and began suggesting that the traditional courses in history and literature were actually a bit . . . ah . . . racist and needed to be, well . . . cleaned up a bit.

And then a few years ago you had groups of the more trendy students marching around on some campuses and chanting, “Ho, ho, ho, Western culture has got to go.” They wanted the traditional courses in Western civilization to be replaced with courses which treated all cultures equally, instead of focusing primarily on European culture. And, of course, all along Shakespeare was gradually being eased out the door. It’s just now that a few people have noticed it and raised the alarm.

And even now the anti-alarmists are telling us that it’s all much ado about nothing: that English literature students still can study Shakespeare if they want to — and that some universities still require their English literature majors to study Shakespeare — so stop worrying. And, of course, that is true: students still can study Shakespeare if they want to — but there’s no denying the trend. There’s no denying that Shakespeare actually is being eased out the door, and that the curricula at our universities are being filled with courses which at best are worthless and at worst are destructive of the central purpose of a university, which is the training of an elite to carry on and enhance the cultural traditions of our people. Our universities actually have been subverted. They actually are being turned against us and used as weapons to destroy the civilization of which they used to be a part.

How did that happen, and why did it happen? There still are many bright people, as well as honest and well-meaning people, on the faculties of our universities. How could they let anyone subvert their institutions without noticing what was happening and opposing them?

First, I’ll give a very brief answer, and then I’ll go back and explain it in detail.

Our universities were subverted without any effective opposition because, first, the subversion was done very gradually, over a period of more than three decades, and it was done by a very clever group of very determined and very well organized people who already had infiltrated our university faculties and administrations. Second, the people who should have opposed the subversion already had been morally and ideologically disarmed, so that they could only fight tactically, but not strategically. They could oppose the details of the subversion, but they could not oppose the overall campaign of subversion — and in particular, they could not attack the subverters themselves. They were fighting the subversion, in other words, with both hands tied behind their backs.

Now I’ll explain this answer. Before this century, our universities more or less served their two basic purposes, one of which is to train scholars in a technical sense — the mathematicians, the chemists, and the physicists — and the other of which is to instill in a leadership elite of our young people an understanding of and a sense of commitment to our civilization, so that they can maintain that civilization and add to it. The civilization that our universities were a part of was unmistakably and unapologetically Western, which is to say, European — or if you prefer, White.

This fact did not suit some people. In particular, it did not suit the Jews, a people of Semitic origin with quite different traditions and a quite different way of looking at the world. To them our universities were an obstacle which stood in the way of their penetration and domination of our civilization. And so they set about eliminating this obstacle, in their usual very carefully planned way. They were very unobtrusive at first, just infiltrating themselves gradually into university faculties and more or less behaving themselves, trying hard to convince the people at the universities that they were harmless. They worked to get rid of the restrictions the better universities had to limit their numbers, and they very cautiously pushed such ideas as democracy and equality.

It was only after the Second World War that they really came out of the closet and began pushing hard for the changes they wanted in the universities. The Second World War, after all, had been fought for the sake of democracy and equality, we all were told. We had killed millions of people in Europe in the name of democracy and equality and had turned half of Europe over to Bolshevik butchers to kill millions more after the war. After that, how could we oppose democracy and equality in our universities? We needed to open the doors of our universities to everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, et cetera. We not only needed to open the doors, we needed to reach out and pull in hundreds of thousands of young people who before never would have thought of attending a university.

Of course, there was some opposition to all of this. Some university people expressed concern about the lowering of standards required to accommodate all of the new students, especially the Black students. And they were assured by the proponents of democracy and equality that standards would not be lowered: that the universities could absorb Black students and all sorts of other students without lowering their standards at all. To suggest that they couldn’t was tantamount to racism; it was tantamount to claiming that Black students could not graduate in significant numbers unless standards were lowered. And this was where the people who should have defended our universities against the subverters were stuck. They didn’t want to admit to racism, so they really couldn’t fight effectively to maintain standards that clearly worked to the disadvantage of Blacks. And they didn’t want to admit to anti-Semitism, so they couldn’t really take off the gloves against the ringleaders of the subversion. So they retreated, step by step.

