Arnaville-us

arnaville-us@lists.lysator.liu.se

15 discussions

Adolf Hitler - An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize

by Lawrence Auster

Adolf Hitler - An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize By Alex S. Perry Jr. If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. Hitler did not want war. World War II was forced on Germany. Poland was encouraged to attack Germany by the promises of British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel. They promised unconditionally that England and France would come to Poland�s immediate aid should she need it in case of war with Germany; therefore, no matter what Poland did to provoke Germany�s attack, Poland had an assurance from England and France. With this guarantee, Poland began acting ruthlessly. In addition, Kennard and Noel flattered Poland into thinking she was a great power. As the Chinese proverb says, �You can flatter a man to jump off the roof.� They sabotaged the efforts of those Polish leaders who wanted a policy of friendship with Germany.1 Poland delivered the first blow, and Hitler announced, �Since dawn today, we are shooting back,� when he spoke to the Reichstag on Sept ember 1, 1939. �Shooting back� is not the statement of an aggressor.2 When Hitler attacked, Donald Day said, Poland got exactly what she deserved. None of Poland�s immediate neighbors felt sorry for her. Poland had conducted a policy of terror. Ethnic Germans living on German soil that had been given to Poland at the end of World War I by the Versailles Peace Treaty had been so mistreated that 2 million left the area for Germany and elsewhere.3 They were driven from what had been their homeland long before World War I. Leon Degrelle, a young Belgian political leader in the 1930s, and who later joined Hitler�s hardest fighting unit, the Waffen SS, with over 400,000 other non-German European volunteers, says, �Of all the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue.�4 Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated.5 William Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw by British propaganda, became a German citizen and took up for the German cause. He described the conditions of the Germans who were living in Poland because of the Versailles Treaty: German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob. . . . Every day the butchery increased. . . . [T]housands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore. Moreover, there was no doubt that the Polish army was making plans for the massacre of Danzig. . . . On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. On the night of [August 31], a band of Polish desperadoes actually occupied the German Broad casting Station at Gleiwitz. Now it was clear that unless German troops marched at once, not a man, woman or child of German blood within the Polish territory could reasonably expect to avoid persecution and slaughter.6 Due to Poland�s atrocious acts against the German people, Hitler declared to British Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson on August 25, 1939: �Poland�s provocations have become intolerable.�7 So Poland delivered the first blow, not Germany. The first blow was important to the United States in its war with Japan. It gave the United States the right and justification to do whatever was necessary to defeat the Japanese. But Germany did not have this right with Poland even after Poland had delivered the first blow. What fair-minded man, if he knew the true facts involved in the Polish situation, could blame Hitler for his retaliatory attack on Poland? Poland, if any nation ever did, deserved exactly what Germany gave her in return. But Hitler did not even want to do what he had to do. No sooner than Hitler began protecting the German people inside Poland, he was ready to stop all hostilities and begin peace negotiations. Prince Sturdza narrates: Only hours after the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and Poland, Mussolini, renewing his efforts for peace, proposed to all the interested powers an immediate suspension of hostilities and the immediate convocation of a conference between the great powers, in which Poland would also participate. Mussolini�s proposals were, without any delay, accepted by all governments concerned except Great Britain.8 Before war broke out Britain�s ambassador to Berlin, Sir Nevil Henderson, on August 30, 1939, said, in his final report of Germany�s proposed basis for negotiations, �Those proposals are in general not too unreasonable.� Even Pierre and Renee Gosset, in their rabid anti-German book Hitler, declare: �It was a proposal of extreme moderation. It was in fact an offer that no Allied statesman could have rejected in good faith.�9 As early as January 1941, Hitler was making extraordinary efforts to come to peace terms with England. He offered England generous terms. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Den mark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. His proposal had many other favorable points for England and Western Europe. But England�s officials did not want peace. They wanted war. Had they not celebrated their declaration of war by laughing, joking and drinking beer?10 Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk. He did not want to fight England. German Gen. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape: He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but �where there is planning 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 lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.11 Blumentritt�s statement is not the only notice about Hitler�s hope of peace and friendship with England. The renowned Swedish Explorer Sven Hedin observed Hitler�s confusion about Britain�s refusal to accept his peace offers: Hitler �felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blacked his eye in reply.� Hitler said, �The survival of the British Empire is in Germany�s interests too because if Britain loses India, we gain nothing thereby.�12 Harry Elmer Barnes says that Hitler lost the war because he was too good. While the theory of Hitler�s diabolism is generally accepted, there are very well informed persons who contend that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations: he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.13 David Irving�s descriptive account of Hitler�s love for Great Britain confirms what others had to say of Hitler�s desire to do no harm to England: For 20 years Hitler had dreamed of an alliance with Britain. Until far into the war he clung to the dream with all the vain, slightly ridiculous tenacity of a lover unwilling to admit that his feelings are unrequited. As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940: �After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. . . .� This was the dilemma confronting Hitler that summer. He hesitated to crush the British. Accordingly, he could not put his heart into the invasion planning. More fatefully, Hitler stayed the hand of the Luftwaffe and forbade any attack on London under pain of court-martial; the all-out saturation bombing of London, which his strategic advisers Raeder, Jodl, and Jeschonnek all urged upon him, was vetoed for one implausible reason after another. Though his staffs were instructed to examine every peripheral British position�Gibraltar, Egypt, the Suez Canal�for its vulnerability to attack, the heart of the British Empire was allowed to beat on, unmolested until it was too late. In these months an adjutant overheard Hitler heatedly shouting into a Chancellery telephone, �We have no business to be destroying Britain. We are quite incapable of taking up her legacy,� meaning the empire; and he spoke of the �devastating consequences� of the collapse of that empire.14 Hitler told Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, March 2, 1940, (1) that he had long been in favor of disarmament, but had received no encouragement from England and France; (2) he was in favor of international free trade; (3) Germany had no aim other than the return of the �German people to the territorial position that historically was rightly theirs�; (4) he had no desire to control non-German people and he had no intention to interfere with their independence; and (5) he wanted the return of the colonies that were stolen from Germany at Versailles.15 Churchill wanted war. Churchill was a war criminal. Churchill did not want peace. He wanted the war to continue as long as possible. In a January 1, 1944, letter to Stalin, Churchill said: �We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?�16 This is a confession even by Churchill that Hitler never did want war with England. Churchill in his July 1943 Guildhall speech stated quite plainly, �We entered the war of our free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.�17 When Churchill was leaving London to meet Roosevelt for a conference in Quebec late in the summer of 1943, a reporter asked if they were planning to offer peace terms to Germany. Churchill replied: �Heavens, no. They would accept immediately.�18 So the war went on from August 1943 until May 1945�for 22 more months just because peace terms were not offered. Churchill wanted England to be in war with Germany as early as 1936.19 Roosevelt was a war criminal. He wanted war and he wanted World War II to last as long as possible. @ @ @ Hitler and the German people did not want war, but Roosevelt wanted war. He worked for getting World War II started. He wanted war for political reasons. Jesse Jones, a member of Roosevelt�s cabinet for five years, states, �Regardless of his oft-repeated statement, �I hate war,� he was eager to get into the fighting since that would ensure a third term.�20 While the president repeated he did not want war and had no intent to send an expeditionary force to Europe, the militant secretaries of the Navy and of the War Department, Knox and Stimson, denounced the neutrality legislation in speeches and public declarations and advocated an American intervention in the Atlantic Battle. As members of the cabinet they could not do it without the president�s consent.21 When the press quoted Frank Knox as saying: �The only hope for peace for the United States would be the battering of Germany,� FDR did not rebuke him.22 Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Gen. Eisenhower�s brother, said, �President Roosevelt found it necessary to get the country into World War II to save his social policies.�23 Clare Booth-Luce shocked many people by saying at the Republican Party Convention in 1944 that Roosevelt �has lied us [the U.S.A.] into the war.� However, after this statement proved to be correct, the Roosevelt followers ceased to deny it, but praised it by claiming he was �forced to lie� to save his country and then England and �the world.�24 Rep. Hamilton Fish made the first speech in Congress on December 8, 1941, asking for a declaration of war against Japan. In his book, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, Fish says he is ashamed of that speech today and if he had known what Roosevelt had been doing to provoke Japan to attack, he would never have asked for a declaration of war.25 Fish said Roosevelt was the main firebrand to light the fuse of war both in Europe and the Pacific.26 Roosevelt�s real policy was revealed when the Germans were able to search through Polish documents and found in the archives in Warsaw �the dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and Paris which laid bare Roosevelt�s efforts to goad France and Britain into war. In November 1938, William C. Bullitt, his personal friend and ambassador in Paris, had indicated to the Poles that the president�s desire was for �Germany and Russia [to] come to blows, whereupon the democratic nations would attack Germany and force her into submission�; in the spring of 1939, Bullitt quoted Roosevelt as being determined �not to participate in the war from the start, but to be in at the finish.�27 Oliver Lyttelton, wartime British production manager, was undeniably correct when he declared, �America was never truly neutral. There is no doubt where her sympathies were, and it is a travesty on history ever to say that the United States was forced into the war. America provoked the Japanese to such an extent that they were forced to attack.�28 @ @ @ The Japanese were begging for peace before the atom bombs were dropped, and MacArthur recommended negotiation on the basis of the Japanese overtures. But Roosevelt brushed off this suggestion with the remark: �MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.�29 These statements tell the whole history of World War II from the beginning to the end, The war was started to keep Roosevelt in office and it was allowed to go on much longer than necessary�it could have been over any day from 1943 on. At the same time American boys were battling to end World War II, leading American politicians were doing all they could for political reasons to continue the conflict. Hitler had only one goal with regard to his relations with other nations. That goal was peace. On May 17, 1933, Hitler addressed the Reichstag about his intentions: Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness. Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention. Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security.30 None of the �peace loving democracies� paid any attention to Hitler�s offer. The only reason why King Edward was not allowed to remain on the British throne was because he let it be known that as long as he was the king, England would not go to war with Germany. Hitler expressed himself about the results Germany would gain from war: �A European war could be the end of all our efforts even if we should win, because the disappearance of the British Empire would be a misfortune which could not be made up again� (Michael McLaughlin, For Those Who Cannot Speak, page 10). Based on the above, Hitler should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously to set things straight. He was not the cause of World War II and he did not want any war. He was a man of peace and he worked for peace in every way he could. ENDNOTES: 1 Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, 68-9. Donald Day was The Chicago Tribune�s only correspondent in northeastern Europe before and during World War II. 2 McLaughlin, Michael, For Those Who Cannot Speak, 9. 3Onward Christian Soldiers, 55. 4The Journal of Historical Review, winter 1982, 454-5. 5 Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86. 6Twilight Over England, 125-6. 7The Suicide of Europe (memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, former foreign minister of Romania), 1. 8Ibid., 145. 9Ibid., 11. 10 McLaughlin,op cit., 10. 11 Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162. The last sentence in the paragraph just quoted should put an end to any claim that Hitler wanted to capture the world. 12 Irving, David, Hitler�s War, paperback edition, Avon History, 236. 13The Barnes Trilogy, section �Revisionism and Brainwashing,� 33. 14 Irving, op. cit., 236. 15 Tansill, Charles Callan, Back Door to War, 577. 16 Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3. 17 Martin, James J., The Saga of Hog Island, 42. 18 Martin, James J., Revisionist Viewpoints, 75. 19 Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend, 350. 20 Jones, Jesse H., with Edward Angly, Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC: 1932-1945, New York: the Macmillan Company, 1951, 260. 21 Fehrenbach, T.F., F.D.R.�s Undeclared War 1939 to 1941, pages 135, 189. 22 Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3. 23 Grieb, Conrad, American Manifest Destiny and the Holocaust, 124-5. 24 Walendy, op. cit., 3 25Ibid., 144. 26Ibid., 149. 27 Irving, op. cit., 235. 28The Saga of Hog Island, op. cit., 63. 29 Chamberlin, William Henry, America�s Second Crusade, 219. 30 Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend, 278. ------------------------ You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net ------------------------

