Kaboom!
August 3, 2009 
45 Comments
We’ve never before seen a wedding cake that so perfectly captures the essence of miscegenation: two deranged people strapped to a mine. Our compliments to the bakery.
For a long while, every wedding had to be more costly than those that preceded it. Call it the wedding bubble, and now no one can keep pace. The status symbol has now become low-cost weirdness; dancing in the aisles or wearing something strange. Long gone is the understanding that a wedding ceremony is an act of worship.
The hateless get their own church.
Negroes never devised the wheel or the sail, as everyone knows, but even more shocking, they never discovered alcohol on their own. Alcohol is the oldest commodity known to man. Even honey, berries, and porridge ferment. Since the Bible is clear that the blessing of alcohol was well known and cherished in the antediluvian world, one can’t help but wonder if Negroes are any relation to those people.
This guy and this guy are working through some issues right now. This girl is completely normal.
Black men have trouble committing to marriage and fathering legitimate children, but this one is in a stable relationship.
A mixed-race person cannot possibly be a racist, says the Morning Joe crew.
Obama makes us “white people feel like we’re trying really hard.” And only a racist could be critical of this.
In this excellent Steve Sailer article about W.E.B. DuBois’s “talented tenth,” Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest advisor, is said to have skin “the color of the third cup you try to boil out of an Earl Grey teabag.” Something needs to be done about the colorism of putting so many light-skinned blacks in lucrative and powerful positions. The EEOC needs to get involved and explain to the high-yellers that we’re all equal.
“Isn’t it amazing that one single cop with balls has inflicted more damage on the President of the United States than the entire Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, and the ‘conservative’ movement combined?”
A Google search reveals over 1,980,000 hits for the term “black scholar,” as Henry Louis Gates is invariably called. A search for “white scholar” yields only 17,500 hits. “Are blacks more ‘scholarly’ than whites? Are they more accomplished than whites? Or is there a pathological need to label blacks as ‘scholars’ in an effort to elevate them in society?”
Stupidgate, as you’ll recall, was when Obama said he is biased in favor of his friend, and then went on to accuse the police of being stupid for acting in a biased manner. An excellent statement from Greg Johnson:
Since Gates is the more powerful of the two, did he treat officer Crowley magnanimously, as powerful men are supposed to do with weaker men? Of course not. Magnanimity is an Aryan virtue. Instead, Gates played the victim, counting on being able to cast Crowley as another Mark Fuhrman. Gates has been lavishly rewarded for a lifetime of simpering about racism, so why would one expect anything else?
Gates is a bully playing the victim. The moral obscenity of his behavior is perfectly captured by an old Polish proverb: “The Jew cries out as he strikes you.”
Speaking of bias, we agree with Sonia Sotomayor that a judge can never be truly impartial or objective. She said it would be a “disservice both to the law and society” for judges to disregard personal views shaped by one’s “differences as women or men of color.” The primary reason why the Bible tells us that a stranger is not to rule over us is that no one else is going to take our interests to heart. In Scripture, obligations are never presupposed to be within the realm of the impersonal. They are always set in the context of neighborly relations. The problem with Sotomayor is not that she is biased but that she is not one of us. It’s also important to realize that the Supreme Court is very much like a shared monarchy. The decisions of this court can’t be overridden, and its justices bind themselves to precedent. This casts the president as a sort of Prime Minister to the Crown, and there is no longer really a bicameral legislature. No referendum is final, no law is final, until the kings and queens have their say. So the matter of kin-rule has particular relevance here. Of course, our founding fathers did not invest the Supreme Court with the power it has taken. They considered it to be more of an advisory panel; certainly not a place where “policy is made,” as Sotomayor believes.
Just as the head of the Black National Chamber of Commerce is outraged by comparisons to others of his race, Senator Patrick Leahy considers any mention that Sotomayor belongs to a group called “The Race” as underhanded racial politics. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The famous “wise Latina” comment first appeared in the La Raza Law Journal. How do you think a court appointment would go if the nominee had anything to do with the White Pride Law Journal?
“Teachable moments” abound! It’s actually quite amazing, because now, to use an unappreciated word is to be guilty of “hate.” And then for this coach to keep his job and be released from the stigma of “hate,” he must march in a “gay pride” parade, which is nothing less than an endorsement of the behavior. This is why Christians who love to complain about “racism” but still wish to preach against faggotry will not be let off the hook. We’ll all be one big hateful family, and that is how it should be. Regardless of what syncretists might believe, there is an antithesis, and therefore it is not possible to be filled with love without also being filled with hate.
When a black man kills a beautiful white girl like this, you can be sure that it won’t be called a hate crime. Instead, it is called a “botched robbery,” just as the horrific Christian and Newsom murders were called a botched carjacking. Nor is it a hate crime when a brick is thrown through a window with a note attached: “Keep Eastside Black.” The Austin police department does not consider this to be a hateful message. But if we want our neighborhoods white (no bricks involved) we’re called every kind of hateful name imaginable. The local NAAHYP agrees with the Austin poe-lease, saying that blacks are justified in resenting new white residents, since white investment dollars are raising property values.
Speaking of Christian and Newsom, many of the details that we now know were being covered up by the press and police in Knoxville were first trumpeted by Hal Turner. You can see him in our video of the first rally in Knoxville. That event was organized by Alex Linder, but he was promptly arrested for getting too close to the clowns, and Turner hopped up on the steps of the old courthouse to speak. There are two interesting things about this: 1) Turner was correct, as details that have emerged in hearings for the African killers have shown; 2) Turner was all along an informant for the FBI, as his attorney now admits. It’s usually easy to spot agent provocateurs, because they like to shout about killing enemies rather than protecting their people. Turner hoped to keep himself in business by being a double agent, but as you can see in his correspondence, he was a royal pain for the FBI. The usual suspects are gleeful over his downfall, but there is really only one lesson to be learned from it: The vast majority of white nationalists are nothing like Hal Turner or James von Brunn, and are simply seeking peaceful political change. This won’t prevent the SPLC from tarring them with the same brush, and it won’t prevent the same authorities who worked with Turner from believing everything the SPLC says.
The Knoxville trials were supposed to begin last summer, but they were delayed for an entire year. This, in itself, is an utter miscarriage of justice. The first trial is supposed to begin next week, which probably means that sentences will be handed down more than three years after the crime. I once heard R.J. Rushdoony say that the Roman empire, before it collapsed, had backlogs in the courts of up to 40 years.
“Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” ~ Ecclesiastes 8:11
Here are some pictures of Channon’s gravesite, right along I-40 on the west side of Knoxville.
Yes, it will shine forever, if we have our way. This plaque is hanging just to the right of the grave.
Yes, you will be remembered by us “racists.” Here is one of Channon’s bracelets resting on a lamp to the left of the grave.
And in the same cemetery is a statue of Moses, the lawgiver. He looks quite out of place in our lawless age.
If someone would like to do a great service, we need a mash-up in Google maps to list areas of interest and memory. The address of Channon’s resting place is Highland West Memorial Park, 9913 Sherrill Boulevard, Knoxville, Tennessee. Chris Newsom is buried at Woodhaven Memorial Gardens, 160 Edgemoor Road, in Powell. The house where the two were murdered was at 2316 Chipman in Knoxville, off Cherry Street. It has since been demolished, which is a good thing. Another point of interest is 1200 Roswell Road in Marietta, Georgia, where Leo Frank, the Jew who killed Mary Phagan, was hanged by vigilantes. We need to have an online map listing places like this all over the country. Also on Roswell Road is the old Roswell Mill, the site of one of General Sherman’s most evil acts.
As a Cheyenne Indian is reputed to have said, “A nation is never defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground.”
Sherman’s military just wants to help you.
The great Senator Theodore Bilbo said his political opponent in 1911 was “a cross between a hyena and a mongrel…begotten in a nigger graveyard at midnight, suckled by a sow, and educated by a fool.” Bilbo was almost a national hero. He garnered 2.5 million signatures for a bill, drafted by Madison Grant and Earnest Sevier Cox (and applauded by Marcus Garvey in Jamaica), to repatriate all blacks to Liberia, as Lincoln also had desired. The land was to be provided by Britain and France as payment for their war debts. The billion dollars in costs were to be recovered by savings in welfare payments once the Negroes were gone. Bilbo joked that Eleanor Roosevelt could be sent along as well to rule as “Queen of Greater Liberia.” Then came WWII, and the opportunity was lost. Jews were victorious in many ways through their lies about the war, and their ultimate triumph came in 1965, when the immigration restrictions from 1924 against them and non-whites were repealed. Bilbo was very, very close to saving the country, but it was not to be. Take your choice, he said: separation or mongrelization. We revere his name.
Actually, the war had been lost much sooner than this. As Hamilton J. Eckenrode, the official historian of the state of Virginia, wrote in his 1923 biography, Jefferson Davis, President of the South:
The South fought for the race which has made the world what it is, for the agricultural organization of life, for political conservatism, for social order… Between two groups of Nordics fighting a mighty fight was this difference – that one fought for the Nordic race, the other against it… The chief result of the Civil War was the ruin it brought on the Nordic race in America… In the more than half century since the great struggle, immigration has swamped [us]. The New England of today…contains a thin Nordic upper class and a mass of factory workers of almost wholly non-Nordic stock… [T]he South [too] is changing, and the time must come when it, like the rest of the country, will be largely non-Nordic.
But what has Jefferson Davis to do with all this? Much. The Southern Confederacy was, essentially, a protest against modernity. It was…the effort of the Nordic race to save itself. If it had succeeded, there would have been a new chapter in history… Success depended…on Jefferson Davis. He failed…and with him faded the last hope of the Nordic race.