Of course, pretty soon many more people than the original Jews were involved in the subversion. As the number of students at the universities increased enormously, many empires were built and many vested interests established. The salaries of many people at the universities have become dependent on how many students they have. Professors who teach courses in basket-weaving or golf or the-comic-book-as-literature become fiercely defensive and can give you all sorts of reasons why their courses are important. And there has been a growing tendency to cater to the desires of the students: not to teach them what the professors know they ought to be taught, but instead to teach them what they think they want to learn. For young people raised on television and permissiveness, what they often choose are fun courses, trendy courses, trivial courses, and what they often neglect are the serious and more demanding courses. Universities, instead of scholarly institutions, have become to a large extent economic enterprises: that is, commercial institutions selling education, and the customers all too often are assumed to be right. Sometimes when a university offers a huge assortment of Mickey Mouse courses, it’s hard to separate the economic motive of wanting to keep the customers coming in the door and lining up at the cash register, from the ideological motive of wanting to be democratic by having curricula that will be easy enough for everybody.

But despite the economic factors and other factors which have degraded American universities, the motive to destroy our culture and undermine our civilization continues to provide a powerful driving force for subversion. Political Correctness was born at our universities, and it reigns supreme there. University professors must toe the party line on race, on equality, on history, and on matters relating to sex and sexual orientation. And the party line is anti-White, anti-European, anti-Western. It is strongly influenced by the interests of feminists, homosexuals, and Jews.

One factor which obscures the seriousness of this problem is its uneven effects. It has devastated some academic disciplines and left others relatively undamaged. If one wants to become a mathematician, for example, there are many universities which still offer top-quality mathematics curricula. The Red Guards have not yet gotten around to applying the canons of Political Correctness to mathematics. It helps, of course, that most basketball players don’t care much for math.

But if a young person is interested in literature or history, he is likely to be badly shortchanged at most American universities. These are subjects on which the Red Guards have left their mark, and it is easy to understand why.

History is an inherently racist subject, although I can hear the gutless wonders who try to teach it squealing in protest at that verdict. History is racist because, in the first place, it involves the study of what various peoples and individuals have actually done, not what the theorists of democracy and equality would like us to believe they have done. History gives us a continuing proof of the fact that there is no equality in the world. It is a record of heroic accomplishment and outstanding virtue on the part of some, contrasted with chronic ineptitude and appalling iniquity on the part of others.

In the second place it provides the indispensable basis for a sense of peoplehood, a sense of rootedness, a sense of racial identity. It is not something you want spread around when you are trying to reduce a population to a mass of rootless, cosmopolitan, interchangeable human atoms.

Finally, history gives us some very inconvenient truths, especially about the origins and conduct of the two world wars in which we have participated in this century. Perhaps the undergraduates will sit meekly in their classrooms and soak up whatever lies the professor dishes out, but it’s still dangerous because some of the students may develop a real interest in the subject and do some reading or real research on their own, and there’s no telling what sort of Politically Incorrect things they may discover.

And literature . . . well, that’s at least as dangerous as history. Who can read the Iliad without his blood beginning to race and without feeling a connection to those ancient people and events? Who cannot be moved by the same spirit which moved Homer? And that spirit has nothing to do with the sickly spirit of democracy and equality. Dangerous stuff, indeed!

And then there’s Shakespeare! There was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he. He stripped away every pretense and showed us as we are, the good and the bad — but hardly equal! The great danger in literature — in real literature, in great literature — for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to understand ourselves and to place ourselves in the context of our people. It helps us to complete ourselves and to become whole. It expands our horizons, helps us to see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models — and those ideals, in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats.