14 years, 3 months

Wealth of U.S.A. Plundered by Jews -- The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogma -- Why No Neocon Assassinations?

by Lawrence Auster

Wealth of U.S.A. Plundered by Jews Thursday, 05 February 2009 By Texe Marrs It's all over the media, how one Wall Street crook, Bernie Madoff, masterminded the greatest Ponzi scheme in history. Bernie ripped off investors to the tune of $50 billion, and they're still counting. Fifty billion! That's more than the current market value of General Motors, Disney, Boeing, and Anheuser-Busch combined. And just one solitary individual�a corrupt, money-grabbing Jew named "Madoff"�is the culprit. But, wait...hold on. Is this one crime the whole picture, the full extent of Wall Street's monumental scam and robbery extravaganza? Not by a long shot! Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus Citibank's Jewish money-shovelers stole some $200 billion�and then got the idiots at the U.S. Treasury to dole out some $160 billion of our�the suffering taxpayers�hard-earned money into their coffers. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and his name is "Uncle Sam." America's banking industry is exclusively Jewish-run. The same goes for Wall Street brokerage and investment houses. Investigate for yourself and you'll discover that the New York-Chicago money crowd is nearly 100 percent Jews. They're the ones�these bamboozling and crafty, satanic Jews�who greedily have broken the backs of millions of bedraggled and unsuspecting American workers through their unparalleled lust for filthy lucre. Jesus told us this would be the case. He warned us in advance. He gave the Jews a choice: God or Mammon. They chose Mammon (i.e., money) and then added icing to their cake on earth by torturing, mocking, then finally nailing our Lord and Savior to a wooden cross. Oh, excuse me. The Jews didn't do it themselves. They never do. They got the Romans to do their dirty work. Pilate at first refused, until the Jews made it clear to the Roman Governor he better do their bidding, or else. Like today's miserly and cowardly politicians, Pilate caved in. Crucified on a Cross of Gold Now, it's America's turn to be crucified, on a cross of Jewish-owned gold. The Jews of Wall Street are the perps of this crucifixion. They run Wall Street, have their grimy hands all over our U.S. Treasury, force Congress to bow down and worship their murderous idol, "Israel," and then lie and cast blame elsewhere. Now Bernie Madoff, former chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, is only one of thousands of money manipulating Jewish thugs running loose in these 50 states�and they all have Gentile lackeys kissing their feet and mopping floors for them�men like George W. ("McMoron") Bush, Bill ("Bimbo") Clinton, and Vice President Joe ("Big Mouth Clown") Biden, just to name a few. But consider the damage that this one scheming Jew, Madoff, did and multiply that times, say, 100,000. Writing in the Business section of the Austin American-Statesman (December 28, 2008), news reporter Scott Burns commented on the Madoff robbery: "The loss is mind-boggling...One way to measure the extent of the damage is to compare the $50 billion to measures of loss in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In 2007 there were 9.8 million crimes against property in the United States. This included about 2.2 million burglaries, 6.6 million thefts, and 1.1 million car thefts. I think you'll agree that 9.8 million crimes represent a veritable army of miscreants. In spite of that, our total losses to such property crimes in 2007 throughout the entire United States were a mere $17.6 billion... But when you add up all the losses in 9.8 million common property crimes, it's just a fraction of the estimated $50 billion loss attributed to Madoff. Jews Also Behind the Most Inhumane, Bloody Crime in History Think of it. One evil Jew, Madoff, made off with a staggering total equal to somewhere near the losses of about 30 million crimes. There's more, of course. It's not just the money. The Jews are also behind the most sinister and bloody inhuman crime ever committed in the annals of human history�the Soviet Communist Holocaust. The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the 20th century's most acclaimed literary figure and historian, reported in his final book, Two Hundred Years Together, that the Jews were the revolutionary conspirators and mass murderers responsible for the Communist holocaust in which a mind-warping 66 million innocent victims were tortured, imprisoned in filthy, gruesome gulag camps and, finally, unmercifully executed. Lenin, Trotsky, Kaganovich�all these Communist monsters were Jews and their talmudic goal was a global Communist "Utopia," led, of course, exclusively by Zionist Jews. Allegedly�and I use that word advisedly�the Jews accuse Hitler and his Nazis of the murder of six million in the misnamed German "holocaust." Modern-day researchers, however, are discovering that this figure, six million, is grossly exaggerated so that Jews can appear as "victims" and thus continue incessantly to demand money and reparations from a clueless and guilt-filled Gentile world. 66 Million Butchered by Jews! Nevertheless, contrast this six million Jewish dead number to Solzhenitsyn's very accurate statistic of 66 million slain by the psychopathic Jewish Communists in the former Soviet Union. Many, if not most, of these victims were Christians. (Note: Jews were favored in the U.S.S.R. and synagogues were protected. Anti-Semitic "crimes"�even thought crimes�were met with death sentences by Jewish courts in the Soviet justice system). Tally it up: 66 million Christians slaughtered by the Jews, 6 million (allegedly) by the Nazis. That's eleven dead Christians for each and every Jew. The world has no sorrow for these 66 million dead, their survivors get no reparations, and their Jewish tormentors�including scores of Jewish Gulag Commandants�today remain free. Some live in luxury in Israel and pleasurably enjoy fat bank accounts, money plundered from hapless Christian victims. Barack Obama, America's First Jewish President The Jews did it to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and all the other Communist prison nations. Now, in 2009, they're scheduled to do the same thing to the once, great U.S.A. Barack Obama�whom Chicago's wealthiest Jews boast is America's "First Jewish President"�is their chosen instrument. Wily, cunning, handsome, Obama has a cohort Jew to assist him in this assigned mission of human and national destruction. That would be Rahm "The Cruel" Emanuel, the Enforcer, the new White House Chief of Staff. Just for writing this article, I expect to be placed near the top of this wicked man's "Hit List." And I suspect there will be so many on this list that the White House and its Homeland Security Department will need a whole warehouse full of computers just to store all the millions of names. FDR had his "New Deal;" today, in 2009, Barack Hussein Obama and his Trotskyite, left-hand lieutenant, the beady-eyed Israeli dual citizen, "Rahm the Cruel," have in mind the "Jew Deal." The goal: The Sovietization of America, the extinguishing of our historic Bill of Rights, the end of U.S. sovereignty, and the death of multitudes who will refuse to bow down to the ruthless tyrants who wear the six-pointed Red Star in their hearts like a dagger. "If You Can, Come and Take It" Our enemies, regrettably, occupy the highest offices in the land. But they don't have everything they desire and lust for. They don't have the fawning allegiance and docile service of you, me, and thousands of other patriots who bravely oppose their black-hearted plot. I am not, by nature, a violent man, and I pray fervently for peace and harmony to prevail. I pray, too, that the schemes of the Zionist Jews plotting against America will fail, that our Constitution will be respected and that the corrupt money-thieves on Wall Street and elsewhere will soon be outed and put in prisons, where they belong. But if not, then I say, let us fight for the right. Here we stand, by virtue of Truth and Justice, and I say to Obama, Emanuel, and the other Zionist traitors: "Here we are; if you can, come and take it, but know this: You have a fight on your hands, because we will not go quietly out into that soft, sweet night. And believe me, you can take that, along with your ill-begotten gains, to the bank." Source : http://ziopedia.org/articles/jewry/wealth_of_u.s.a._plundered_by_jews/ ----<>---- The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogma Thursday, 05 February 2009 By Mark Glenn The last time a Pope of the Catholic Church defined an infallible dogma was in the year 1950. Pope Pius XII used this power reserved for the Vicar of Christ when speaking ex cathedra to define the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It was an extraordinary event because a pope using the power of infallibly to define a dogma is done so rarely, and most popes have never used this power. Before Pius XII, the last pope to invoke papal infallibly to define a dogma was Pius IX in 1854, when he defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Both of these dogmas referred to events that had occurred 19 centuries before , and that had been studied by the best minds of the Church for almost as long. That�s because when making an infallible statement - it goes without saying - it can�t contain any errors! Fast forward to 2009 and Pope Benedict XVI has just defined a new dogma regarding a secular event that has nothing to do with the Faith. Moreover, this �dogmatic event� only occurred in the middle of the 20th Century- and no one is allowed to investigate to see if it contains any errors! A dogma is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that must be believed by every Catholic or they�re not in communion with the Church. In the past, a dogma referred only to a matter of Christian faith, and Catholics could believe whatever they wanted about historical events. But today�s remarks from the Vatican make it clear that the Jewish version of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed in gas chambers, must be believed by every Catholic or they�re not in communion with the Church. That makes the Holocaust an official �dogma� of the Catholic Faith (*sarcasm*). Here�s the news out of the Vatican. On Jan. 28, the pope said he felt �full and indisputable solidarity� with Jews, and warned against any denial of the full horror of the Nazi genocide. Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted,� the statement said. The Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. Jewish groups welcomed the Vatican statement, saying it satisfied their key demand. �This was the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for,� said Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress. Yes, this is the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for, but what exactly does this �sign� really mean? It means that in the post-Vatican II Church, the �Shoah� has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history. And do you notice the subtle switcheroo here? Now, instead of the central tenet of the Christian faith pertaining to the murder of the Christ by Jews, the new central tenet refers to the murder of Jews by Christians! This should come as no surprise to those who understand what really lies at the heart of the problem. At its core, this is a spiritual battle that�s being waged above our heads. It�s Christ vs. anti-Christ, and each of us must choose a side. Lucifer wanted to be equal to God and out of pride refused to accept being a servant. When he uttered his famous �non servium� he took a third of the angels with him and set about waging war against God. When God sent His Son to redeem the world, Lucifer tried to prevent it. He took Jesus to the mountain top and tempted Him, saying �if you just bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.