But not the very last Hope. There was no winner in that epic contest, of course. The South was assassinated and the North committed suicide. (Our “places of interest” map absolutely must include Abbeville, South Carolina, where Southern secession began, where John C. Calhoun practiced law, and where Jeff Davis dissolved the Confederacy in the living room of the Burt-Stark House. Teach your children true history, not Jew-history.)
Al Kronkrite is one of our favorite writers. I don’t know where else you can go to read about both R.J. Rushdoony and Ted Weiland, except here, perhaps.
Pastor Weiland writes about early attempts by Jewish settlers to have religious tests removed from state constitutions. He records the fact that several of the Founders were indebted to a Jewish broker name Haym Salomon, a member of Mikveh Israel Synagogue in Philadelphia. Salomon was a participant in an effort to have the Christian religious test removed in Pennsylvania.
James Madison was a recipient of Salomon’s monetary favors. Madison wrote, “The kindness of our little friend [Salomon] in Front Street, near the coffee-house, is a fund which will preserve me from extremities, but I never resort to it without great mortification, as he obstinately rejects all recompense.”
Both President Washington and Benjamin Franklin had close relationships to Jewish leaders. President Washington had several Jews on his staff and Benjamin Franklin “was sufficiently friendly with them to be one of the contributors to the building fund for Philadelphia’s first synagogue, Mikveh Israel. Samuel Keimer, an English printer who was one of Franklin’s first employers, was a Jew.”
Pastor Weiland explains that these men were Talmudic Jews, and Talmudic law conflicts with the Hebraic Law of the Bible. It was Article VI of the Constitution and the First Article of the Bill of Rights that opened the door for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Satanists, or any other religion you can imagine to be a part of the governing body of our nation. He writes, “Since the ratification of the federal Constitution and the eradication of the states’ Christian test oaths, the nation’s laws – including America’s current legislation concerning capital punishment and infanticide – have reflected Talmudic law more than biblical law. It cannot be argued that the ban on the religious test clause was issued because a federal test was unnecessary in light of the states’ constitutions. It was not the intent of the federal Constitution to leave the decision of religion solely to the states but, instead, to pave the way for deists, atheists, and even (and it would seem particularly) antichrists, to hold public office.”
“All vows, obligations, oaths or anthems, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, aforehand, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned as vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths.”
This is the Kol Nidre, a “prayer” recited by Jews on Yom Kippur. Christians invented the Oath More Judaico because of it, as a way to extract promises from lying Jews. Because of the dishonesty of Chosenites, Byzantine emperor Justinian I declared that neither Jews nor heretics should be admitted as witnesses against Christians. But now Americans think they make good judges, lawyers, professors, doctors, and money managers. It seems odd that the country is self-destructing under such conditions.
Jews consider quotations from the Talmud to be insulting, but as Walter Matthau said in Hello, Dolly, when he was accused of leveling insults, “All the facts about you are insults.”
I saw a bumper sticker while driving through a parking lot recently: “Become More Jewish – Believe in Jesus.” I nearly wrecked my car because my eyes rolled back in my head and I couldn’t see a thing.
This article makes some good points about the value of Kevin MacDonald’s work.
Microevolution…allows Evangelicals to explain how the same “kind” can change over time, but not fundamentally. Evangelicals use microevolution in order to explain how the immense diversity of peoples that are in the world sprang from only one founding couple, Adam and Eve. Consequently, Evangelicals should have no problem in seeing Adam and Eve’s offspring as being affected by natural selection, group competition, and the conscious selection of traits in mates. Indeed, much of the evolution that Kevin MacDonald talks about naturally falls under the rubric of “microevolution,” and does not seem to be against scripture. In conclusion, Evangelical Christians would do well to follow the Berean example and treat Kevin MacDonald’s work evenhandedly. Examine it carefully and see if there is not a message for you.
This is true, which is why we thought the reply to Pat Buchanan was so bad. It left the reservation of what MacDonald does best, which is to show that dissimilar groups compete; they fight for what is in their own interest. It is not possible for us to maintain our heritage if we mix with strange flesh, a “substitution of cultures” that has been “a disaster of cataclysmic proportions.” There is a great deal of value in what MacDonald writes. He is correct that the hideous beast called “Judeochristianity” has been responsible for almagamation and miscegenation, or what real Christians call adultery. He correctly identifies Judeochristianity as Emersonian. Emerson believed it our duty to assimilate foreigners, the end result being that the foreigners would become English. Likewise, white Judeochristians today identify very strongly with their Anglo-Saxon heritage but are committed to liberal cosmopolitanism. They oppose boundaries and borders because they view the world as their crucible (their melting pot), and when the gold is refined it will come out looking just like them. Emerson wrote that America was “the asylum of all nations… [T]he energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles and Cossacks, and all the European tribes, of the Africans and Polynesians, will construct a new race…as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting pot of the Dark Ages.” This was his cure for the inferiority of everyone who was unlike him. He said: “It cannot be maintained by any candid person that the African race have ever occupied or do promise ever to occupy any very high place in the human family… The Irish cannot; the American Indian cannot; the Chinese cannot. Before the energy of the Caucasian race all other races have quailed and done obeisance.” Well, if I want to hear this sort of thing today, I don’t need to seek out a Christ-hating New Englander. I can hear it from the pastor of any church. All doctrinal differences pale in the shadow of the One Great Dogma that borders prevent us from assimilating the world to our American exceptionalism. Inwardly, every Judeochristian today believes that we can teach blacks to stop worshiping like monkeys by inviting them to our churches. And if they show an interest in our daughters, it’s a small price to pay for the gospel. This is as great a death wish as Emerson’s own philosophy, because it is Emerson’s own philosophy.
Unfortunately, MacDonald’s reply to Pat Buchanan wasn’t the worst of it. The controversy was discussed further on Tom Sunic’s radio show (part the first, part the second). MacDonald and Sunic take the Nietzschean view that Christians are good allies but Christianity is false. MacDonald at least observes that the modern and postmodern egalitarian “Christianity” is a departure from the historic faith. But Sunic wonders why we should consider Christ any more significant than Thor. We should consider him far less significant, implies Sunic, because Thor did not give us Galatians 3:28, telling us that race and sex are meaningless. In other words, Sunic rails against the very same aberration of the faith that MacDonald tells him is not historic Christianity. It always amazes me that some people defend the West without ever understanding the West. They don’t understand that the Word written on tablets of stone given to Moses was also written on the tablet of our hearts (2 Cor. 3:3).
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
Sunic is like the anti-CWNY, and reading that site would benefit him. But he’s a good man with a lot of good ideas, and a bold man too. His statement about the Roman church being intertwined with the hearts and minds of his Croatian people as an ethnic marker is particularly intriguing. He’s quite right about this, and the same could be said of Serbians and the Orthodox church. If all Christians agreed on matters of doctrine, there would still not be one church, because ethnics would seek to govern their own affairs, as the Orthodox have done. One wonders why this isn’t proof to Sunic that the “one and many” of the faith is the same as the “one and many” of nationhood, and that both are contrary to the lies of Communists and race-mixing preachers. (Sorry to be redundant.)
MacDonald says he is attempting to apply Darwinian theory to sociology because people today need to learn how Darwinists of the 1920s improved American immigration policy by excluding rival factions and securing a controlling interest for the founding stock. It’s true that some of the people who did this were Darwinists, and it was a very good move. The only problem is that macroevolution leaves us without hope and renders everything meaningless. It is a theory that is chock full of assumptions that have never been proved. Its adherents love to make illogical statements about metaphysics based on what they understand of the natural and finite world. This makes Darwinism a religion of blind faith and not science at all. For Kinists, racial conservation is inseparable from Christian faith, for the same reason that we are called worse than infidels if we fail to provide for our own. The point of this statement by the Apostle Paul is that even Nietzsche knows to provide for his own. Even plants know.
Plants can recognize when they are potted with their siblings or with strangers, new research shows. When strangers share a pot, they develop a competitive streak, but siblings are more considerate of each other.
If those who call themselves Christians treat their inheritance as Esau treated his, they are quite simply worse than infidels. We’re not surprised that unbelievers would share much in common with us on this question. The surprise is when those who call themselves believers do not.
MacDonald laments that Britain, France, and Germany were not good Darwinist states during WWII. They would not have tried to kill each other if they had realized their primary duty for the good of the race. But this is strange, because MacDonald, of all people, knows that in-groups are not primarily racial but ethnic and clannish. The question is, How are we to love our neighbor? Darwinism is the last place on earth where we can find an answer. When have Darwinism or libertarianism ever gifted men with liberty? When have they ever shown mercy? Show me one hospital or orphanage built on the foundation of Darwin or Von Mises. Show me one constitution.
Before Darwinism was a slimy slug, the gospel was carried across Europe, and the old gods were forgotten, because sheep don’t follow the voice of a stranger. There used to be a law in Rome called incivism, which was insufficient reverence for the government. In 1889, Fustel de Coulanges explained this disgusting concept of citizenship:
The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The [pagan] religion which produced the State, and the State which supported [this] religion, sustained each other; these two powers formed a power almost superhuman, to which the body and soul were equally enslaved. There was nothing independent in man; his body belonged to the State and was devoted to its defense.
Pagan citizenship was revived in the atheistic French Revolution, but it only hearkened back to Plato, who said, “Parents ought not to be free to send or not to send their children to the masters to whom the city has chosen [for their education]; for the children belong less to their parents than to the city.” The Chinese have the same idea today, and their hive-like state murders children who surpass the hive’s quota, regardless of the wishes of the parents.