And the people who run most of our universities these days are frightened by that prospect. In their view it is much better to feed our young people the sick, Semitic, anti-heroic blather of a Bellow or a Malamud or a Mailer than to let them get carried away with the dangerous, undemocratic ideas of Homer or Shakespeare.

And so our universities have become what they have become. And the people who should have stopped it from happening didn’t, because they were afraid to deal with the fundamental issues. They were afraid to deal radically with the problem.

And now, looking at the situation objectively, it is still possible to study hard and to learn at our universities — at least, in most curricula. That is undeniable. But it also is undeniable that the average graduate of our universities is seriously deficient in the arts of civilization. And that’s the way the subverters of our universities want it.

It’s a serious problem. We have a job to do at our universities someday which will make Hercules’ cleansing of the Augean stables seem like good, clean fun. Let’s hope that we can begin that job before Shakespeare has disappeared completely down the Memory Hole.

The Significance of the Holocaust

Source: Free Speech magazine, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 9

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I was very pleased by the response to last week’s broadcast. I’ve always thought that most people are more interested in specific, anecdotal, and personal commentary than in more general and impersonal commentary, and that’s why I so often talk about very specific instances of Black crime, or liberal hypocrisy and nuttiness, or political corruption and treason, with names, dates, and places. But I am pleased to note that we do have many listeners who really care about the general principles underlying all of the specifics.

Today I’ll begin in a general way, but then we’ll move on to specific evidence to support the general theses. We’ll start with the general role of the Jews in European or White or Aryan or Gentile society, whichever term you prefer. My thesis has been that the Jews — as a whole — always are destructive: morally destructive, socially destructive, even intellectually destructive, but above all racially destructive. Any society, any nation, any people that gives the Jews a free hand to do what they want will be destroyed by them. This is so because it is in the nature of the Jews to destroy everything that is non-Jewish, and because the Jews have a unique faculty for destroying other peoples’ societies.

I’ll come back to this thesis in a moment with some evidence, but first we should note the problems it presents to us in our educational program. One problem is the inability of many of our people to generalize at all. They see everything only in individual and personal terms. You tell them that the Jews as a whole are destructive to our society, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, that isn’t true, because I know some Jews who aren’t doing anything destructive at all. They’re just minding their own business and trying to earn a living like everyone else.” They can’t quite grasp the concept of Jews as a whole; all they can see are Abe and Dave and Izzy and Sara as individuals.

A second problem is the other side of the coin: many of our people cannot think about the role of the Jews objectively because they have been convinced that the Jews as a whole aren’t like everyone else; they’re special and deserve special consideration; they’re not subject to criticism like other people. And I’m not referring primarily to the fundamentalist Christians, whose preachers have taught them that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and can do no wrong. I’m thinking of the somewhat more sophisticated people, who have been taught by the mass media and the schools that the Jews are exempt from criticism because of their unique victim status. They suffered so much in the Holocaust that they deserve special consideration, and to accuse them of bad motives or wrongdoing is like kicking someone who is down.

Certainly, if we exclude the most primitive and superstitious Christians from consideration, it is the massive Holocaust propaganda that makes it difficult for most people to think objectively about the Jews. And let me tell you, it was planned that way. We’ll talk a lot more about that, but first let me finish my general thesis.

I said that the Jews as a whole are socially, morally, intellectually, and racially destructive, and that they have a unique faculty for being destructive. The reason for this is their unique mode of existence as a parasitic minority in a non-Jewish host population. Sometimes this dispersion — or diaspora — as a minority among Gentile hosts has been supplemented by a geographical concentration of Jews in Palestine or Babylon or another Jewish center, and sometimes not. In either case, parasitic is the applicable adjective.

There are other parasitic minorities, of course, but none are anything like the Jews. Gypsies, for example, exist as a parasitic minority in most White countries. Gypsies generally are considered a nuisance because of their proclivity for stealing, and when they become too much of an irritation they are chased away by the local people. But Gypsies never have an ambition to take over a White nation and suck it dry. They never try to subvert the host population. They never try to take over the schools or the newspapers and propagandize their hosts. They generally want to live among themselves, maintain their own identity, and exploit their hosts just enough to get by without causing a strong reaction.