� Jesus told the devil to buzz off. The Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah did so out of racial pride and ambition. They wanted an earthly kingdom where they would always be the �Chosen Ones� and did not want to share a kingdom with the gentiles. But Jesus emphatically said that His kingdom was not of this world and to share the good news with the gentiles. The Jews who accepted the Messiah became the first Christians, and those who rejected Him fell into spiritual blindness. Satan takes advantage of Jewish hatred of Jesus and uses them to battle against the Church of Christ. The Jews continue to wait for a wordly Messiah, but the Messiah they await is known to us as the anti-Christ. Therefore, all Christians must love and pray for the Jewish people to accept Christ as the Messiah, thereby snatching them from the jaws of Satan, whom they don�t realize they are serving. This battle between Christ and anti-Christ is 2,000 years old and all popes throughout history have waged it (at least until 1958). That�s what makes the Church�s post-Vatican II attitude toward the Jews so perplexing, since it enables them to continue in spiritual blindness and sets the stage for the coming of the anti-Christ. Pope Leo XIII had a vision at the end of the 19th Century in which he forsaw that the devil had been given extra powers for 100 years to try to destroy the Church. This seems to coincide with the shift in power that took place in the 20th Century when after two world wars, the Jews took Palestine and solidified their control over the West. This was also the century in which the Jews unleashed their most deadly weapon, Communism, which caused the deaths of millions of people. But these people�s genocides go unnoticed and certainly have not been declared �dogma� by a pope of the Catholic Church. Another clue that something is amiss inside the Church is that the Second Vatican Council refused to condemn Communism, but declared that anti-Semitism was a sin (without defining what constitutes anti-Semitism). Enter Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and the man who�s currently being crucified, Bishop Richard Williamson. Archbishop Lefebvre himself had fought inside the Second Vatican Council to prevent the coup of the liberals. He also stated that the mere fact that the Council refused to condemn Communism was enough to call the Council into question. The Archbishop knew that something nefarious had happened inside the Church and sensed that he was waging a battle against powers and principalities. In terms of his plans to restore Tradition, in the Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he quotes the Archbishop as saying (pp. 500-501): The Council is a non-infallible act of the Magisterium and, therefore, it is open to being influenced by a bad spirit � Therefore, we need to apply the criterion of Tradition to the various Council documents to see what we can keep, what needs clarifying, and what should be rejected. And that�s exactly the whole point of the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican that have been going on for almost 40 years. After the release of the Latin Mass and the lifting of the excommunications, the next phase is doctrinal discussions. But somebody doesn�t want that to happen. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970 in order to train priests in Tradition and not in the confusing, untraditional, Judeo-Masonic manner of the post-Conciliar era. The greatest threat to Revolutionaries is those who are not afraid to resist them to the face, i.e., the Counter-Revolutionaries. That is why Pope John Paul II would not allow Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrecate bishops, something that is usually rubber-stamped for every other order. John Paul II wanted the SSPX to go extinct after the death of its founder and put a stop to the Counter-Revolution. And if the Council really was influenced by a �bad spirit� as the Archbishop said, then certainly any attempt to exorcise this bad spirit would be met with the fiercest resistance by those who work for the anti-Christ. This is where the controversy over Bishop Williamson�s remarks about the actual number of Jews killed in the Holocaust comes into the scenario. If the Jews are (wittingly or unwittingly) working to bring about the reign of the anti-Christ, then part of their strategy has to be to neutralize the Church. In their effort to overturn the crucifixion and replace it with the �Shoah,� they�re trying to utilize the Church to bring this about. And any force that appears to provide resistance to this switcheroo will be seen as the gravest possible threat. Because truly, it wouldn�t have mattered if Bishop Williamson had not said a word about the Shoah, they would have found something else to try to impede the Church�s return to Tradition. Because Christ and anti-Christ cannot co-exist on equal terms - one must naturally dominate the other. And the Church returning to Tradition and her normal role as the Church Militant is the one monkey wrench that could be thrown into the plans of the anti- Christ. No other challenger intimidates them, absolutely no one else causes them to tremble. But a fully traditional Church Militant with a billion souls in her army is the one thing that could defeat their plans. And that�s what this is really all about. Bishop Williamson now finds himself in the center of a controvery that has been coming to a head for a very long time. In perusing the Catholic blogosphere, it appears that most Catholics (even trads) wish that he had just kept his mouth shut. But they would probably have said the same thing to Jesus, so as not to annoy the Pharisees. But I�m convinced Our Lord Jesus Christ knows what he is doing. Because it is time to confront the truth, as the the hour glass of time winds down, and get ready for the final conflagration. But it appears most Christians would rather retreat to the hills, rather than risk not being popular with the world. Thankfully, for the sake of our salvation, Jesus Himself was not so pusillanimous. And hopefully Bishop Williamson won�t be so pusillanimous either, since his founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, most assuredly was not. The Archbishop personally chose Richard Williamson to carry on his work after his death, to be a successor to the apostles. The only question that remains is: will he be like St. John or like the others who abandoned Jesus �for fear of the Jews.� The Church and the Jews have been locked in this battle for 2,000 years, so this latest controversy is nothing to be surprised about. Satan uses the poor, blinded Jews to attack the Lord�s Church because he doesn�t want us or them to be saved. But at least in the past, it used to be clear which side the popes were on! The Pope and SSPX bishops need all our prayers and support right now, because they are going through a trial by fire. And, at least in this early stage, it appears Bishop Fellay is starting to get cold feet. Every day for the past several days he has issued a denunciation of his colleague, Bishop Williamson, each one more hysterical than the last. He even went so far as to refer to the Jews as our �elder brothers in the faith,� as though the Talmud has anything to do with our Faith. When I said last week that I wished Bishop Fellay would one day be pope, I didn�t mean in the mold of John Paul II! Let us pray especially for Pope Benedict XVI, the keeper of the keys to heaven, that he prove himself a worthy successor of St. Peter, and that he not imitate Peter in his denial of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the day would come when the SSPX would be called on to save the Church. And judging by the howls and screams from the satanic press, that day might be just around the corner. Let us hope that we also have the courage to stand beside them, no matter how much the media attack and lambaste us. It�s for the Jews� own good after all, for they know not whom they are serving. As the Archbishop wrote in 1966 (ibid, pp. 382-83): When the Holy Father realizes that those whom he trusted are leading the Church to her ruin, he will find himself a group of bishops � who are ready to rebuild. Unfortunately, the time has not yet come, because the Holy Father himself must change what he is doing, and that conversion will be painful. Let us hope that the time has come and that Pope Benedict will accept the help of the SSPX. It is time for the Holy Father to stop taking sides with the enemies of the Church and stop defining secular events as �dogma,� especially ones so riddled through with holes. May God save the Church through His servant, Pope Benedict, although the Pope�s conversion will be painful. Source : http://ziopedia.org/articles/holocaust/the_holocaust_is_now_catholic_dogma/ ----<>---- Why No Neocon Assassinations? Because The War On Terror Is A Hoax February 03, 2009 By Paul Craig Roberts According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush�s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists. If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly. The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated. I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country�s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow. The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America�s wars in the Middle East in the same way. Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online. Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child�s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem. If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official. Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed. The "war on terror" is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel�s territorial expansion. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel�s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets. Hezbollah represents the Shi�ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion. The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" for no other reason than the US is on Israel�s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State�s "finding" that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration. Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them. The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged. The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox "News" are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this "arming" with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets. The films of Israel�s murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel�s assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers. Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and appropriating their land. The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with Israel and the US in keeping the Palestinians unarmed. The unsupported assertion that Iran supplies sophisticated arms to the Palestinians is like the unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions are propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Source : http://vdare.com/roberts/090203_terror.htm ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to Lawrence Auster's Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact : lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