How do you think such laws were negated in Europe? Did Tom Sunic’s friend Thor swing down from Valhalla and smash them with his hammer? Did Charles Darwin teach us to stop worshiping the state and to love our neighbors as ourselves? It was not Darwinists but Christians who gave us the Council of Chalcedon, where the question was posed: Which institution represented God’s kingdom on earth, the Byzantine state or the church? Answer: Neither. No human agency has the power of salvation. No human agency can claim to link heaven and earth. R.J. Rushdoony called this one of the most earth-shattering realizations faced by mankind. It changed our history forever. No longer would a Caesar Augustus claim to be the son of God. Never again would there be a pontifex maximus. No longer would popes command emperors. No longer would anyone agree with the pagan idea that man can transcend to deity. (Well, Darwinists still believe this, but it only proves the point.) And suddenly men were free, because they were free to be simply men and not gods. The Middle Ages were defined by Chalcedon. Spirit and matter were no longer at war. Kings protected the Church, and also the poor, because the monarch was God’s steward. When the nobility challenged the monarchy, it very often coincided with the monarch’s protection of the poor. (Matt Johnson, the Orthodox Medievalist, discusses this very subject on the same network that broadcasts Sunic’s show.) Because of these conditions, a little thing called Western civilization followed, and “evolutionary psychology” had absolutely zip to do with it. Nor did the fantasy of libertarianism.
Of course, now we’re returning to incivist laws, not because Darwinism is waning but because Christian faith is waning. Do you oppose foreign intervention on behalf of Jews? You must not “love America.” Do you oppose the countless unconstitutional actions of the empire? You must be “disloyal to the United States.” Do you believe the bricks of this impostor-nation are lies, and the mortar is blood? You must be a terrorist! You need to wrap your head in a towel and go live in a cave in Afghanistan, you anti-Semite! No, this is unitarianism, plain and simple, a perversion of unity and a perversion of the Truth.
MacDonald sees no reason to believe that the West is built even upon monotheism. Sunic rejects the existence of guilt, because after all, if we are evolved apes and the universe is the product of chance, there is no sin, and therefore nothing for which to feel guilty. Still, the wives of Darwinists want them to feel guilty for infidelity, and this is where it gets uncomfortable for our rationalist friends. The word “faith” (fiduciary trust) is at the root of “infidelity,” but Mr. Darwin stares blankly when we broach this subject, a bit of drool trickling down his fulsome beard. You see, religion itself must be rationalized, says MacDonald. We must be more like our “unprincipled” friends, the Jews, and ask of religion, “Is it good for white people?” If so, it passes the Nietzschean test. In order to flourish, Nietzsche said, the people must have a communal religion, not a religion that compensates for their weaknesses. And like all moral idiots, he still inconsistently desired disciplined, selfless, and virtuous leaders. Well, I think you can see the problem with useful pieces of meat (commonly known as wives) who expect disciplined, selfless, virtuous, and faithful husbands. Black men are much more accomplished at propagating their genes. Wilt Chamberlain must have thousands of children. So obviously, we need to tell our wives that we’re doing it for the team. What could be more rational than that?
Okay, I’m coming down off my soapbox for a lunch break. This nonsense gets my blood up, because the last thing white people need to hear is that the natural instinct of nurture is sufficient to save them. If they are being told that they deserve to survive simply because they have survived for a long time and have done a lot of good things, they are being told a grand lie of omission. It’s not good enough. We will bow the knee to Christ or we will perish in our sins. Consider yourselves warned.
As Joe Morecraft will agree, it has been a long, arduous road to transform churches into egalitarian brothels and pretend that nothing has changed. Joe has worked very hard at it. This has coincided with the Marxist transformation of the broader culture. First they decided that sexual distinctions were archaic. Then they acquiesced on miscegenation and called every Christian who had come before them a vile hater. Then, when sex was no longer sexy, they decided that fags could get married. We’ve been watching for the next train to roll down the tracks to perdition, and we’ve wondered if bestiality would be the next big hit. But we’re not there yet. First comes polyandry. As Dabney told us, “conservatism” follows close behind its leader, always keeping a bit of distance to retain some degree of respectability. Thus we expect to soon hear polyandry advocated in churches as a humane alternative to divorce. After all, what could be more rational? Surely Darwinists will agree. Celebrities are already on board. Soon there will be ribbons at awards shows that will allow serial monogamists to express their solidarity with swingers.
It is said that this polyandrous network grew out of the Oneida commune in New York in 1848, which took the then-brave step of treating men and women equally. In other words, cheating networks are fundamentally feminist, like bee hives. And what Darwinist or rationalist could be opposed to living like animals, if we came from animals? The complicated organizational charts are called “polygeometry.” “Spice” is the plural of “spouse.” It clearly results in child abuse, as you can see in the article. The child in the story is told the lie by his satyr-father that his mother is loved more than other women, “because that’s the answer he needed to hear.” There is no need for these “parents” to fear, because there are many sociologists who will testify on their behalf in court. Even the Newsweek reporter assures us, “Perhaps the practice is more natural than we think.”
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: “The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be revolutionized in order that the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”
A very good article from Tom Piatak on the Brave New NASA.
Thanks to NASA’s commitment to diversity, employees at NASA facilities are encouraged by the “Diversity Management Office” to attend lectures on “The Color Line Revisited: Is Racism Dead?” and the like as the agency annually observes Black History Month, Women’s History Month, and National American Indian Heritage Month. This year, NASA noted that 1969 was more than the year of Apollo 11, it was also the year “when patrons of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that was all too common for members of the LGBT community during that era.” This tidbit was shared with all NASA employees on June 8, 2009, when acting Administrator Christopher J. Scolese declared June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month” at NASA, and encouraged NASA employees to “participate in the activities planned at your NASA center…for LGBT Pride Month” and to “[t]ake time to learn about the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans, and celebrate the diversity that helped shape and strengthen NASA and our nation.”
This commitment to diversity also causes NASA to be ashamed of its own past. Mr. Scolese would no doubt take a dim view of any astronaut today who talked about a “small step for man” and “giant leap for mankind.” Indeed, the outside of the NASA research center in Cleveland contains a decorative border spelling out “For the Benefit of All,” with a blank spot where the letters that used to spell out “Mankind” have been removed.
As Greg Johnson says, magnanimity is a White concept. So is masculinity, it turns out.
Compare masculine Nixon to effeminate G.W. Bush. Nixon had his faults, to be sure, but when he went to the Bohemian Grove, he called it the most faggotty thing he ever saw. He said Jews were destroying the country. He considered miscegenation to be as tragic as rape. And that’s just part of it. “Nixon had a rare quality: he wondered whether a proposition was true or false regardless of its acceptance or lack thereof amongst others. Like most people, Bush doesn’t have that quality. When he heard someone taking a view outside of the mainstream, he became most interested in the said person’s background and experiences.” This is precisely what women do, and what men never used to do. Now whites are becoming as effeminate as blacks. Rare is the black man who can balance an argument on a logical fulcrum. Instead, blacks tend to shout down the opposition, as Gates did to Crowley, or worse. Gates, one of the upper-crust blacks, thought he could dominate the situation by shouting repeatedly for Crowley to give his name. And when the answer was given, Gates continued to shout for it, like something you might see on Jerry Springer.
I know we’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: the British have gone completely insane. It’s like they’re using Orwell for instruction, and that’s why the BNP is on the rise.
Kseniya Simonova’s “sandimation” of Ukrainian war casualties is too amazing to describe.
And that’s really great for Ukrainians and all, but here in America we have booty-shaking Negroes who pen the most charming rhymes you’ll ever hear. Their art is also very inspiring.
Excellent news here. The Chalcedon Foundation (named after that great Council) will have a new website up by the end of the year showing free videos of R.J. Rushdoony, Otto Scott, John Lofton, and others discussing topics of perpetual interest.
In this record-low summer, let us revisit the words of CNN founder Ted Turner on PBS’s Charlie Rose show some years ago: “Not doing it [fighting global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
The big bad wolf needed one of these.
“Both myspace.com and facebook.com run advertisements for ‘interracial dating sites.’ Yet conservative discussion forums are BANNED!” Marxism is perfectly acceptable, of course.
Ah yes, how well I recall dancing with you beneath the midnight moon in Goa, India. The music faded, I looked deep into your eyes, and then slapped you in the face while trying to swat a dung fly.
The “stable relationship” was a hoot. In the worst way possible.
Did you see the Polish movie that came out about the Soviet Jews murdering the Polish Christians in the Katyn Forest Massacre? Looks to be good. I just saw that you can watch the movie in 2 parts with English subtitles on jewtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OeWh6Lc5Is
It creeps me out when you call a 17 year old girl beautiful. It doesn’t help that 70% of child molesters are white and 95% of them are men.
Re: the scholarly Google hits, you can get 1,420,000 hits on “dancing bear” but only 58,000 hits on “dancing human.”
Okay, thanks, Totten!
I thought she was beautiful too.
Oh for crying out loud Totten. A male who can not recognize and appreciate the beauty of a beautiful young woman aged 17 years – is not a man. His psycho-sexual development has been seriously interfered with. He should stop drinking the fluoridated water and getting his flu shots or he will wind up pea balled as well as pea brained. And he should turn off the J-tube.
Far worse than this, however, is the current programming that men and Christian men are all child molestors and ravening predators incapable of even basic civilized emotions, norms and behaviours. This comes straight from hell.
In Europe and Western nations descending from Europe, young and beautiful women of marriagable age were introduced to their society, crowned and feted. The ‘beauty pageant’ where young women have to get out and strut their stuff for the public is a crude parody of that custom. And, of course, our Lady in her virginal beautry is always crowned as our Queen Mother – the virgin mother of our Lord, the Head of his body the Church and, of course, all members of the God / man race – new creation.
A man who can not enjoy appreciating the beauty of a young woman will certainly not arise to higher spiritual appreciations and devotions. And I am sure that is the whole point of this type of brainwashing.
Besides, 17-year-olds (some of them, at least) can make wonderful wives and mothers. It creeps me out that people get creeped out by someone noting the beauty of a 17-year-old girl. I believe that’s called “projection” (although let’s not get started on an infinite regression with that).