The Jews, on the other hand, always try to take over. They don’t want the crumbs from Gentile society; they want everything. Gentile society, of course, resists, which is why the Jews have been expelled en masse from every nation in Europe, time after time, during the past thousand years. The Jewish method of overcoming the resistance is to corrupt the nation they are attempting to get their hands on. One aspect of the corruption is simple bribery. If you have enough money you may be able to buy privileges from the leaders of the nation. That worked when European nations were ruled by kings, and it works even better when a society is run by elected politicians. But if you really want to suck a nation dry, you need to go beyond bribery. You need to destroy a nation’s solidarity. A nation is, after all, like a large extended family, with everyone related by birth, even if very distantly.

You’re either in the family, a member of the nation, or you’re an alien, not in the family. That’s the essential distinction. So if you want to take over a nation, you need to make the members of the family, the citizens of the nation, forget their identity and their traditions. You need to corrupt the nation spiritually and morally as well as politically. You need to erase the distinction between insider and outsider; then you are no longer an outsider, and the resistance against you crumbles. Understand? That is and always has been the Jewish method: take over a nation by destroying it, by making a rootless, cosmopolitan, multicultural cesspool of it.

In other words, you need to gain control of the flow of information and ideas in the nation. You need to gain control of the mass media of news and entertainment. Then you can corrupt the nation’s soul. You can determine which opinions will be fashionable, and which will not. You can reshape the defining myths of the nation to suit your own ends. You can poison the minds of the children and turn them against their own people. You can steal the people’s knowledge of their own past from them and thereby be in a better position to steal their future too. You can plunder the nation at will. And that is exactly what the Jews have done to every Gentile society, every White nation, since the Second World War.

Of course, corrupting a nation’s soul may turn out to be a fairly large and complex undertaking, and lots of tricks may be required to get the job done. When it comes to tricks, however, the Jews are in their own element. The slickest and most effective trick the Jews have pulled since the war is their famous Holocaust trick. I’ve spoken with you before about the Holocaust. I’ve pointed out that the way to see through the trick is to examine it piece by piece, claim by claim, detail by detail. That’s the way to separate the lies from the half-truths that they have skillfully woven together. That’s why anyone who refuses to swallow the thing whole, anyone who refuses to bow and genuflect in the presence of the Holocaust, anyone who irreverently says, “Well, let’s examine this thing and see what it’s made of,” is denounced hysterically as a “Holocaust denier.”

Today we’ll look at what a Jew has to say about the Holocaust trick. The Jew is Norman Finkelstein. He is a professor at the City University of New York, and he’s a leftist. Like some other leftist Jews, he’s at odds with what he sees as a fascist government in Israel. More than that, I believe, is his concern that the greedier and more ambitious Jews will overreach themselves and bring disaster down on the heads of all the Jews. He’s especially concerned that the Holocaust myth will come unraveled and result in an enormous Gentile backlash against the Jews. He would like to defuse the thing before it blows up. And so Finkelstein has just had a book published for that purpose. It is titled The Holocaust Industry, and his fellow Jews are not happy about it. In fact, they are screaming for his blood. It is a dynamite book. It was published last month, and you can get a copy from my company, National Vanguard Books, or from Amazon.com, even though you probably won’t find it in your friendly neighborhood bookstore.

Finkelstein spends the first few pages of his book documenting the fact that the Holocaust is a Jewish myth constructed more than 20 years after the end of the Second World War. The term did not come into general use until after 1967. Everyone understood, of course, that Jews had died during the war. No one questioned the fact that there were concentration camps where many Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other undesirables were segregated from German society. No one questioned the fact that toward the end of the war, when conditions in Poland and Germany became chaotic, conditions became even worse in the concentration camps, and many concentration camp prisoners, weakened by malnutrition, died from typhus and other diseases. No one questioned the fact that on the eastern front there were mass shootings of Jewish hostages or that Jewish political commissars were separated from Soviet POWs and shot. Many civilians on both the German side and the Jewish side died during the war.