14 years, 3 months

The Church and anti-Semitismagain

by Lawrence Auster

14 years, 3 months

The Military, Industrial Complex is no more -- The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites?

by Lawrence Auster

The �Military, Industrial Complex� is no more. Today it is the Political, Financial and Media � Zionist Complex! 1/28/2009 An short essay by Dr. David Duke The �Military-Industrial complex� really has no relevance to the real holders of global power today. America is the most powerful military and economic nation on earth. The powers that control the levers of political power in America possess the greatest power the world has ever seen. Who really has power over the government today? Is it the fabled �Military, Industrial Complex�? An effective gauge of direct political power in America is �to discover who provided the pivotal amounts of the billion-dollar recent campaigns for U.S. President. You can look directly at campaign contributions for every candidate from the Federal Election Commission in order to find out who holds the real power in politics. So, who holds the real power over the American political establishment? Let�s first look at who does not hold much power over the establishment. 1) It is not the military. There is not any organized military monetary influence or even significant political influence of the military over the politicians. In fact, no one in military positions of authority are allowed to openly get involved in politics. No active sergeant, lieutenant, or General can send out a directive to the men under him to support or oppose a particular candidate (the one exception I know to that was when the Louisiana commanding general of the National Guard, under Jewish influence, sent a letter to all national guardsmen telling them that it was their �patriotic duty� to vote against David Duke and for the Liberal corrupt former Governor, Edwin Edwards. Even that caused a scandal in military circles, as it should have. 2) It is NOT major manufacturing or even the huge oil companies. There was not one oil company and only a couple of legitimate manufacturing or industrial concerns on Obama and McCain�s top twenty contributor list. The list was completely dominated by Zionist international banking firms. If one combines every defense contractor�s contributions the money they give in politics is minuscule compared to Zionist international banks. They don�t even come close to the power in lobbying that AIPAC and a couple of dozen more Jewish extremist organizations have. Jewish lobbyists literally get almost unanimous support in Congress for outrageous giveaways to Israel, a nation that has committed terrorism against us and killed or maimed scores of Americans. I am not talking about contracts here, I am speaking about giving away billions of dollars to a foreign nation. So, so much for the media-popularized term, the military-industrial complex In direct political money and lobbying then, Zionists are the undisputed masters of the American political establishment. In addition to their control through the use of money as an inducement or a threat, they have tens of thousands of Jewish extremists scattered throughout the entire bureaucracy who are very conscious of supporting their brethren and supporting the organized Jewish agenda. They also are ready to act against any Gentile who dares to go against Israel or the Jewish agenda. How will a Jewish federal judge rule in a huge litigation issue between Jewish and non-Jewish parties? Why was the biggest robber in the history of the world, Bernie Madoff who stole over 50 billion dollars and who ruined tens of thousands of families, only charged with one criminal count, and allowed to stay in his luxury apartment to await trial? Is there an organized Jewish agenda? Absolutely. In fact, the leading and most powerful Jewish groups have a supra-organization called the Council of Presidents (composed of the most powerful 5 dozen Jewish organizations in America). They issue detailed positions not just on Mideast policy but on many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel, aspects of domestic policy including issues such as opening America�s borders. They even assume positions on issues that you wouldn�t even think would have unanimity among Jews, such as abortion rights. Their job is to make sure that Jewish power is absolutely united on what they decide are their common agendas. Next, we must talk about one of the most influential parts of the American political process, the mass media. The media, such as the NY Times and the Washington Post (the newspaper read by every member of America�s government and bureaucracy in Washington). The Washington Post can determine even what issues Congress will discuss and it greatly affects the publicity for or against those issues. Broadcast and cable television also have an enormous impact, and we can include movies, books, magazines and the newspaper chains that reach down into almost every American community. As my chapters in Jewish Supremacism on �Jewish Media Supremacy� document, the ownership, depth and breadth of Jewish influence in the media is simply breathtaking. In media, whether you speak of owners, administrators, managers, editors, producers, writers, correspondents, pundits and reporters, there is an army of Jews who are animated by the Holocaust and the issues of the organized Jewish community. If you haven�t yet read them, you simply must see the evidence on the Jewish supremacy in media I have compiled in my books Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening. The other great seat of establishment power is simply money, huge sums of money and the willingness to use those funds on behalf of an agenda. The biggest concentrations of wealth in the world today are in the Zionist international banks, and in financial groups that the Jews completely control such as the Federal Reserve Corporation, the same forces that have led us to the doorstep of a great depression. It is no accident that Alan Greenspan and Ben Shalom Bernanke are the last two of the Federal Reserve czars. Even in days of World War I, an immensely rich, Jewish international banker, Jacob Schiff, voiced pride in the fact that he was instrumental in weakening Czarist Russia (the government that Jews universally hated), and that he supported Russia�s enemies so as to make Russia ripe for communist overthrow (Jewish groups brag of his help to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War so as to hurt the Russian government). Schiff also gave millions of dollars to directly finance the Jews who led and organized the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik terror in Russia. There is no disputing of these facts. Plenty of Jewish history books detail all of it. So, frankly, financial power in the control of people who will use it for an agenda is also a key ingredient of real power. Again, the financial power in the hands of modern day Jacob Schiff�s, is an incredibly powerful weapon. So forget about the �Military-Industrial Complex.� That is passe. In today�s world it makes more sense to speak about the �Political, Financial and Media Zionist complex.� That is the real core of power that bends everything whether it be local laws, or giant corporations, to its will. Even if one of the world�s richest firms, such as Microsoft (which is now by the way run by a Jewish extremist), would buck the political, financial, and media Zionist complex, it would be broken by government fiat, the Jewish-influenced courts (such as anti-trust actions), and by vicious attacks by the Jewish-influenced media. Microsoft would either be dismembered or destroyed. Such are the realities of the modern world. There is no longer a �military industrial complex,� but there is a Political and media and financial Zionist complex that rules us and aims to control the whole world. No single part of this behemoth can be defeated, because it can use its other assets to defend the section under attack. It can only be brought down by concentrating all our political and ideological fire right on the core the problem, International Zionism and its driving impetus: Jewish Supremacism. �Dr. David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/forget-the-military-industrial-complex-tod… ---- The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites 1/29/2009 The main argument for affirmative action is that institutions should reflect racial percentages of population, if not there must be de facto racial discrimination. Here is the breakdown of students by race at America�s premier university, Obama�s alma mater, Harvard. Even though non-Jewish White Americans are almost 70 percent of the population and on average score much higher on entrance exams, they are only about 22 percent of the Harvard student body. So what race is really the victim of racial discrimination? For those who are truly dedicated to stopping racial discrimination, what are you going to do about this massive discrimination, or does it not matter to you because White people happen to be the victims? The hidden, massive racial discrimination that goes on in America against White people! A U.S. Government study offers proof that European Americans face massive institutional racial discrimination that affects millions of the most talented and educated of our people Introduction by Dr. David Duke � As most of you know, the term �white supremacist� has become literally a prefix of my name when I am in the news. It is the media�s way to condition readers not to pay attention to what I say because I am a �white supremacist.� The truth is I am not a White supremacist, and I seek no supremacy or control over any people, but I do demand that the rights of people of European descent to be respected as much as any other people�s rights. The fact is that in the United States of America, Canada, the UK in many areas of Europe Whites face a powerful state-sanctioned, and often mandated, racial discrimination against White people who are better-qualified than their non-White counterparts. It may be surprising to some reading this, but millions of discriminated against Whites are often poorer and who face more difficult social situations than many of their non-White counterparts who are being given preference over them. It also affects the most talented of our people. Many Whites are under the mistaken impression that the White victims of racial discrimination are mostly from the low income and low IQ sectors of the population. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality, the percentages of Whites who are victims of racial discrimination are much higher in the sectors of the White population with the highest intelligence and greatest abilities. The facts are shocking, but true. Most people know that most universities have programs of admittance that give less-qualified minorities preference over better-qualified Whites. Almost all of the Fortune 500 largest corporations have affirmative action and diversity programs that discriminate against White people, both male and female, in hiring. They also have programs of discrimination that favor non-Whites in promotions and advancement. This is true in the academic area as well. You can look at almost any academic department of any American university and you will see in place a strong racial bias for �minorities� in preface over Whites in hiring and advancement. Whether you are talking about a university History, English or Math department in almost any university these policies are in place and powerful. These racial discriminatory policies are real, and they can be easily proven to exist. But, now we thanks to a government study, there is even a more powerful way to show their real impact on tens of millions of White Americans. The brilliant economist and author whose pen name is Yggdrasil has compiled the data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) 1979, which was a massive study conducted by the Department of Labor to track the lives of 155,000 Americans by race, IQ, income, education and other factors to see how remedial efforts for minorities were doing. It was done after the installation of so called �affirmative action� programs which gave preference to non-White groups over whites. The NLSY study is meant to follow this huge sampling for their entire lives to see how diversity is working out for America. The data is from this ongoing study is tangible proof of the horrendous level of racial discrimination going on against White people. I will link you to Yggdrasil�s fine paper in a moment, but let me first give you a couple of snippets from his work that proves the existence of massive racial discrimination going on against our people. Here is a chart showing the ethnic breakdown of the most prestigious university in the United States of America: Harvard. America�s premier university is extremely expensive (unless you receive special grants and scholarships) and a degree from it just about guarantees its graduates the best paid and prestigious jobs America has to offer. Affirmative action advocates have long said the companies or institutions that don�t reflect the actual racial population percentages are de facto racist and discriminatory. So what is the situation at Harvard, non-Jewish Whites who are about 70 pecent of the American population are only about 22 percent of the Harvard student body. One should first consider the fact that Whites are represented in the top two percentile level on college admission tests on an average that is a 5 times higher rate than non-White groups. If one then factors in the fact that Whites are also 70 percent of the population, there should be at least 25 times more Whites who would be better qualified than the non-White students currently at Harvard. But even though these Whites are the best and brightest America has to offer they are limited to only 20 percent of Harvard students! Such is nothing more than blatant, racial discrimination. Another interesting fact one can gleam from this chart and many in the NLSY studies that Jewish over-representation is not based simply on the fact that Jews have a high intelligence, they often do twice as well as their intelligence bracket would indicate. Such would suggest the intra-tribal support system for group cohesion and advancements aids their success rate. The NLSY data also shows how incomes today in the USA correlate with race and intelligence. Let�s take a look NLSY tracking studies of intelligent White women, these are White women in the 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket as compared to Black women in that same high 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket. The average Black females of that IQ level earned an average of approximately $54,000 per year through 1996, whereas White females on the same IQ level earned only half of that amount, about $28,000 per year through 1996. When White women in the same intelligent bracket of Black women earn half of the average amount that the Black women do, that�s real racial discrimination. I am not referring here to a few White women who are at least equally qualified but getting half the salary that Black women do, I am talking about the average White women in America! The NLSY is a big enough sample that reflects the whole nation. In fact it is meant to. The average White woman of high intelligence earns one-half of what Black women do of the same intelligence! I obviously don�t like this racial discrimination against our people. Neither does the economist Yggdrasil. We advocate that the best person regardless of race gets whatever college admission or job or promotion their abilities dictate. We have no fear of how well our people will do on a fair playing field. Because we stand for true civil rights, human rights in the matter, we are called racists, and the real capper: �white supremacists.� There are many people in America and around the world who are ignorant of the facts of anti-White racial discrimination. The media acts like it doesn�t exist. Even after the election of an affirmative action African-American President, America is still painted as an anti-Black racist country. The truth is that European Americans are facing racial discrimination in the very institutions and nation that our forefathers created. Our movement is truly a liberation movement like any other in the world that strives for a people to free and live in society of our own values rather than oppressive society imposed upon us. We are not racists or supremacists trying to deny the rights of others. We are human rights activists defending our people�s rights and heritage. �Dr. David Duke Source & Charts : http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-real-racial-discrimination-that-goes-o… ----- Obama�s Mideast Jewish Wet Dream Team George Mitchell is the new American envoy now in the Mideast. Who is Mitchell and who are the key players in Obama�s Mideast policy team? First, let�s examine the major players on the Obama foreign policy team. Roger Cohen writing in The New York Times on January 11, 2009 wrote some things that if he were a Gentile would have earned him some attacks as an �anti-Semite.� He pointed out the incredible top-heavy pro-Zionist content of the team which is supposed to broker a fair and just peace in the Mideast. In discussing the team he identified them with these words: They include Dennis Ross (the veteran Clinton administration Mideast peace envoy who may now extend his brief to Iran) [a long-time Jewish Zionist]; James Steinberg [Jewish Zionist] (as deputy secretary of state) ; Dan Kurtzer [Jewish Zionist] (the former U.S. ambassador to Israel); Dan Shapiro [Jewish Zionist] (a longtime aide to Obama); and Martin Indyk [Jewish Zionist] another former ambassador to Israel who is close to the incoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.) Now, I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I�ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They�re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired. Cohen did not even mention that the two closest advisers to Obama, the guys that filter almost everything that Obama see and hears and makes the day to day decisions of running the oval office. They are David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, two long time dedicated Jewish extremists. Emmanuel, son of an Irgun terrorist and named after another Irgun terrorist, even fought in the Israeli Army. Now we come to the new envoy to the Mideast, George Mitchell of Maine, the man who is supposed to be a broadminded and just arbitrator between Israel and the Palestinians. The Jewish-influenced has made a big point of Mitchell�s Lebanese ancestry. What the Zionist media doesn�t tell you is that he has been completely under the control of AIPAC and radical Zionists for years. As Senate Majority Leader he rammed through everything Israel wanted. He even supported the Senate resolution that gave Israel unconditional support during the Zionist massacre of thousands of Gaza civilians. In fact, originally an appointee to the Senate, Mitchell owes his entire Senate career on the massive support given him in 1982 and since by AIPAC and 27 other Jewish extremist controlled political action committees that AIPAC arranged. AIPAC�s Tom Dine summarized AIPAC�s success in Mitchell�s election by saying that �American Jews are thus able to form our own foreign policy agenda.� Of course, Dine spoke the complete and unvarnished truth. American and Israeli extremist Jews do indeed control the foreign policy of the United States. Such control has long gone on in concert with past U.S. Presidents and it goes on today with Obama. Only difference is that today there is a greater danger because many in America and around the world falsely believe that Obama represents change. With the incredible respect and adulation given to Obama, he is in a much better position to support the Zionist war agenda and ultimately do far more harm than a discredited George Bush. Hold on to your hats, America. I predict Obama will usher in war and conflagration that will make George Bush�s presidency seem mild in comparison. He has already announced a doubling of American troops in Afghanistan. Can a catastrophic war with Iran be far behind? Jewish extremists want this war and Obama is completely under their control! � Dr. David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/who-is-on-obamas-dream-team-for-mideast-pe… ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling "to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