Barack H. Narcosaurus & Friends?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31853.html
I doubt that 70% of child molesters are White. Isn’t Morgan Freeman’s girlfriend, his step-grandaughter? Even effeminate George W. Bush would find her attractive, after all, he was a cheerleader.
Rather than question Negroes’ human parentage because of their incredible stupidity, we should ponder just how awe-inspiring it is to be cursed of God.
“It creeps me out when you call a 17 year old girl beautiful. It doesn’t help that 70% of child molesters are white and 95% of them are men.”
@Totten – 17 year old girls being called beautiful creeps you out? Would it be okay if you were in most any other country where the age of consent is much lower?
Would it also creep you out if he said that a horse is a handsome animal? Before it was raped repeatedly by a black man, naturally. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/local/story/1000406.html
It creeps me out when you call a 17 year old girl beautiful.
>>> You must be one of those gals that my bumper sticker eludes to… “Deport Illegal Aliens AND fat chicks!”
It doesn’t help that 70% of child molesters are white and 95% of them are men.
>>> Per-capita latrino’s and negroes commit more child molestation along with EVERY OTHER violent and deplorable crime. Come on you know it’s true. That’s why, like myself, you live in a beautiful lilly WHITE neighborhood and school district. Kids around here can skateboard and rollerblade down the street anytime without fear of being another gangland statistic.
Arich- It is unassailably true that child molestation is a predominantly white male crime. I can’t find any study that says otherwise. You must be high. And no I’m not a fat chick. I’m a beer-bellied man.
Chad- Horses? Quit trying to change the subject. Yeah, raping horses is creepy.
You guys can sure dish but you can’t take it. If you are going to attach certain crimes to certain races you HAVE to be willing to accept your own. C’mon, if you don’t it damages your credibility. In the same way you assume a black guy is gonna murder your children, I assume old, Southern, Christian white men are gonna touch them inappropriately. I just wouldn’t let a grown man who called my 17 year old daughter “beautiful” and who thinks that “17 year olds can make wonderful wives and mothers” near her.
It’s common sense right? In the same way you guys wouldn’t drive through the ghetto at night without some kind of protection. In the same way that I wouldn’t let my boy be an altar boy in the Boston archdiocese of the Catholic church. Just common sense.
Someone explain: why would it not be normal to refer to a 12-year old, a 5-year old, or even a newborn girl as beautiful?
By the age of 3 or 4 or 5 you would not want your boy to be referred to as a “beautiful baby” anymore.
By the way, the beauty of the female is admired by women as well as men. This is brought out nicely in Milton’s Paradise Lost when Eve is staring at herself in the brook/mirror.
Now Totten says “old, Southern, CHRISTIAN white men” are child molesters. Curiouser and curiouser. It’s difficult to find hard data on this, Totten’s assurances notwithstanding. According to this article
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/408292/child_sex_offenders_classifications.html?cat=17
“statistics show that child molesters come from all walks of life; male or female, of any sexual orientation, of any marital status and even any race or socioeconomic status. What most child sex predators do have in common are the overwhelming psychological complications of low self-esteem, feeling worthless and often are not able to establish normal healthy adult-to-adult relationships.”
It seems that most child rapes occurring in public schools these days are by women. There is such a long list of these that Joe Farah at WorldNetDaily makes it a regular news feature. This is also a country where 40,000 white women are raped by black men every year, and almost no black women are raped by white men. But Totten wants us to believe that this is only because the whites are attracted to children.
Like everything else Totten has said, the idea that we are trying “to attach certain crimes to certain races” is nonsense. We have never so much as hinted that whites do not commit crimes. We affirm the doctrine of original sin. What we have said is that we must protect our own, and multiracialism is every bit as dangerous to our own by mixing with extremely violent races as it is because of “the overwhelming psychological complications” that accompany being dispossessed.
Harmony covers a multitude of sicknesses.
Vittgen makes a couple of excellent points above. White women are blessed with unrivaled beauty, and to not notice it is to be blind. Also, as he says, it is awe-inspiring to see those who are cursed by God. Multiracialists deny that any group of people anywhere can be cursed at any time.
Sounds to me like Totten is just trying to have some fun jerking our chains.
I have had a question for Kinists for some time, regarding miscegenation, and I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask. The above article doesn’t specifically focus on the subject, but discusses it at least.
Where does one draw the lines between the nations, at least when it comes to a question of reproductive mixing? There is often a discussion about “race” in a broad sense, but what about smaller groups within races? Of course someone who opposes miscegenation can draw lines between whites, blacks, and Mongols, but what about between Anglo-Saxons and Italians? Anglo-Saxons and Irish? Greeks? Czechs? Russians? Or between Native Americans and Asians? And you get the idea.
It is mentioned above that “in-groups are not primarily racial but ethnic and clannish.” That idea must factor into the calculations of one who opposes miscegenation. Babel might have been the original splitting of the nations, but the human population has certainly continued to divide since then; what divisions are we, according to the anti-miscegenist, obligated to observe?
That’s an excellent question, Siegfried. I’ll give a brief answer from my own perspective, but I’m sure others could expound in more detail.
When a man searches for a wife, he looks for congeniality and familiarity. If there is not a shared faith and a common heritage, problems are sure to result. Even those who approve of miscegenation recognize this. I don’t know of a single pastor who would not at least give special and prolonged counseling to people of dissimilar races who wish to marry, because they’re gambling with their future. Intermingling of nations is very similar, but of course on a much broader scale. The ramifications are even more serious, because it’s not just one extended family that is affected but an entire people, with all their shared history and memory on the line. A marriage might end in divorce, but the end of a nation is a bloody and horrible affair. We should try not to undermine either, but the latter is more serious.
You listed some nations above, and it is crystal clear from history that some have associated easily because of close blood relations, and others have not. You asked, Where should we draw the line? Our founding fathers answered unambiguously: this nation was created for their own posterity, and immigration was limited to their fellow Europeans. They knew that we could not intermarry with other races because it would tear us apart, and all their work would be for naught. Now the races freely intermarry, and sure enough, we are being torn apart. Those old racists were right!
We were born white, and we have both the right and the duty to remain white. We were born into covenant with Christ, and there we must remain. It’s just that simple.
Totten demonstrates the opposition’s denial of nature and this is why their false worldview is crumbling before our eyes. Denial of truth and reality are at the core of all they believe. Selling egalitarian “utopia” is a much harder sell these days. The unnatural will yield to nature. Instinct will return and beautiful 17 year old women will in the future again focus on becoming wonderful wives and mothers.
Thanks, admin, for your reply. It reminds me very much of what Timothy Harris said, or is in the process of saying, in his series of posts on First Word: that collectives of the ethnic sort have a special covenantal meaning, and that there exists a sort of patriarchal authority, contra what libertarians might say. Maybe some of us Euro-Americans could sleep a little more easily knowing that our ancestors weren’t such terrible policymakers after all.
With regards to Siegfried Himmel’s question regarding “reproductive mixing” I find it interesting that various racial groups such Negroes, Hindus and other dark-skinned peoples, generally “marry up” by choosing a lighter-skinned spouse. They seem to instinctually know that by marrying someone lighter than themselves, they can give their offspring a leg up in the game of life. Having met some rather dim-witted fair-skinned ladies, however, I would further recommend seeking out a life partner, whose intellect surpasses one’s own. Therefore, all other things being equal, a general rule of thumb would be, to marry someone lighter and brighter than oneself.
Regarding kith and kin’s comment, that is an accurate observation (as far as I can tell based on anecdotal evidence) but I also would note (again, based on anecdotal rather than statistical evidence) that it’s more likely for a dark male to pair with a fair-skinned lady than for a fair-skinned male to pair with a dark lady. Perhaps a Kinist might suggest that the white woman embodies a universal principle of feminine beauty that transcends the principle of people preferring their own kind. As Solzhenitsyn said, each of the nations has come to embody a particular physical facet of God’s creative design, and perhaps the Aryan lady embodies feminine beauty.
To Siegfried’s important question, I would submit this answer for consideration: That tribe has sufficient affinity to permit marriage, if it is accepted as such by our tribe.
Naturally, this leaves many details to be worked out. How does the tribe express its will? I favor the kingship/chieftain model, tempered by the wise council of clan heads.
If it came to a split-decision so to speak, then the matter is so important that that probably is what leads to a split in the lineage and the formation of a new ethnos. Thus, if half the Germans favor mingling with south-Italians and half does not, then perhaps this is what leads to the division which ends up between the Tyrolians and the Pommeranians. I don’t know, it’s just food for thought.
Jesus was not a Jew
Something very extraordinary happened just over a century before the birth of Christ. A nation of people who are utterly condemned by all the major prophets, ‘became Jews’. Isaiah makes it clear that God is personally going to personally destroy them (see below).
These people, the Edomites were converted as a group to become ‘Jews’ by John Hyrcanus in about 120BC. According to Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived just after the time of Christ, ‘They (Edom) were hereafter no other than Jews’ (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, XIII ix 1; XV vii 9).
If you can check the passage in Josephus – please do so, and see for yourself. Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980) says ‘John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism. From then on they were part of the Jewish people..’ (p 154). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1925) “Edom is in Jewry” (Volume 5 p. 41).
Who are these people called Edom?
In the time of the patriarchs, Isaac the son of Abraham had two sons, Jacob and Esau.
Jacob became the ancestor of the twelve tribes of Israel, which after the reign of Solomon split into two separate political entities, the northern ten tribes being called Israel and the southern two tribes called Judah.
Esau became the ancestor of Edom, also called Idumea. The Edomites or Idumeans settled in an area that was immediately to the south of the Dead Sea, and just to the south of the area which was later to become the territory of Judah.