But it wasn’t until more than 20 years after the war that Jewish leaders calculated that there was much to be gained by portraying Jews as the principal victims of the war, and so the Holocaust myth was constructed for this purpose. Mixing some facts — usually exaggerated or distorted facts — with lots of invention, the skilled mythmakers of Hollywood and New York brought forth the Holocaust, in which innocent Jews became the principal victims of the war, pushed into “gas ovens” by the millions by sadistic Nazis.

Finkelstein notes that the two defining dogmas of the Holocaust were, first, the claim that it was unique, the claim that no other persecution in all of history was even close to the Holocaust in magnitude or severity, the claim that the Holocaust gives to Jews the status of the premier victims of the world. Nobody else has suffered as much as the Jews have — and so nobody else is entitled to as much sympathy and compensation as the Jews. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to sacrilege.

The second defining dogma of the Holocaust was that it was a completely irrational act on the part of the Germans and was in no way based on anything the Jews themselves had done. The Jews, in other words were wholly blameless victims. To suggest that perhaps it was some behavior on the part of the Jews which provoked the Germans was to “blame the victim,” a very Politically Incorrect sin. It was a transgression against this second dogma — the dogma of irrationality — which caused one of Germany’s most distinguished historians, Ernst Nolte, to be cast into the outer darkness by the Jews and their Gentile allies. Nolte has pointed out in his writing that one of the reasons Hitler was determined to break the grip of the Jews on German society was their support for communism, and this also was one of a number of reasons the German people shared Hitler’s dislike of the Jews. The overwhelming role of the Jews in Soviet communism — and also in the communist movement in Germany before Hitler became chancellor in 1933 — was well known in Germany and elsewhere. And the atrocities committed by the Jews against the Gentile populations of those countries under communist rule — the artificial famine in Ukraine in which millions died and the mass shootings of Ukrainian peasants, for example — were well known also. So when Nolte received an award last month for his work as a historian, the Jews went into their Chicken Little act, a lot like the act they staged when Austrian Jörg Haider’s party entered the Austrian government a few months ago. Nolte was being rewarded for “blaming the victims” the Jews and their apologists screeched.

Finkelstein quotes some of the leading Holocaust propagandists in this regard. They see any form of anti-Semitism as a “Gentile mental pathology” with no rational basis. According to Holocaust high priest Elie Wiesel the anti-Semite is driven by:

. . .irrational arguments and simply resents the fact that the Jew exists.

Wiesel writes:

For two thousand years . . . we were always threatened. . . . For what? For no reason.

Daniel Goldhagen, the author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, one of the most outrageously self-serving Holocaust propaganda books, writes that anti-Semitism is:

divorced from actual Jews . . . fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action . . . independent of Jews’ nature and actions.

The Jewish novelist Cynthia Ozick explains it by saying:

The world wants to wipe out the Jews . . . the world has always wanted to wipe out the Jews.

Finkelstein’s book is especially valuable because it is so well documented. He cites dozens of other books and gives specific references to a number of especially revealing statements by other Jews. He also spares no scorn in talking about charlatans such as Wiesel and Goldhagen. He shows up Wiesel as a pious fraud whose standard speaker’s fee for lying about what happened during the Second World War is $25,000. Wiesel’s popularity is based on his ability to look solemn and spout utter nonsense without cracking a smile. He doesn’t talk about reality but about the sacred, ineffable mystery which is the Holocaust, a mystery beyond all understanding or explanation, which must never be examined or questioned. And his Gentile audiences just eat it up. I must admit that I thought a Jew couldn’t be embarrassed by this sort of fraud, but apparently Finkelstein really is embarrassed by Wiesel.