14 years, 4 months

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls -- Part 1 and 2 ---- Obama --The Judas Goat

by Lawrence Auster

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls -- Part 1 By Edmund Connelly January 16, 2008 �The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want.� --Paul Craig Roberts I sometimes think that it�s pointless for Americans to talk much about recent events in Gaza because we know how it will play out � America will do absolutely nothing to interfere with the ongoing massacre. British journalist Robert Fisk reminds us of the drill: So once again, Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians. Forty civilian refugees dead in a United Nations school, three more in another. Not bad for a night's work in Gaza by the army that believes in "purity of arms." But why should we be surprised? Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead � almost all civilians, most of them children and women � in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians? This time around, Israel shows not the slightest compunction about brazenly massacring an imprisoned population in front of the world. But why should they? They know no real opposition will arise from power centers anywhere on earth. And they continue to have America � Republicans, Democrats, Christian Zionists and almost everybody else � in their thrall. In large part, this is due to what Israel Shamir wrote with respect to Jewish financial mischief: �The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren's) misdeeds.� James Petras also weighed in on Israel�s ongoing war against the Palestinians, writing, �Israel�s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza.� Echoing Shamir, Petras noted that Israel�s attempt to �purge Palestine of its Arab population� continues without apology because �The Israeli totalitarian leaders knew with confidence that they could act and they could kill with impunity, locally and before the entire world, because of the influence of the US Zionist Power Configuration in and over the US White House and Congress.� Another voice that showed exasperation with Israel�s actions was that of Taki Theodoracopulos, who wrote, �Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, as it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer�s money.� Perhaps no one, however, is more morally outraged than former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote on VDARE: Caterpillar Tractor makes a special bulldozer for Israel that is designed to knock down Palestinian homes and to uproot their orchards. In 2003 an American protester, Rachel Corrie, stood in front of one of these Caterpillars and was run over and crushed. Nothing happened. The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want. They have been doing so for 60 years, and they show no sign of stopping. Roberts continued, �While the rest of the world condemns Israel�s inhumanity, the US Congress � I should say the US Knesset � rushed to endorse the Israeli slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza.� How pervasive was this endorsement? �The US Senate endorsed Israel�s massacre of Palestinians with a vote of 100-0. The US House of Representatives voted 430-5 to endorse Israel�s massacre of Palestinians. . . .� (See here for further details.) Readers who have followed Roberts in the post-9-11 period know that he has been a persistent critic of Israel�s influence over President Bush and the Congress. He has not changed his position with respect to Gaza either: �The US Congress was proud to show that it is Israel�s puppet even when it comes to murdering women and children. The President of the United States was proud to block effective action by the UN Security Council by ordering the Secretary of State to abstain.� Two days later, Roberts added to his critique, displaying how fully Bush is a puppet to an Israeli master: "Early Friday morning the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UN [Security Council] vote and we didn�t want her to vote for it," Olmert said. "I said �get President Bush on the phone.� They tried and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said �I�m not interested, I need to speak to him now.� He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call." [PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote, By Yaakov Lappin , Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2009]. Roberts then turned to a friend�s comments to summarize this exchange: "Let me see if I understand this," wrote a friend in response to news reports that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert ordered President Bush from the podium where he was giving a speech to receive Israel�s instructions about how the United States had to vote on the UN resolution. "On September 11th, President Bush is interrupted while reading a story to school children and told the World Trade Center had been hit � and he went on reading. Now, Olmert calls about a UN resolution when Bush is giving a speech and Bush leaves the stage to take the call. There exists no greater example of a master-servant relationship." Aptly, Roberts concluded, �In his final press conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony.� And the behavior of America�s master is none too pleasant, as retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski recently made clear: One needs only to look at the death toll (one-sided), the difference in military capacities between Israel and Gaza (shocking) and the kind of arsenals employed by both sides to determine what is happening. We�ve seen it on the elementary school playground, but this version is played out with incredible destructive force, no supervision, no brave friends, and no justice. Not only is incredible destructive force in view for the whole world, a bizarre Israeli response to the slaughter has surfaced: It is the "ultimate spectator sport," in the words of a London Times reporter. As a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal also described, from hilltops overlooking Gaza, Israelis would come with lawn chairs and picnics lunches to watch the one-sided death circus that is Gaza. Israelis �have made the trek, they say, to witness firsthand a military operation�so far, widely popular inside Israel�against Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino's, oohing and aahing at the airstrikes. Nadav Zebari, who studies Torah in Jerusalem, was eating a cheese sandwich and sipping a Diet Coke.� Levinson took quotes from observers: "I've never watched a war before," one said. Meanwhile, a group of Israeli police officers took turns snapping pictures of one another with smoking Gaza as a backdrop. "I want to feel a part of the war," was one comment. �On another hilltop overlooking Gaza,� Levinson continued, �Sandra Koubi, a 43-year-old philosophy student, says seeing the violence up close �is a kind of catharsis for me, to get rid of all the anxiety we have inside us after years of rocket fire� from Hamas.� Perhaps most pointedly comes the testimony of one Jocelyn Znaty, �a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross,� who could �hardly contain her glee at the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza.� "Look at that," she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. "Bravo! Bravo!" . . . I am sorry, but I am happy." Pavel Wolberg/European Pressphoto Agency Orthodox Jews watched smoke rise over the northern Gaza Strip Tuesday. Roberts, like Taki and others, put much of the blame for such a spectacle clearly on the shoulders of the American public. �What is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes.� Repeating charges he has made consistently for years, Roberts laments the fact that "�Our� president was a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and �Homeland Security.� From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3 trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to health care.� While Roberts et al. may be right that each and every American taxpayer bears some responsibility for the carnage in Gaza, the fact is that most Americans are tired of violence in the far-away Middle East. Besides, the economy is in the tank, the NFL playoffs are in progress, and the kids have to go back to school. Everyday life takes priority for most Americans. Unfortunately, such short-sightedness will not do, for the pitiful denizens of Gaza are not the last targets of the Israeli army or the worldwide network of Diaspora Jews. The dispossession of the Palestinians since 1948 is but a dress rehearsal for more ambitious dispossessions of non-Jews throughout the world. Do I exaggerate? I believe that we have to take Israel Shamir seriously when he writes in Cabbala of Power. �Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters.� Shamir has made a fascinating study of the two thousand-year struggle between Jews and non-Jews, particularly Christians. His arguments are far too subtle to summarize here, so interested parties should consult the above-mentioned book as well as his more recent work, Masters of Discourse. I will simply cherry pick some of his more striking ideas. Shamir � an immigrant from Russia to Israel � holds a low opinion of his fellow Jews in the Holy Land. �Israelis are the riffraff of World Jewry, sent to conquer the land for the NWO HQ.� This process is revealed in a parable of the "Messiah's Donkey" often used by religious Jews. This is a story in which disposable secular Jews (the donkey) are used by religious Jews to attain religious, messianic goals. �In plain words, spirit always wins over matter; the way of the Messiah of Spirit is to use the Donkey of Matter.� �The Jews� � Shamir makes a distinction between organized Jewry and individual Jews � �intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the Spirit on Earth.� Should they succeed, unspeakable despair will follow. �Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. . . . De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday�s Masters of the World [non-Jews] will become slaves in all but name.� Shamir sees a two-pronged approach to this quest for world domination, Zionism and Mammonite Liberalism. �While Zionism establishes the basis for the NWO HQ, the Mammonite Liberalism establishes the world-wide slavery. Jabotinsky and Soros are doing different tasks for one system; the Iron Wall and the Open Society are just different names for the same thing.� Shamir�s analysis is eerily close to the Dispossessed Majority thesis of Wilmot Robertson, albeit cloaked in theological garb. Robertson described how in the 1960s and 70s white American Christians �had become a people of little or no account in their own country.� This was not an accident. Source with hyperlinks: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Gaza.html - For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls -- Part 2 By Edmund Connelly January 23, 2008 �Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters.� Israel Shamir in Cabbala of Power "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite." Kevin MacDonald �We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.� Edgar Steele In Part One of this essay, I argued that it was nearsighted to view the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza as an isolated event. Rather, I suggested, the Jews were intent on eventual world domination. Most certainly this is true with respect to Jewish power over white Christians. To bolster that claim, I pointed to Wilmot Robertson�s observation in his book The Dispossessed Majority that in the 1960s and 70s white American Christians �had become a people of little or no account in their own country.� I then pointed to a theological explanation for this dispossession, turning to the views of Israel Shamir, who wrote, �Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. . . . De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday�s Masters of the World [non-Jews] will become slaves in all but name.� For those not disposed to a divine view of this kulturkampf between Jews and whites, Shamir�s theological views can be piggy-backed onto secular arguments such as Robertson�s. Rather than using Robertson�s arguments, however, I prefer to turn to an intriguing essay that appeared in a book edited by the late Sam Francis. Titled �Race and Religion: A Catholic View,� the essay was written by New Yorker Richard Faussette. Though Faussette situates his arguments in the Old Testament, his analysis is a sociological one in the mold of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald�s theory on group evolutionary strategies. Faussette�s analysis goes back to biblical times when Jews of that era implemented a system of niche recovery to compensate for their partial displacement by the Assyrians. Faussette sees this system as being anachronistically employed to this day: Our enemies are not Assyrians. They are the agents of the global economy; ethnic elites (their borders are where their people are) colluding with our own managerial elites. Mesmerized by the prospect of fantastic incomes, they are centralizing the world�s economy and abandoning local loyalties for a �citizenship� of the world. Unable to conquer us militarily, they have succeeded in engaging our armed forces around the world as they repopulate our urban centers and our law enforcement agencies with an alien elite and an alien underclass rigorously conditioned by the media. If you conceived of this as today�s multiculturalism, which Faussette portrays as a new Babel and a recipe for disaster, you would not be wrong. But, should we surrender to this program, we will suffer what Moses prophesized: �You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you.� Though some see the system of importing foreign populations as a lapse in judgment, Faussette claims that �the system is not broken. It has been re-engineered by private interests and liberal ideologues, lobbying our elected representatives to increase the flow of cheap labor and anything else they can profitably get over the border.� If this system is not broken, who built it and for what purposes? In essence, the goal is to displace white Americans with non-whites, and in particular white elites with Jews. Shamir also observed this: �The Jews compete with the native elites of the Gentile society for the right to exploit the Gentile worker and peasant.� Outcompete is the more appropriate word, for Shamir found that in 17th-century Ukraine Jewish masters were far more efficient, �extracting from the natives SIX times more taxes and dues per person than a gentile landlord did.� In this struggle with non-Jewish leaders, Jews can either massacre or expel their rivals, as they did in Russia during the Revolution. Shamir quotes Solzhenitsyn as follows: [During the Bolshevik Revolution] executed army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were Russians. . . . In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists. The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years. While much of this has gone down the memory hole, an excellent confirmation of the above can be found in Yuri Slezkine�s expos�, The Jewish Century. Kevin MacDonald later isolated the anti-Christian eliminationist focus of the Bolshevik attack, which can be found in his review of Slezkine called �Stalin�s Willing Executioners?