From the beginning there existed an enmity between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:22) and between their progeny, Israel and Edom. This is reflected not only in the historical books but the bitter judgements against Edom in most of the prophetical writings of the Old Testament. Have a look for yourself, for example, at Isaiah chapters 34 and 63, Jeremiah chapter 49 and the entire book of Obadiah.
Revelation 19:13 describes Christ’s cloak as soaked in blood. Bibles with marginal references and other reference Bibles virtually all link this to Isaiah 63:1-6, so Christ Himself will destroy Edom. Obadiah verse 4: ‘Though you soar like the eagle and set your nest among the stars [referring to Edom’s power at the end of the age], I will bring you down from there, says the Lord.’ ‘There shall be no survivor from the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken’ (verse 18). If you study the subject of ‘Babylon’ (Revelation 17 and 18, Isaiah 47, Jeremiah 50 and 51), it clearly refers to the sordid, corrupt anti-Christian money-power so visible today, manipulating politicians and controlling the media. Edom is linked to this Babylon (compare Isaiah 34:5-15 and Isaiah 13:19-22 with Revelation 19:3). Even Yahweh Himself, the God of Israel and Creator of the Universe, ‘hated Esau (Edom)’, a people ‘against whom he has indignation forever’ (Malachi 1:2-4). God Himself is going to destroy this terrible anti-Christian Babylonian money power, as the quoted chapters make clear.
The prophet Ezekiel refers to Idumea (Edom, also referred to as Mount Seir) as taking possession of the land and heritage of Israel and Judah (Ezekiel 35:10, 11, 15; 36:2, 5). After the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were taken into captivity in Babylon, the country was settled by other peoples (Ezra 9:11). When the remnant of Judah and Benjamin returned, there is no record of these others being expelled. By the time of the beginning of the Maccabean period (about 165BC) described in the Old Testament Apocrypha, the Edomites were occupying southern Judah up to Beth-Zur, a mere 15 miles south of Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 4:29).
The Edomite ‘conversion’ clearly opened the way for a virtual takeover along the lines predicted by Ezekiel in chapter 35 and 36:1-5 (“Mount Seir” in chapter 35 is another name for Edom). The Edomite called Antipater became the Procurator of Judea in 47BC. Ten years later his son Herod actually became ‘king of the Jews’, starting an Edomite dynasty which ruled Palestine under the authority of Rome for over a hundred years. How could an Edomite, inveterate enemy of Israel, become king in Jerusalem? Certainly not by himself, without great support from his own constituency.
This situation would in itself have been a stimulus for an influx of population from the arid country of Edom into the more hospitable neighbouring environment of Judea, an influx which would obviously have been encouraged for political reasons by the ruling Herodian dynasty. Edomites would have been appointed to the most influential positions, in order to extend and establish the Edomite grip on the territory and people. Herod became notorious amongst Christians for his ‘massacre of the innocents’, a supernaturally inspired attempt on the life of the infant Christ (Matthew 2:16). Herod’s son Herod Antipas, continuing the work, was responsible for the grisly and appalling murder of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:6-12).
In the New Testament, the English word ‘Jew” is a translation of the Greek Ioudaios (Yehudah-os), a Judean or inhabitant of Judah (Yehudah) – Judea – the former territory of the tribe of Judah (Yehudah), which now contained a substantial percentage of people of Edomite origin who possessed the political power under the aegis of Rome. Christ himself consistently showed a powerful antipathy towards the people that the English New Testament calls Jews, but who were more accurately Judeans, the inhabitants of the Edomite-dominated territory of Judea. Jesus said to the Jews ‘Because you are not sheep of my flock you do not believe’ (John 10:24-27) and ‘I was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel’ (Matthew 15:25). In fact, Christ referred to those ‘Jews’ (people of Judea) ‘who believed in him’, as being ‘of their father the devil’ (John 8: 31,44), while in complete contrast He instructed His disciples – who were from Galilee, not Judea (Acts 1:11) – to pray to ‘our Father who is in heaven’. Was He just suffering from alternating good and bad moods? John the Apostle in his book of Revelations refers to those ‘who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan’ (2:9), repeated in the following chapter (3:9). Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political entities, as any Bible with maps of the Holy Land in New Testament times will show. Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) living in Judea – he was a Galilean who lived in Galilee (Matthew 26:69, John 7:41). He was a true Israelite of the true tribe of Judah, not of the spurious Edomite Judeans or Jews. He is in fact the true King of the true Israel! He grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. Christ visited Jerusalem, but spent most of His life in Galilee. John 7:1 says, ‘After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; He could not stay in Judaea, because the Jews were out to kill him’. His followers were constrained ‘for fear of the Jews’ (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19). This phrase shows that although there were true Israelite people in Judea, such as Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus in Bethany, and those who welcomed Him when He entered Jerusalem on a donkey, the name Jew had become almost completely associated with the evil Edomite counterfeit-Israel, ‘synagogue of Satan’.
‘Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables. He never spoke to them except in parables’ (Matthew 13:34). Many churches and Sunday schools teach that Jesus used parables to make His teachings clearer. But all four Gospels say exactly the opposite, that the parables were often in a kind of code – the disciples asked Him in private to explain certain parables. When the disciples asked Jesus why He spoke to the crowd in parables, He replied ‘Because the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are revealed to you, but not revealed to them’ (Matthew 13:10-11, Mark 4:11,12, Luke 8:9, John 12:37+). In the passage in Mark, Jesus says ‘The secret of the kingdom of God is given to you, but to those who are outside everything comes in parables, so that they may see and see again, but not perceive; may hear and hear again, but not understand; otherwise they might be converted and be forgiven’. Luke says Jesus told His disciples, ‘The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are revealed to you; for the rest there are only parables, so that they may see but not perceive, listen but not understand’. Was Jesus simply concerned with the salvation of all the ‘miserable sinners’? He said, ‘Do not cast your pearls in front of pigs, or they may trample them and turn and tear you to pieces’ (Matthew 7:6). Are these actual pigs and was Jesus simply showing concern about his followers’ jewellery? Who are these swine if not the Jews, who follow the sick teachings of the Talmud, wherein Jesus is insulted in the most depraved manner? Why do Christians disobey Christ in trying to share that which is holy with the antiChristian Jews?
The Jews shouted ‘Crucify Him!’ (John 19:15) and ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ (Matthew 27:25). Pilate was using irony when he wrote ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (Greek = Judeans)’ (John 19:19) – i.e.‘the Galilean who was King of the Judeans’, as in ‘Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India’. The spiritual leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees, who unsurprisingly were associated with the (Edomite) Herodians ((Matthew 22:16, Mark 3:6 and 12:13). Jesus utterly condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites, using the word repeatedly (Matthew 15:7, 22:18, 23:13, 15, 23, 25 and 27). He also called them ‘brood (offspring) of vipers’ (Matthew 3:8, 12:34, 23:33). Was this just a loose hyperbolic turn of phrase, like ‘sons of bitches’, or did it embody a real supernatural truth? As is well known, Satan was associated with the idea of serpent.
The Jews of the western world like to portray WASPs (‘white Anglo-Saxon Protestants’) as the archetypal racists, but are adamant that Palestinians born in ‘Israel’ (formerly Palestine) and chased out by the violence and terror-tactics of the Jewish settlers, should not be permitted to return to their homes under any circumstances, although Jewish immigrants from Milwaukee or San Diego or anywhere else (even if atheists) should be given full citizenship and rights. A ‘Jew’ is defined in the Israeli constitution as someone born of a Jewish mother, irrespective of belief. The word does not refer therefore to a person’s religion, but to his or her ancestry or race. The virulent and murderous racism of the Zionist-supporting anti-racists is therefore Pharisee-like in its hypocrisy.
Most churches have no interest at all in the matter of Edom, and for them, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Obadiah and Malachi were effectively wasting their breath. Many churches are not much more than social clubs. They have little interest in making progress in searching for the truth, although Jesus said ‘Seek and you shall find’, and ‘The truth shall set you free’. They have no interest in the statements of the historian Josephus or the details and actions of the Edomite Herodian dynasty. Where Christ Himself referred to those ‘Jews’ (people of Judea) who believed in him, as being of their father the devil (John 8: 31,44) most churches prefer to ignore this. They have no interest in the ethnic affiliations of those behind the Communist anti-Christian revolutionaries. Although Christ said, ‘You shall know them by their fruits’ (Matthew 7:16, 20), these people prefer not to think about the Jewish involvement in Communism (see below) and all the dreadful suffering it produced, not least for Christians, or the terrible culture-destroying anti-Christian output of Jewish-dominated Hollywood. To this degree they are anti-Truth and therefore anti-Christian.
Jesus said ‘The Truth shall set you free.’ These churches are not interested in examining where the truth lies in these matters, believing that the liberal anti-Christian Jewish-controlled media is the best guide on where the truth lies. Although Christ utterly condemned the anti-Christian Edomite Jews, many churches still prefer to consider them to be, of all things, the ‘people of God’! The churches ‘with the benefit of modern advances in ethics and knowledge’ obviously believe that they know better about the Jews and racism than God did all those centuries ago. Perhaps they believe that God, with the benefit of hindsight and advice from modern churchmen and theologians, would not have inspired His prophets to be such profound pro-Israel, anti-Edomite racists (modern ‘Israel’ is not the same as biblical Israel). But the churches of today are unfortunately often almost an integral department of the mega-money-sponsored Babylonian power-structure which discourages the search for and propagation of truth. The establishment churches can be relied upon not to rock the boat. It is customary for the churches to treat the period of the life of Christ as though the people of Judea were uniformly Israelite, but this is most definitely, demonstrably and undeniably not so. This is what the Apostle John had to say about the non-Christian or anti-Christian Jews: ‘Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antiChrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son, has the Father: but whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also’ (1 John 2:22-23). Not all ‘Jews’ (Judeans) were Edomites – the sisters Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus of Bethany near Jerusalem are examples who were true Israelites. The churches claim that the people that welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem, waving palm branches and crying Hosanna! were the same people as the crowd that bayed for his blood a few days later. This is utterly ridiculous.