Finkelstein’s explanation as to why the Holocaust was invented is essentially the same as mine: the Holocaust gives the Jews immunity from criticism for whatever they do to non-Jews, no matter how atrocious, and it gives them a rationale for demanding a handout from the rest of the world. Finkelstein does a very creditable job of establishing this explanation by detailing the way in which the Jews have squeezed the Swiss and others for billions of dollars in Holocaust reparations. He writes:

In recent years the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket.

Certainly, Finkelstein’s book should be read by anyone interested in what the Jews are doing. It is filled with very valuable information. It does have one extremely serious shortcoming, however. It blames the Holocaust fraud on a few greedy and unscrupulous Jews. Finkelstein writes about the activities of some of these Jews: Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and so on. And the greed and pushiness of these Jews is indeed breathtaking. Finkelstein reveals, for example, that Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi-hunter, rents out his name to the Simon Wiesenthat Center in Los Angeles for $90,000 a year. Actually, that’s a good deal for Rabbi Hier and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Hier rakes in millions of dollars every year from guilt-stricken Gentiles by reminding them that they didn’t save enough Jews from Hitler during the Second World War.

But the fact is that if there were only a few greedy conspirators involved, the Holocaust industry never would have made a profit. The average couch potato never would have heard of it. The average soccer mom wouldn’t feel a twinge of guilt whenever Elie Wiesel invokes the sacred Holocaust mystery. So-called “Holocaust studies” would not be a part of the curriculum for high school students in 17 states. Israel wouldn’t be able to build a huge arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without a peep of protest from anyone and then demand successfully that Iraq be bombed back into the Stone Age for trying to do the same thing.

The fact is that the Holocaust industry was built first and foremost by the mass media, and literally hundreds of thousands of Jews labor in that particular vineyard. A few ambitious Zionists and greedy Jewish hucksters may have come up with the original idea, but Steven Spielberg has done infinitely more to build the Holocaust myth than all of the greedy Zionist officials together. Furthermore, the Holocaust has been endorsed and supported by nearly the entire Jewish community. Nearly every Jew wants his share of Holocaust profits. Those like Finkelstein who have done anything at all to expose the fraud or even to disassociate themselves from it are a very tiny minority. Finkelstein certainly understands that, but he doesn’t admit in his book that he understands it. He doesn’t want to indict the Jewish community as a whole for the fraud, but in fact, it is the Jewish community as a whole that is guilty.

I said earlier that the Jews as a whole are destructive, and I used the example of the Holocaust to support this statement. The Holocaust is supported by and benefits Jews as a whole, not just a few of them, and the Holocaust is destructive to us, to our nation, in a thousand ways. The Holocaust shields Jewish organized crime in America, for example. Janet Reno’s Justice Department is afraid to tackle the big Jewish gangsters the way it tackled the Italian Mafia. The White sex-slave trade is able to flourish in Israel, and no politician in the United States will do anything to oppose it because it is a Jewish business. No politician in our government will threaten to cut off aid to Israel. Hillary Clinton can participate in an international conference on protecting women and deliberately and knowingly sabotage any measures that might put a crimp in the Jewish trade in sex slaves, and no one has the courage to criticize her for it. There’s really a lot more than crime and money and political corruption involved in this Holocaust racket. We let it control us, we let it rob us of our courage, and it destroys our souls.

Well, I’ve spoken in earlier broadcasts about many of the issues involved in the Holocaust racket. I’ll speak about other Holocaust issues in future broadcasts. It’s a big subject, with many facets. What you can do now is read Professor Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry. And then think about what you’ve read in the book while you watch the Bush campaign dance all around Al Gore’s vice-presidential choice Joseph Lieberman, afraid to lay a glove on him. You’ll understand why they’re afraid to say anything critical of Lieberman.

* * *

The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery Part II – The Media Coverup

Dr. David Duke exposes the Jewish role in the African and global slave trade.