� (See here and here.) Chillingly, Slezkine quotes Leonard Schapiro�s comment that �anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.� The Black Book of Communism estimates that up to twenty million Soviet citizens were murdered during the period of Jewish dominance in the early decades of the USSR. This is why Slezkine originally coined the phrase �Stalin�s willing executioners.� So what does this have to do with America today? A lot, as both Faussette and MacDonald note. For the Jews� ancient displacement strategy is as effective as ever, as Jewish ethnic activist Earl Raab made clear: The Census bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible � and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. Because the West could not yet be conquered militarily, the Assyrian strategy of capturing and removing the native population, which demoralized the people and prevented organized resistance, was untenable. The tactic then became the importation of foreign elements �to devalue our niches, fragment our communities and place us under foreign administration. The result is the same.� In other words, as Faussette writes, �the Jews will recover their niches in the lost nation of Israel which will be a Jewish land under Jewish rule (homogeneous and religiously unified), but the host nations where Jews settle in Diaspora are condemned to a fractious and imposed proto-Assyrian cultural pluralism (heterogeneous with no dominant religious influence) that ensures Jewish hegemony in Diaspora.� Often cloaked as �anti-racism,� this program of dispossession applies equally to America and Palestine. �Anti-racism,� Shamir writes, �is a denial of the autochthon's [native�s] right to decide his fate; a tool to separate Man from his native landscape. This concept de-legitimizes objections to swamping a land with a flood of immigrants and ruining the society's fabric.� Again, because Jews in America are incapable of defeating or removing us militarily � unlike their ability in the Middle East � they resort to ideological attacks, an important one being the imposition of their new religion, the Holocaust Narrative. �Whoever accepts the Holocaust as the most important historical event,� Shamir quotes one thinker as saying, �is able to carry out the civil war against the traditionalist majority and becomes a member of the in-group for the globalists.� Shamir adds how the Holocaust �also has a theological value as this event is offered to supplant the Crucifixion for believers.� Certainly any Christian even half aware of culture and law in the last half century must admit a growing emphasis on Jewish suffering and the guilt of the Christian West. There is a reason for this, as Shamir explains: Slave cults are growing now among the Europeans, and the cult of the Holocaust is one of them. Theologically, this cult is an adaptation of the Jewish spiritual rule for Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha [Calvary] with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state. People who argue with the dogma of Holocaust are met with treatment the heretics were given in the days of yore. They are excommunicated and excluded from society. Given the vast power of modern media, Jews have naturally turned to it as a means of control. The fracturing of native populations through use of the media is central to this. Faussette makes this point with respect to the indigenous white population�s loss of the media: If the majority of European American Christians held the most lucrative niches in American society, the media would be unable to depict us as a cruel and �intolerant� majority whose niches rightfully belong to the victims of �white hatred and oppression.� The very fact that the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors. Examples of vilification of white men and elevation of Jews and other minorities are far too numerous to mention. The list of Holocaust and anti-Nazi films alone is massive. Add to that the rise of African American movie stars such as Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, and Will Smith, most of whose movies fit the numinous Negro narrative, and you will have some idea of the visual power arrayed against whites. Faussette makes this clear: It is not enough to say that the broadcast media are powerful. They create a separate and caustic virtual reality, then broadcast that ideologically driven reality into the homes of millions of people and dare to suggest that their horrific depiction of us is an accurate reflection of who we really are, what we really do and what our history has really been. We are so saturated with the propaganda many of us can no longer tell the difference between ideology and reality, nor are we the only ones upon whom this burden of a separate �reality� has been imposed. By the time an alien crosses our porous borders he has been conditioned by the international media to believe that the indigenous �white people� are recent interlopers on their own land; noxious bigots who stole the land from the noble people who were here before them. Millions of people are fed these overt and subliminal messages every day via continuous media broadcasts. The parallels with the propaganda techniques of the Communist Soviet Union, particularly in the early days, are manifest, as Faussette explains: �Demonizing an indigenous majority population to turn competing minority populations against them is a genocidal tactic with recent historical precedent.� Like the �former classes� slated for elimination in Russia, the American majority is now the targeted class. The use of terror was prescribed then and is again being used, though �many of us seem oblivious to what is going on here and now.� The terror comes through the educational and media propagation of the notion that indigenous white Christians are the villain class. Or, if one prefers Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag�s version, �The white race is the cancer of human history.� Operating under the pretext that they are fighting for universal civil rights, Jewish activists, in a sense become the current equivalent of the Jews in Russia who were �Stalin�s willing executioners.� An integral part of this terror involves ritual public humiliation, another key aspect of the media�s strategy to demoralize the American majority. First and foremost is the public dissemination of the message that whites are �powerless to deflect the media barrage of humiliation and vilification of our race, our various ethnicities, our Christian religion and the nation�s history.� Whites must now live quietly with the knowledge that infamies committed against them warrant no notice in the public eye, while any assault by an individual white on a designated minority group will result in ritual condemnation of not only the assailant but the broader majority culture as well. Thus, it was never just �in the air� that the media, schools and legal system would take the turn they did in the 1960s against the American majority. Rather, it is another Jewish movement, as Kevin MacDonald made clear recently in a column on this site: For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. . . . But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements. . . . The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before. Faussette draws the same dark conclusion: Consider for a moment the campaign of demonization of the European American Christian majority and its culture that we see in the media, academia and legislated from the bench. What if this campaign mirroring the public vilification employed by ardent and merciless communist regimes is completely successful here in North America, not now perhaps, but in a generation or two, something for our grandchildren to inherit? Imagine an economic downturn of blackouts, food shortages and riots in which all law enforcement niches are filled by media-molded unassimilated immigrants and indigenous psychologically prepared minorities; law enforcement personnel conditioned to believe that the people they�re sworn to protect are noxious bigots who deserve the violence they suffer. Make no mistake, we white Christians in America are being as effectively removed from our lands as are the Palestinians from theirs now. While our disappearance is far less immediate and painful, the end result is the same. Indeed, if we white Americans were thinking correctly, we would be in the streets chanting �We are all Palestinians now!� Instead we are treated to nonsense in the opposite direction, as goyim show fealty to the Jews by proclaiming solidarity. One need only skim news channels to find this. For instance, our media masters are again trying to divert our attention from Gaza by screaming over the appearance of mere graffiti on a few synagogue walls. (Never mind that in many of these cases � in which, by the way, no harm comes to any Jew � a Jew is found to have perpetrated the act.) Yet with respect to the burning bodies of Palestinian women and children, our media is subdued. Shamir correctly interprets this posture: �The quietude of the West should frighten us well beyond the Middle Eastern context, as it possibly means our civilization is dead. . . . It implies that the Europeans and Americans have lost the sacral core, and our profaned civilization is doomed to extinction, unless we�ll turn away from the edge of the abyss.� Is there a solution? James Petras suggests that �Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations � in American public and civic life � and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices, we will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination.� Agreed. But effecting this change will be a monumental task. One of the first steps is to recognize that your fate as a white American may quickly become as perilous as that of the Palestinians caged into Gaza. Next, follow the advice of Kevin MacDonald from the column just noted: Whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white. . . . No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception. Now replay in your own mind the recent scenes of unopposed slaughter and destruction in Gaza. Then imagine that it is you and your family caged and massacred like that. Will this thought experiment prompt you to at least acknowledge your identity and interests as a white American? It should. Finally, follow the word of intrepid Internet warrior Justin Raimondo, who just wrote in his column Gaza Is the Future: �Look at Gaza and see the future. Then go out and do something about it.� Well said. Source with hyperlinks: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Gaza2.html --- Obama -- The Judas Goat Judas Goat\ A goat that leads other goats or sheep to slaughter. Also, one who entices into danger and betrays others. The name is an allusion to Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. (From Merriam Webster�s Dictionary) Barack Hussein Obama is a Judas Goat. Extremist Jews guided Barack Hussein Obama�s career from day one, even all the way back to Harvard Law School. Radical Zionist hitman, David Axelrod previously orchestrated the Jewish-financed and organized defeat of perceived anti-Zionist Sen. Charles Percy. He is the man who ran Obama�s campaign for President and who is his chief handler. Obama�s campaign was overwhelmingly financed by the most powerful Zionist bankers in the world. His campaign�s largest contribution source was the Zionist international banking firm of Goldman Sachs. (FEC campaign records). In both Obama�s Senate and Presidential campaign he prostrated himself before AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) promising even more money and blood for Israel�s terrorism than even the supine John McCain, and even more money and blood than the previous Shabbez Goy in the White House, George Bush. Before the Israeli terrorism and mass murder in Gaza, he went to Israel and said that he supported Israel�s planned murderous terrorism against the men, women and children of Gaza. His first act as President-elect was to appoint a rabid Zionist, Israeli dual citizen who served in the Israeli Army as his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel. As thousands of women and children in Gaza were killed or maimed, Obama remained silent. Within a few days as President Obama supported indiscriminate American missile strikes in villages of our ally Pakistan, a clear continuation of Bush�s policies. He completely supports the theft of trillions of American taxpayer dollars to the Zionist international bankers. Eighty percent of American Jews voted for Obama, and all the main leaders of the Jewish Supremacist state of Israel have proclaimed Obama as the perfect man for U.S. President. What better for the Zionists to have their own servant perceived as a clean break from the Jewish extremist-controlled Bush administration? What better than for the Zionists than to have their Shabbez Goy be treated by the world�s press and even by much of the anti-Zionist community as a man of �real change?� What better for the Zionists than for the world to think that Obama will be a change from the Zionist-controlled policies when he willing to do anything that Israel demands? What better for the Zionist murderers to have their craven puppet be looked at by the whole world as a man of honor and integrity and fairness. In the slaughterhouse, the Judas Goat is often painted with bright colors, adorned with strong, sweet scents to lure the sheep to their pens and to their death. Obama, the Judas Goat of our time, is looked upon by millions of Zionist-propagandized sheep as the man who will lead them to salvation. Instead, he leads America, Palestine and the world to the bloody altar of Jewish Supremacism. Any supposed anti-Zionist who praises Barack Obama is actually aiding this Judas Goat to lead us all to slaughter. Every person who truly opposes Jewish extremism must speak out and expose the Judas Goat named Barack Obama! -- Dr. David Duke Former Member of the House of Representatives State of Louisiana United States of America It is up to you the people of the United States who can still think freely, and up to all of the people of the world who are able to see through the deceptions of the Zionist-influenced Global media � to get this simple, powerful message to everyone on earth. Email this message to your friends, post it on forums and websites and put links to it on every website, facebook or other media in the world. Go and seek out media and Internet sites not controlled by Zionist power. Make youtube videos of this message, (use the short audio and find good illustrative pictures) and post it untill your fingers are worn and tired, print it and mail it to newspapers or any media outlet that has still not fallen under the propaganda of the Zionists. Let the world know the truth. Person by person, in the USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, japan, Russia, China, Africa, Palestine, South America and across the whole world this Judas Goat must be exposed for what he is, so that when begins to do his evil for Israel, the whole world will know exactly what is going on and resist! Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/obama-the-judas-goat_7317.html ------------------------ You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net ------------------------ You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net