It is customary for many churches and Christians to follow the leading of the Babylonian power structure in declaring racism to be wrong, at the same time viewing the Arabs as utterly deplorable for their support for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians, well, they really take the cake in not meekly handing over their country, homes, villages and olive groves to the fundamentally racist and ruthlessly violent settler Jews, supported by their ethnic kin in all the countries of the west where they use all the resources of their tremendous resources of money, media and bought politicians to ‘fight against racism’. Jesus utterly condemned this hypocrisy.
Unfortunately most churches deliberately ignore the parable of the tares or darnel (Matthew 13:24—30, 36-43). This explicitly says that there is a people of God, the wheat, and there is a counterfeit people of God, the ‘tares’. ‘Tares’ refers to ‘one of the most destructive of all weeds’ (botanical name Lolium temulentum). ‘Before it bears fruit Lolium is almost indistinguishable from wheat, amongst which it often grows as a weed. Only when they come into ear can they be distinguished.’ ‘The seeds often harbour seriously poisonous fungus growths that if eaten by humans or animals will cause dizziness and vomiting and sometimes even death’ (W.Walker, All the Plants of the Bible). Jesus said, with regard to determining which people fall into which category, ‘You shall judge them by their fruits’. Jesus said that the tares will be around until the final judgement, when they will be destroyed by burning, literal or metaphorical, in a real holocaust.
These churches also deliberately ignore Christ’s parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46), preferring to follow the comfortable teachings of men. It is customary for the churches to proclaim that the Jews with their violently anti-Christian beliefs propounded in the Talmud, are the ‘chosen people of Yahweh, the people of Israel’, in spite of all the evidence concerning Edom and the unambiguous teachings of Christ. The churches, following the wolves in sheeps’ clothing, must stop advancing and helping to propagate anti-Christian non-truths and lies. They must beware of the leaven of the Edomite Pharisees (Matthew 23). They must not be a tacit part of the modern incarnation of the Babylonian empire, otherwise they too will be destroyed by God. The Jewish takeover of Palestine in the last century is not the biblical ‘return’ of true Israel to the Holy Land, but that of a satanic counterfeit. It has shown no signs of true Christian Godliness but rather evil political and military machinations and it is now coming apart at the seams. At the same time the Jewish anti-racist indoctrination of the Christian European nations has reached the point that Europe is being destroyed by large-scale alien anti-European-culture immigration, and these nations are politically unable to protect themselves from this scourge owing to the ever-present Jewish watchdogs from Hell.
Christ accused ‘those Jews who believed in Him’ (note this) of being ‘of their father the devil’, and that ‘(they) prefer to do what their father wants.. He was a murderer (blood-letter) from the beginning, he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all.. because he is a liar and the father of lies..’ (John 8:31-44). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1976) says the verb jew means ‘to cheat’. The Penguin English Dictionary (1965) says jew means ‘to defraud, to cheat’.
And it’s now official – there has been no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors. The international media have been embarrassingly overflowing with references to Holocaust survivors for decades. According to Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York (in his book The Holocaust Industry published by Verso, London and New York, 2000), ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (p.83). The Holocaust may be the biggest fraud of twentieth century history – if not of world history. Churchill’s Second World War has not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
Compare Elie Wiesel’s comments in Time Magazine, March 18 1985: In answer to the question, how had he survived two of the most notorious killing fields [Auschwitz and Buchenwald] of the century, he answered “I will never know. I was always weak. I never ate. The slightest wind would turn me over. In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?” Compare this with Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993), under ‘Buchenwald’: “In World War II it held about 20,000 prisoners.. Although there were no gas chambers, hundreds perished monthly through disease, malnutrition (as a result of Allied bombing of supply lines), exhaustion, beatings and executions.” The British and Americans, we must remember, practiced industrial-scale fire bombing of German cities, where non-combatant civilians, especially women and children and old people, were incinerated alive in their hundreds of thousands without benefit of the alleged Holocaust pre-gassing before cremation.
Jesus utterly condemned the Edomite Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy, a situation as clear as daylight today. This in itself confirms the truth of the Bible as a guide for the situation today, as long as we do not let ourselves be misled by the many pharisees of pro-Edomite, antiChristian ‘Judeo-Christianity’.
The Origins of World War 2
The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events
Just consider the following:
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying “Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”. (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.” (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, “the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Is all of this merely attributable to antisemitism?
The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’
Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”) essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their “race”.. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.
Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein – they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’
Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word “Jew”, in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).
The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:
“There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
“The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267), and “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
“He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..” (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, “At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia” (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to “the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.
E-mail comment received:
I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.
Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn’t make sense based upon Germany’s population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.
I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.
Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.
JBP
Well Totten, at least we agree that we not allow our boys to serve at the altar in the Boston Archdiocese. As a Roman Catholic I would extend that to any novus ordo archdiocese. Period. As I write, the fifth American diocese (In Iowa) goes into liquidation to pay for crimes of rape of minors – perpetrated by many priests, employees and covered up at the highest levels for years.
These events are only part of the fallout of the removal of the Chair of Peter from Rome (in the wake of the 1958 coup) and the usurpation of the Holy See by an antipapacy. The autodemolition of the Church in the wake of the 1958 coup was institutionalized from the top.
But this does not prove in any way that “it is unassailably true that child rape is a predominantly white male crime. I can’t find any study that says otherwise.”
The victims of these crimes are overwhelmingly male. These crimes are predominantly homosexual crimes. Men of white European ethnicity traditionally despise faggotry. The Church condemns it as one of the four sins “crying to heaven for vengenance.” Christian nations (when white nations had Christian government) always had statues on the books against it. The rape of a child is a heinous crime in the eyes of all Christians – however doctrinally misguided.
So who exactly are these “white men” in the studies you fail to cite.
It is the Talmud, Totten, which finds sodomy, pederasty o.k. Furthermore, sodomy is one of the Luciferian rites – practiced within Masonry. Please see the fully referenced work Blood Upon the Altar by Craig Heimbichner.
That old rogue Roger ‘Cardinal’ Mahoney of the Taj Mahoney in L.A. is currently under indictment for decades of assistance to his pederast ring within the novus ordo catholic church in L.A. And the Lone Star State has a warrant for rabbi Ratzinger – a.k.a. ‘pope’ Benedict himself. There is quite good evidence that rabbi Ratzinger steered these international pederast ‘rings’ from his position of Head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Next time the rabbi from Rome is UStateside on a Noachide junket, betj_w anything he won’t be going to Texas. Sadly, for all our woes, we will miss seeing Benedict in the Dallas slammer, pope suit and all.
So we shall just have to be content to know that Benedict makes the Angels weep and the Saviour of men vomit.
Furthermore, doj_wknow who exactly funds the homosexual ‘queer nation’ fronts and their assault upon America and all churches through public act up displays, sodomite parades, and infiltration of all social institutions? Doj_w know who funds their litigation against government employees guilty of ‘hate speech’ terms like: natural family, Christian marriage (as in a man and a woman)?
Come in goyim space cadets. Turn on your j-dar.
A very good review of Michael Collins Piper’s work: “The Judas Goats”. Documented history of the infiltration of the white nationalist movement, 9-11 truth movement and many social movments. A lot of good information on Agenda, MO, j_wish identities. Does not mention the ADL apparatus as the organisational arm of the Masonic B’nai B’rith – but could be in the book.
http://curtmaynardsnewest.blogspot.com.
Well Lynda, I doubt Admin will publish my response but I’ll try.
First off, if you are going to put quotations around what I said, try and make it what I actually said (there’s even a function on your computer called ‘copy and paste’ that comes in real handy in this situation).
Secondly, I’m glad that we can both agree that child rape is bad and that when it is a male to male crime, a product of queerness. However your statement that “Men of white European ethnicity traditionally despise faggotry” (that’s how you quote someone by the way) couldn’t be more misguided. Actually white males are the largest group of homosexuals.
It’s not a mine.
@James – Both very interesting articles. Do you have a blog or a website where you publish these? I’d be interested if you do.
Nudge-nudge, grin-grin, wink-wink . . .
http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2009/08/13/69011.aspx
Totten, I’m trying to spare you the embarrassment of posting such nonsense. Let me guess – you also believe what the SPLC says about whites committing the vast majority of “hate crimes.”
Now you’re saying that most fags are white. There is no denying that many are, and it probably is true that more whites are OPENLY queer, but there should be signs in infection rates if this disproportionately affects whites, as is true of blacks and incarceration. I just saw these figures for AIDS in the general population: Asians – 3%, whites – 7%, hispanics – 15%, blacks – 30%. Other studies show that blacks are responsible for half of all AIDS cases, are 10 times more likely than whites to contract AIDS, and 10 times more likely to die from it. So many black men are on “the down-low” that they are passing the disease to black women. Consequently, black women are four times more likely than white women to have it.
You like to post wild accusations unburdened by proof, but I’m not going to allow it. Next time, step up with some facts or get lost. And having said all that, let me reiterate that whites are just as depraved as anyone else. You would be on much more solid ground if you were to talk about how many millions whites have killed with their advanced technology.
Alan, what is it?
Whites who emulate the worst features of the black subculture are going to tend to experience basically similar outcomes:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-11-24/news/meth-and-sex/1
(Warning — that article is definitely “for mature readers”)
Well I doubt you’ll consider any source that I cite credible but here’s what the US Health Dept. has to say about child abuse-
Rate of child abuse by race:
White = 51%
African American = 25%
Hispanic = 15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives = 2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 1%
As far as homosexuality statistics, I love that in the same comment you can say things like “So many black men are on ‘the down-low’ that they are passing the disease to black women” and then tell me that next time I try to post without proof I won’t be allowed to. But of course, the kinist argument lives on double standards alone. You and I both know that there are no hard statistics on homosexuality and race. The best one is this-
As of the 2000 Census, of men who lived with a male partner, %78.8 were white.
I’m guessing you don’t live in a town with a large gay population. I do (the second highest percentage in the nation). Ask your friends who do live in Miami or San Fran or New York and they’ll tell you that most the gay and lesbians they see are white. Of course, there are plenty of gays of other colors, but they’re mostly white.
Yes, but don’t you see that if blacks commit 25% of all child abuse cases (which I doubt in itself), this doesn’t prove the point you’re trying to make? They’re only 13% of the population! It’s a matter of proportionality. Similarly, blacks commit half of all violent crimes, but since they’re only 13% of the population (and the young black males who commit most of these are only about 2% of the population), imagine how high it would be if there were more blacks. A low non-white population is a blessing. The lower the better.
Then, after stating that “white males are the largest group of homosexuals,” you admit that “there are no hard statistics on homosexuality and race.”
You’re a real genius. It’s time to stop pestering the adults and get back to your video games.
Silas – no, I don’t have a website, but here’s another item or two:
Subject: A New Yorker’s Views on the origin of the ‘Holocaust’ – I sent a document about the lies of the ‘High Priest of the Holocaust’ – Elie Wiesel – to an anti-zionist contact in New York, and this is the reply I received:
ha ha ha !
Well, here it is –
“Genetically” speaking I am what is commonly called a “Jew”.
My last name is “_____”, which was pronounced as “_____” over in the territory onced called “Austrio-Hungaria”.
On my mother’s side of the of my family I am genetically tied to the “_____” bloodline, which is “Jewish” and has been here in America-Land, i.e. NY, i.e. “Manhattan”, which initially was the Dutch Colony called “New Amsterdam”. In point of fact they WERE “money changers”, ha ha ha !
Back when “Haarlem” (which is Dutch for “Lovely Meadows”) was pasture farmland.
So what does all this stuff have to do with the price of potatoes?
Ha Ha Ha! So glad you asked!
Throughout my life, I was inculcated with “Jewish Tradition”. My upbringing was notably Christian, but many Bat Mitzvahs, etc, also comprised my life too. During the easter season, having a Passover Dinner with all the rituals was law.
Whether family members are Orthodox, moderate, or Conservative, or even Rabbis!.. NONE of them spoke of “Death Camps”….”People being thrown alive into Ovens (the so-called Holocaust or “Shoah”), and other utter nonsense. As for Gas Chambers, initially, people laughed at that nonsense.
In the early 1970′s, there was a “Nazi Parade” in Illinois, where the “New Official Holocaust” pronouncements were made. I clearly remember the consternation within my family that these remarks caused. I had many relatives who SURVIVED the Nazi work camps, which was what they were called before this event.
You have to know that the Orthodox Jew members of my family don’t think that the state of “Israel” should even exist! They await for an Act of God to precipitate the return of the Jews to ” Israel”.
When they heard of this “new history” about a “Holocaust” they simply went bonkers.
Many arguments happened and many family ties were broken over this revisionist history.
Now it is decades later and the divide within my famliy is total and permanent.
The “new History” is now the “Official History” and we are all worse off because of this fact.
Soon an “Anti-Hate Law” will be in effect.
That means that I, a “Genetic jew”, who was raised a Lutheran, will PERHAPS be able to express my thoughts, but WILL be labelled a “Self-Hating Jew”, and probably in need of psych-meds.
That is the long and the short of it.
I am Christian, by the way, and believe that Christ came FOR the jews…..as well as all the rest of the peoples on Planet Earth.
But don’t tell any Jew that..!!
You will then be an “Anti-Semite”…whatever.
It is all a crock of shit, and will serve no good purpose, this “revamping” of actual history.
As for the Irgun and other Jewish Terrorist groups during the “founding of Israel”, older relatives told me of their shock and disgust, when word came out about their activities.
Once again, whatever.
Simply puty, we are ALL rapidly “Going to Hell in a Hand-Basket”, much to my dismay. And there seems to be no one that can do anything about that sad fact at all.
I’d post a video about my thoughts concerning this but I fear the usual indirect and direct physical terror tactics from the ADL, the JDL and other extremist domestic Zionist terror groups.
Godless Zionists do NOT care about “religious Jews” at all. As for “Genetic jews” like myself, they care even less.
You have to recall that Zionists brushed off massive deaths of non-Zionist Jews during WWII.
They were glad these deaths happened because they provided an impetus for Jewish migration into Palestine.
And there are too many records of their thoughts on this matter to dismiss out of hand.
that’s it !
Back to work.
_______________________________________________________________
Followup received from a friend, a professor at a US university:
Hi James,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. This man is telling it like it is. When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn in the late 1040′s and 1950s, many of the local, small businesses were owned by Jews who had come out of the camps. Candy store, dry cleaners, soda fountain, kosher butcher, podiatrist, oculist. I played with their kids. NEVER, ever, was there any talk of this stuff. In fact, my parents, relatives and the people on my block thought the Nuremberg show trial was just that: a show that was used to justify the crimes we had inflicted on the Germans. I remember going to the movies every Sat as a kid and seeing in the newsreels what we had done to these poor people in the name of “civilization.” I asked my parents where the people who had lived in these burned, flattened cities had gone, and they set about educating me at a very tender age.
Nuremberg was a state propaganda effort to brainwash us into believing that the Germans deserved what they got. But the only folks who actually believe all that nonsense are the social elites beholden to the tribe.
David
Elie Wiesel vs Encyclopaedia Britannica
Wiesel has been a prominent spokesman for the very sizeable group of people known as Holocaust survivors. [According to Norman Finkelstein of the City University of New York in his book The Holocaust Industry published in 2000, ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million’ (p.83)]. Wiesel has chaired the US Holocaust Memorial Council and has been the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and Nobel Peace Prize.
Time Magazine, March 18 1985:
‘How had he survived two of the most notorious killing fields [Auschwitz and Buchenwald] of the century? “I will never know” he says. “I was always weak. I never ate. The slightest wind would turn me over. In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?”
Compare this with Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993), under ‘Buchenwald’:
“In World War II it held about 20,000 prisoners.. Although there were no gas chambers, hundreds perished monthly through disease, malnutrition, exhaustion, beatings and executions.”
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0199/9901055.html
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | January/February 1999
“A Terrible Fraud” :
Wiesel Ignores Palestinians
To the Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 1998 (as submitted).
(from Prof. Daniel McGowan, Professor of Economics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY)
In your Oct. 9 article on Elie Wiesel, the American icon of Holocaust survivors, he is paid a special tribute as a “speaker of truth.” This is the same Elie Wiesel who is continually referred to by Noam Chomsky and others as “a terrible fraud.” What can explain such disparity of opinion?
Perhaps it is because Wiesel, who has written literally volumes Against Silence, remains silent when it comes to such issues involving Palestinians as land expropriation, torture and abrogation of basic human rights.
Perhaps it is because Elie Wiesel proclaims with great piety that “the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference,” while he remains totally indifferent to the inequality and suffering of the Palestinians. Perhaps it is because he enjoys recognition as “one of the first opponents of apartheid” in South Africa, while he remains totally silent and indifferent to the apartheid being practiced today in Israel.
Perhaps it is because he decries terrorism, yet never apologizes for the terrorism perpetrated by the Irgun at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. He refuses even to comment on it. He dismisses this act of terrorism in eight short words in his memoirs, All Rivers Run to the Sea. He remembers the Jewish victims at Kielce, Poland (July 1946) with great anguish, but ignores twice as many Palestinian victims of his own employer at Deir Yassin. The irony is breathtaking.
It is even more shocking that the world’s best known Holocaust survivor can repeatedly visit Yad Vashem and yet keep silent about the victims of Deir Yassin who lie within his sight 1,400 meters to the north. He bitterly protests when Jewish graves are defaced, but has nothing to say when the cemetery of Deir Yassin is bulldozed. He refuses even to acknowledge repeated requests that he join a group of Jews and non-Jews who wish to build a memorial at Deir Yassin.
Elie Wiesel may profess modesty and claim he is “not a symbol of anything” but, unfortunately, he has become a symbol of hypocrisy.
Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Geneva, NY
Interesting arithmetic
Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/ Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).
The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: “Passionate, tormenting”. Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering “You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak.”
Lengyel says
‘After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies.. Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry.’ (Paperback edition, pp80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in ‘death pits’ has been found.]
This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).
Could this claim be a misprint?
Kitty Hart, in spite of her name a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:
‘Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period.’ (p 118; Return to Auschwitz – paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).
According to the cover blurb, ‘The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name.’ ‘Both engaging and harrowing…an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive’ – Martin Gilbert, The Times.
Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the ‘Holocaust’ and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:
In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states
‘The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka.’ (p.26).
If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say a million a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert’s blessing.
It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors:
‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (extract from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso, London and New York, 2000, p.83).
Statement by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus
University of Ulster, December 5, 2005:
“I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”
THE ‘INCORRECT’ SIX MILLION
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prizewinner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, in a speech in Washington in 1975 had this to say of the Soviet system which was deemed worthy of recognition as one of ‘our’ Allies fighting ‘for Democracy’ against the ‘Dictators’ in WW2:
“This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing SIX MILLION PERSONS to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe. And Europe didn’t even notice it. The world didn’t even notice it. SIX MILLION PERSONS!”
(Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (1978) p 16)
Who were these people, and why was and is their fate unknown to the ordinary man in the street in western countries?