14 years, 4 months

Are Jews still guilty for the crucifixion??

by Lawrence Auster

ARE JEWS STILL GUILTY FOR THE CRUCIFIXION? Scripture teaches no one is guilty for the sins of another. We all enter the world innocent of the misdeeds of our parents. This includes every Jewish child. Yet the Bible also teaches we can become guilty of the sin of another by sympathy with it. Christ said the Pharisees were guilty of the murder of Abel and all righteous blood from the beginning of the world. (Mat. 23:35) Why? Because the Pharisees persecuted righteousness. Had they been present in the time of Abel, they would have murdered Abel. Thus, according to Christ, it is possible to become spiritually guilty of a sin, such as murder or adultery, even without physically committing the act. The will is there. All that is lacking is the opportunity. Modern or rabbinic Judaism is a product of those very Pharisees whom Christ excoriated, and who ultimately had Him crucified. The authoritative Universal Jewish Encyclopedia explains: �The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent without a break through all the centuries from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a great deal is still in existence.. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature..� The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Article on �Pharisaism,� p. 474 If a Jewish child is born into an orthodox Jewish family, he innocently enters a religious system entirely obedient to those who masterminded the crucifixion of Jesus. The Pharisees and their vast, rambling �anti-bible�, the Talmud, possess greater authority for religious Jews than does the Old Testament. As the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms: �Thus the ultimate authority for orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory.� Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, �Authority� p. 637. What does the Talmud teach about Jesus? It says He seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a. He was a bastard, his mother Mary being a whore San.106b. He practiced sorcery and enticed His race to apostasy. San.43a. He was a fool. San.67a. He was stoned, burned, decapitated and strangled in His death. San. 106b, Git.57a. He was excommunicated for the thought of seducing a woman and in His shame fell down and worshipped a brick. San.107b. He is now in hell, languishing in boiling hot excrement. Git.56a. The Talmud is emphatic that it was necessary to kill Jesus because He was �one of the three worst enemies of Judaism.� Git.56a; a false prophet who seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a. Is the modern Jew guilty of the death of Christ? The answer is simple. If he agrees with the Talmud that the Pharisees did the right thing by having Jesus crucified, then that Jew today is as guilty as the Jewish mob that sided with the Pharisees 2,000 years ago, shouting �Crucify Him, crucify Him.� Mk. 15:13. If, however, the modern Jew disassociates himself from loyalty to the Pharisees and their claims against Christ, then he is free from any guilt. Unfortunately, amid the shock waves of Mel Gibson�s �Passion,� many evangelical Christian leaders are rushing forward to absolve all Jews of any spiritual guilt concerning the crucifixion. Such pandering not only makes God�s law of none effect, it attempts to free the Jews from a burden of guilt they themselves invited. To hasten the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish leaders said, �His blood be upon us and upon our children.� Mk. 27:25. All adult Jews who still support the pharisaic system which crucified Christ are thus linked in spiritual guilt with those who actively accomplished the act. Of course, anyone, such as a gentile Satanist, who approves of the crucifixion, or a Christian who becomes apostate (Heb. 6:6), is spiritually guilty of crucifying Christ. Rabbinic Judaism however, because it constitutes the "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9) uniquely incurs blame for Christ's death upon all Jews who give themselves to it. During the past century, Jewish apologists, for purposes of ecumenical harmony with Christians, have referred to Jesus in such terms as �a great teacher.� Such a description is found nowhere in rabbinic Judaism�s most sacred repository of authority, the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism, despite efforts to whitewash it, remains of all great religions (including Islam) the most vehemently opposed to the claims of Christ. To be a religious, observant Jew is to embrace the Talmud and its blasphemous opinion of Christ. Someday, the Bible teaches, a remnant of Jews out of the Great Tribulation will believe on the One their fathers crucified. Yet for the present, the church must heed Christ�s warning to �Beware of the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees.� Matt. 16:6. In other words: Beware of Judaism. Paul also warns the church, referring to unbelieving Jews as �enemies� (Rom. 11:28) ��who both killed the Lord Jesus and prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men.� I Thess. 2:15 The Jews were given transcendent spiritual light, first at Sinai, and then through their prophets. When they rejected that light, they were plunged into incredible darkness. While individual Jews may not necessarily be held guilty of such apostasy, the fact is Jewish leadership and institutions remain formidably opposed to Christianity. Moses warned the Jews that if they rejected God�s law, they would be cursed above all nations. Deut. 28:15. They not only rejected God�s law, but crucified its giver, Jesus Christ. Christ said that the House of Israel, after its rejection of Him, would be left desolate. Lk.13:35. Today, no evangelical leader has the privilege of removing guilt from Jews who still reject their Messiah and embrace the teaching of His murderers. Christ has both a long-standing love-affair and quarrel with the Jewish nation. He will settle that quarrel some day on His own terms, at last obtaining faith, obedience, and righteousness from what scripture repeadedly describes as a "stiff-necked people." Such a people now control Hollywood and America�s media. They dominate Congress. They dictate America�s foreign policy in the Middle East. They are the fountainhead of anti-Christian activity and legislation, including so-called �anti-hate� laws which strip Christians of free speech. (See articles on �anti-hate� laws.) In short, they are more determined than ever that Christ will never prevail. Yet in the end, Christ will have righteousness from His people, the Jews. �They will look on Him whom they pierced and they will mourn�as one mourns for an only son.� Zech. 12:10. The National Prayer Network and Jewish Guilt The NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK is a pre-eminent source of information and discussion concerning Jewish guilt. The previous article by NPN�s director, Rev. Ted Pike, addressed the question: �Are the Jews still guilty for the crucifixion of Christ?� The question of whether the Jews were guilty for the crucifixion 2,000 years ago is not the primary concern of this article. It has been answered repeatedly and powerfully in the affirmative by both the New Testament and Mel Gibson�s �The Passion of the Christ.� Nor is the popular clich� that we �all� killed Christ considered. The idea of �corporate guilt� for Christ�s death is unknown to Scripture. While we �all have sinned and come short of the glory of God� (Rom. 3:23), we have not all crucified Jesus. Instead, Pike discusses the crucifixion as a specific act of blasphemy and violence effected through a conspiracy of pharisaic leaders of the first century A.D. It was secondarily accomplished with the assistance of an agitated Jewish mob pressuring Pontius Pilate. It was only incidentally completed by a handful of unwitting Roman soldiers. In his article, Pike confirms what the New Testament attests: that the Pharisees were the masterminds behind the crucifixion. In the Book of Acts, the disciples, in face to face rebuke of the Pharisees, insistently identify them as the culprits: �The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on the cross.� Acts 5:30; cf. Acts 2:22, 36; 3:13-15; 4:10. The fact that modern religious Jews give first loyalty to these ancient Pharisees and their Talmud is crucially relevant to the question: Are Jews today guilty for the crucifixion? NPN�s educational materials also deal with other aspects of the question of Jewish guilt. Are Jews guilty of: 1. creating the scourge of international communism? 2. dominating Hollywood and the media, corrupting humanity? 3. stimulating Mideast strife and terrorism through a century of abrasiveness against the Palestinians? 4. creating anti-Christian �civil liberties� organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B�nai B�rith, which militate against Christian values and symbols? 5. promoting anti-Christian legislation such as �hate crime laws� which protect Jews and homosexuals, but persecute Christians? http://www.truthtellers.org/jewishguiltarticle.htm ----- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net

14 years, 4 months

Arnaville: ny info

by Magnus Svensson

Skenmanöver? Kanske det. För att en skenmanöver ska lyckas bör den vara lagd tillräckligt långt bort från det verkliga övergångsstället så att tiden för tysken att omgruppera sina förstärkningar är tillräckligt stor. Risken finns ju att vi förvarnar honom så att han skickar mer trupp till vårt frontavsnitt. Dessutom bör skenmanövern ske strax före det riktiga anfallet. Eftersom vi inleder det "riktiga" anfallet i skymningen blir skenmanövern i dagsljus (om inte skenmanövern kan upprätthålla trovärdighet en hel dag, vilket jag är lite tveksam till). Artilleribeskjutning av tyskarna i Arry? Frågan är vad det är för tyskar i Arry. Min gissning utifrån den knapphändiga info vi fick från 3rd Bat är att det är mekaniserat infanteri (truckar, half-tracks och ett par StuGs). Storleken på den tyska enheten är ju extremt intressant. Det kan ju vara en mindre rekogiseringstyrka som inte är så farlig. Om det går att få fram en uppskattning på antalet tyskar i Arry så är det nog den viktigaste parametern för hur och var vi ska korsa floden. Är det en stor trupp är det väl bra att bombardera dem ordentligt under 8-9 sept samt att planera ett annat korsnings-ställe. En mindre trupp räcker det väl att lägga artilleri på dem när vi börjar korsa floden, det kan ju få dem upptagna med andra saker än att rekognocera amerikanska trupprörelser. 3rd bat såg tyskarna gå in 10:00 8 Sep. Det ger ju oss 1,5 dagar på oss att spana in dem och göra någon bedömning av styrkan. Kanske man kan begära flygfoton el dyl? /Magnus Den 14 Jan 2002 skrev Pelle Nilsson: > From: Colonel Robert P. Bell, Co 10th Regiment > To: Maj Wilfrid H. Haughey, Jr, Co 1st Battalion, > Lt Col William H. Simpson, Co 2nd Battalion > Date: 8 september, 1944 > > Intel report from Major Alden P. Shipley, Co 3rd Battalion: > > At 1000 3rd Battalion OPs heard and to some extent saw elements of > some german formation move into Arry. Trucks and possibly tracked > vehicles (Tigers?). > > I will consult Major Alden on the possibility of using mortars to > attack Arry to keep the germans occupied. Keep an eye on your right flank. > >

21 years, 4 months

nya infon

by Pelle Nilsson

Jag måste vara lite informell för att få saker sagda snabbare än ett ord i minuten. Det är dåligt om det är många tyskar i Arry. Särskilt om de vänder norrut och gräver ned sig på kullarna norr om Arry. Om någon tycker att det är en bra ide att börja ge Arry lite mortars så är byn inom räckvidd, så det går att ordna. Jag ser ingen anledning just nu till att börja skrämma fler tyskar till området så här långt innan vi gör något, men om någon tycker det borde göras så säg till. Ska höra med staben också. Hmmm. Vi kanske borde gjort/göra någon sorts skenmanöver?

21 years, 4 months

Re: Arnaville: requests from 46th

by Mattias Rönnblom

Pelle Nilsson <perni(a)lysator.liu.se> writes: > Fråga till SL: > Kan jag diskutera saken med Magnus i privata mail med eller utan > att cc:a dig? En generell fråga alltså om order i största > allmänhet. I det här fallet till exempel är det Magnus stackars > kompanier som påverkas och han har säkert synpunkter på i alla > fall delar av det där. > > /P Så länge ni har bra kommunikation i spelet så går det bra. Nu är ni i planeringsstadiet, så ni kan snacka hur som helst. Antingen på den "brev"-form vi kört lite så smått med hittills, eller på något annat sätt (mer avslappnad svenska, t ex). Eftersom jag är nyfiken på vad som händer så får ni gärna CC:a mig, även om det inte är något som kampanjens regler kräver. //Mattias

21 years, 4 months

order

by Mattias Rönnblom

Hej, jag skulle gärna vilja ha in order från batcheferna så snart som möjligt. Deadline är imorrn kl 21. //Mattias

21 years, 4 months

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Arnaville-us