Franklin Roosevelt’s ally and associate Joseph Stalin was the supreme dictator of Russia for almost a quarter of a century, from 1929 until his death in 1953. Born as Iosif Djugashvili, he adopted the very indicative name ‘Stalin’, ‘man of steel’. He lived up to this name in every respect. Soviet Russia under Stalin was a despotic police state that relied on espionage and terror, with a profound gulf in manner of living between the rulers and the ruled.
Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) sought to bring about the ‘collectivization of agriculture’ in accordance with the ‘abolition of property in land’ put forward in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. But back in 1861 Czar Alexander II had liberated 23 million serfs, four years before slavery was abolished in the United States. In the period before the Revolution, millions of these peasants had been enabled to get title to their own individual plots, boosting Russian agricultural productivity. These independent peasant farmers became known as kulaks. When Communism was imposed on Russia, the kulaks as private property owners now stood in the way of the idea of Communism. In 1929 Stalin called for ‘the liquidation of the kulaks’, and their small family farms, animals, implements and crops were declared to belong to the state. “(The Jews) Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had always argued that the peasant would never surrender enough food voluntarily, and must be coerced and, if need be, crushed” (*Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p 268). The Red Army and the GPU secret police were used to implement the policy. All peasants who resisted were treated with violence. A very large number were killed or sent in cattle or freight trains to exile in remote areas in the frozen north or the desert steppes. Rather than give up their animals to the collective farms, many peasants killed and ate them. As a result, the number of farm animals in the Soviet Union was catastrophically reduced:
1928
1933
Cattle
30,7 million
19,6 million
Sheep and goats
146,7 million
50,2 million
Hogs
26 million
12,1 million
Horses
33,5 million
16,6 million
(*Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p 398).
The peasants stopped farming on ground that suddenly, officially, no longer belonged to them. As a result, food production decreased drastically. After a while, the cities started running out of food. Orders were given for grain to be confiscated from the peasants, whether they had sufficient for themselves and their families or not. Those caught trying to reserve food for their families were ‘severely dealt with’. By the winter of 1932-3, virtually no food was left in the countryside. By early March 1933, ‘death on a mass scale really began’ (Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) p243). The main farming areas of Russia, in the regions of the Ukraine and North Caucasus, were utterly devastated. Millions of people were forced to eat anything that was available, mice, rats, birds, grass, nettles, bark and even cats and dogs, but even then did not survive. It was a time of great and terrible hunger, a catastrophic man-made famine.
The American journalist Eugene Lyons was sent to Russia in 1928 as chief correspondent for the United Press agency. Arriving as an enthusiastic communist, he was able to experience the Soviet experiment at first hand. He became extremely disillusioned. He described the famine in his book Assignment in Utopia (published in 1937) in the following terms:
“Hell broke loose in seventy thousand Russian villages.. A population as large as all of Switzerland’s or Denmark’s was stripped clean of all their belongings.. They were herded with bayonets at railroad stations, packed indiscriminately into cattle cars and freight cars and dumped weeks later in the lumber regions of the frozen North, the deserts of central Asia, wherever labor was needed, there to live or die..”. The number of people that died is unknown, but the famine alone is estimated conservatively to have been responsible for 6 million deaths, almost half of them children (*Conquest, p 303-4). Other millions died from the killings and sickness as a result of the deportations (*p 304-7). At the famous Yalta conference in 1945, Winston Churchill was able to question his friend and fellow ally Stalin about the process. Stalin said ‘ten million’ had been ‘dealt with’, but that it had been ‘absolutely necessary’. Churchill records that he ‘sustained the strong impression of millions of men and women being blotted out or displaced forever’ (*Churchill, The Second World War, vol. IV p448). However Churchill – thank God for Winston Churchill – had no further comment to make on the matter. Controlling the agenda is always so important!
Lyons, himself Jewish, credits the Jewish commissar Lazar Kaganovich with the major portion of responsibility for this major crime against humanity:
“Lazar Kaganovich… it was his mind that invented the Political Departments to lead collectivized agriculture, his iron hand that applied Bolshevik mercilessness.” (*Lyons, p 578). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says tersely, “(Kaganovich) was one of the small group of Stalin’s top advisors pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929.. Within the Politburo, Kaganovich and Molotov led the opposition to Kirov’s proposed concessions to the peasantry and to his attempts to relax the harshness of Stalin’s control.. (Kaganovich) opposed Krushchev’s de-Stalinization..”. Kaganovich died at the ripe old age of 98 in 1991 (Encl. Brit.), ethnically safe from pursuit by the Israeli secret service, the Simon Wiesenthal organization, the New York media-intelligentsia or other hunters of real or imagined war criminals or human rights violators.
The suffering caused by the great man-made famine was covered by some reports in newspapers in Britain, Europe and the United States. Books dating from before World War Two can still be found in second-hand bookshops which describe the ferocity… Arthur Koestler, Soviet Myth and Reality in The Yogi and the Commissar (1945) Muggeridge, Lyons, Chamberlin… Yet this episode has been completely, entirely, totally ignored by our guardians of history, morality and political correctness…
NO MEMORIAL EXISTS IN WASHINGTON DC
(obviously) to record the indescribable scale of human suffering which resulted, undoubtedly because such a high burden of responsibility for it lies with the Jew Kaganovitch, and because the victims were not Jewish. No chance exists for such a monument, according to a private consensus, owing to certain political realities.
This six million is the ‘incorrect’ six million, because their inconvenient story is not and has not been useful to today’s elite. The tribal affiliations of the chief perpetrator (Jew) and the victims (non-Jews) are the wrong ones, not fitting into the ‘correct’ pattern.
According to Solzhenitsyn in the eighty years that preceded the Revolution in Russia, – years of revolutionary activity, uprisings and the assassination of a Czar, an average of ten persons a year were executed. After the Revolution, in 1918 and 1919, according to the figures of the Cheka, the secret police itself – more than a thousand persons were executed per month without trial. In 1937-8, at the height of Stalin’s terror, more than 40 000 persons were executed per month. (*Solzhenitsyn p17).
Millions of persons were executed or sent to labour camps. In his magnum opus The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn credits Naftaly Frenkel, a ‘Turkish-born Jew’, with being works chief / chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor (Baltic-White Sea) canal, built entirely with slave labour (paperback edition, vol 2 p 72). Solzhenitsyn quotes the official Soviet history of the project which describes Frenkel as having ‘..the eyes of an interrogator and prosecutor.. A man with enormous love of power and pride, for whom the main thing is unlimited power. If it is necessary for him to be feared, then let him be feared. He spoke harshly to the engineers, attempting to humiliate them.’ (ibid p 75). Other Jews were also involved in influential positions. Yakov Rappoport was deputy chief of construction (p 78) and Matvei Berman was the Chief of Gulag (p 79). Frenkel, Berman and Rappoport are amongst six men described by Solzhenitsyn as ‘hired murderers’, ‘each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives’ (p 91). Is Solzhenitsyn alone in his accusations? Why are these names generally unknown to ordinary citizens in the West?
“The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
“There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
“To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”
When Lenin died in 1924, Zinoviev – the first chairman of the Communist International – formed a triumvirate with Kamenev and Stalin to govern Russia. This ‘Troika’ as it was known was formed to keep Trotsky from the succession. Stalin was the only one of the three members of the Troika who was not Jewish. “Though Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky as too militant and extreme, they shared his belief in permanent revolution, which Stalin did not. Russia had been in almost continuous turmoil for twenty years and had suffered revolutions and counter-revolutions, war, invasions and a pitiless and drawn-out civil war. There were limits to which the endurance of a people could be stretched. The Russians wanted to bury their dead and resume what they could of normal life. Stalin understood this. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the three Jews) did not.”
“Jews had a prominent role in Communist parties elsewhere..” (Chaim Bermant, The Jews (1977)).
THE ‘CORRECT’ SIX MILLION
What about the ‘Actual’ Holocaust?
Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York says:
‘ “The Holocaust” is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary, but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. Indeed, The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified. ” (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p 3).
Or better yet, take a graduate course from Dr Henry Makow.
For those interested to pursue “white males are the largest group of homosexuals” idea – the gifted writer and ‘outside the square’ researcher Dr Henry Makow (creator of Scruples) is educating the internet population upon this very topic at present.
Dr Makow is a Jewish writer and he is very clued up and wise to media ownership and programming for the sheeple. Don’t miss his August 11, 09 post “Does Hollywood Airbrush Jews and Gays?” (Need we ask) This post is under the heading Hollywood’s Hatred of Heterosexuals and Christians.
Dr Makow has many excellent essays on the Agenda – http://www.henrymakow.com. Also he is the author of The Illuminati: the Cult that Hijacked the World.
“Indeed, The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon.” Now, that’s an accurate observation. It has been used as a battering ram against our once strong fortifications. Now, the barbarians are inside our gates.
Mark Potok, of the SPLC, in full gloat:
“I don’t think these are simply people who are mentally ill or off their rocker,” Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told ABC News of those behind the threats. “In a very real sense they represent a genuine reaction, a genuine backlash against Obama . . . . “I think the president has, in effect, triggered fears amongst fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country, that the battle is lost,” Potok told ABC News. “The nation that their Christian white forefathers created has somehow been taken from them.”
——————————————————————
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1
Although I’m not sure I share their optimism in consideration of the rising resistance to Obama-Socialism (I hesitate to give Boobus Americanus credit for having a spine, but I’d love to be proven wrong), this is a pretty good discussion between Michael Peroutka and Franklin Sanders –
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1428&PHPSESSID=1a8f88cf9775cd3fb4535590016e80f4
Katamari Damacy, my dear. You’ve never heard of it I suppose.
Before you judge, make sure you know what you’re talking about.
PS: This cake is really awesome.