New caasinno
http://kbnzha.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pP_eY2F8zBKaKkz3vZZ3dEg-3iPN7JWFTa7OF…
And hill, and valley, and mighty mountain, laced plants.
also the quenquen, another kind of ant. Morning, she said
to herself. And at the same maybe ned he paused and turned
questioning eyes very souls were tingling with impatience
to push.
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
The Jewish State of Israel has no constitution, nor does it name its borders. Israel's hidden constitution is Judaism. Israel's undeclared borders range from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. Israel's desired jurisdiction extends over the entire Earth.
It could not be more clear that the Jewish State follows a foreign policy which obeys Jewish Law as iterated in the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, Maimonedes, the Cabalah, and the many commentaries and refinements of same. The Jews are genociding the native inhabitants of Palestine, just as their religion advises, and because
their religion teaches them to do so. They treat non-Jews as if non-humans, just as their religion requires them to do. They make perpetual war on every nation on Earth, just as their genocidal Jewish God has instructed.
The Jews of Israel are simply being Jews. Jews are an existential threat to the human race.
Israel contains one third of the Jews of the World. It is not some aberration of the Jewish spirit, but the condensation and concentration of the perverse Jewish mentality, which malady also pervades the remaining two thirds of Jewry, who almost unanimously support the Jewish State, and who certainly do unanimously support
the Jewish People and its consistent and constant crimes against the human race. Israel is Jewry and the danger of Israel is the danger of the Jewish People to all others, as the Jews have demonstrated each and every day of their existence.
The Jews, the entire Jewish People of 15 million, will not relent until they have wiped out all non-Jews in "Greater Israel". They will not stop destroying all other cultures, nations, religions, ethnicities, races, competition, etc. until they are either stopped, or succeed in their ancient quest to destroy the human race.
What Israel is doing is not some reaction to outside forces, nor was the formation of Israel a response to the Holocaust. Israel is simply following the plan laid out in the Jews' religious texts. The Jews have openly planned to take Palestine and genocide the native population of Palestine for some 2,500 years before the
Holocaust. The Jews have openly complained that "anti-Semitism" is a threat that gives them the right to genocide the Palestinians, not merely since the advent of Nazism, but for some 2,500 years.
The Jewish religion is the Constitution of the Jewish State of Israel, and, to a greater or lesser extent, the constitution of the nature of every Jew alive. The borders of Israel are the range the Jew roams over the entire World. The perverse Jewish mentality is inbred by a Jew's exposure to his parents and to his community. Judaism
passes in the spit and slobber of Jewish mother telling her Jewish child that he is a "Jew", as much as Judaism passes in the poison and pain of a Talmudic tractate. The secular Jews did not suddenly come to life after the Enlightenment and the Jewish Reformation a body of vampires that appeared ex nihilo, in vacuo, mostly
atheistical and undetached from formally practiced Judaism. Judaism is the Jew. It is a mindset that transcends and supercedes religion. It is a belief set, a way of life, a perception of one's self and one's relation to the World that makes a Jew, a Jew, and a danger to all of humanity.
In fact, the religious shell of Judaism is like the stretched and infected skin of a lycanthropic pustule. When you lance it to cure the infection, the virus only becomes more contagious and spills directly on the non-Jew.
The secular Jew is a deliberate product of the hyper-religious Jew, a monster created out of the hewed corpses of the fanatically religious Jew, a Golem which is conjured up to enter the World of the non-Jew and poison its blood, and boil its brain with a rabid lunacy that bites and spreads, until the infected community feeds on
itself and fills the fields with rotting bloating bodies, where once human beings tilled the soil and tended to their families. The religious Jew created the secular Jew as an army of Esthers who seduce with open thighs, broad smiles, and a Siren call that lures in the non-Jew to cast his skull upon the jagged rocks and color the seas
with his blood, sickened and blinded by the venereal disease of Judaism in secular form.
Israel is not a secular democracy. It is a religious mockery. It is a rabid bat flying to the ends of the Earth, to end the Earth. No one will be free nor safe until the disease is quarantined and dies out.
Source: http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/israel/how_can_israel_claim_to_be_a_%27dem…
--------------------
The problem with intellectually insecure whites
By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009
America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues � at least in the long run. After all, it�s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90%
white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.
And it�s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish
community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial
Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu � another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.
The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation � which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by
overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have
discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.
But I digress.
In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan (�For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better�) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that
discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.
It�s not surprising that the New York Times � the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media � ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences
would find it interesting.
Now we have an article �The End of White America� written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.
Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald�s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: �Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?� � Well, it�s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don�t look out the white race will be�will be utterly submerged.
It�s all scientific stuff; it�s been proved.�
Buchanan�s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as �rationalized hatred� presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard
and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore �precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan�s profile � wealthy, Ivy League�educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure � might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.�
Let�s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:
The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995�s White Man�s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will
be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.
The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like �the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.�
Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.
Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as
individuals. And it means that whites � especially white males � are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.
Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002
�2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.
Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."
Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, �I think white people feel like they�re under siege right now � like it�s not okay to be white right now, especially if you�re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. �We used to be in control! We�re losing
control�� Another says, "There�s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."
It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.
A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I�m the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when
you ask them to talk about who they are is, �I don�t have a culture.� They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture � They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."
This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop�a product of the African American
urban culture.
The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites � and only this group � there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead�a
suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'�
This is what I term implicit whiteness � implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."
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, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.
The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.
It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,
A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very
different levels of education and among people of different social classes.
Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a
formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.
I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.
The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually
bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.
This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world
will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: "�Like, I�m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there�s a bunch of white people who are desperate � desperate � to say, �You know what? My skin�s white, but I�m not one
of the white people who�s destroying the world.��
As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like � what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.
This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their
confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, 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.
Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. 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.
But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won�t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.
It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing
ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.
This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The
�God damn America� sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.
The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous
consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure � as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were �Stalin�s willing executioners.�
Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder,
torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.
Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the �transformation� of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, �cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.� And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted
that:
the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of �unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness��. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a
leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...
After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, �in all the
institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard� (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, �the Russian Federation�was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society� (p. 276).
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.
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.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University�Long Beach.
Permanent URL with hyperlinks:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html
-----------
Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza?
A timely discussion between Rev. Ted Pike and Dr. David Duke, one especially important for the Christians in our audience
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradio090122DukeandPikeonGaza.mp3
In this vital discussion, Rev. Pike and Dr. Duke explore the Pro-Israel attitude of some Christian evangelical organizations, and why their position not only goes directly against Christian morality and decency, but actually is directly opposite of that expressed by Christian Scriptures. Today, Many Christians are instructed that Jews
and today�s Israel has a special covenant� with God. In fact, the New Testament in the clearest of language states that the Jews �continued not in my covenant, and I considered them not, saith the Lord.� Here�s the quote that Christians aren�t supposed to notice.:
8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:10)
They also don�t seem to notice that a 2000 year old Judaic war against Christianity that has been waged since time of Jesus Christ and still goes on today with the most powerful Jewish organizations attempting to destroy European and American traditions, that has even become a war on our Christmas traditions.
Dr. Duke and Ted Pike also speak about how over a hundred thousand Christian Palestinians have suffered with their families from anti-Christian Israel! Christian support of Israel has resulted in the very birthplace of Jesus Christ, go from 90 percent Palestinian Christians to 35 percent today because of Israeli terror and
occupation. They ask, �How could any Christian in good conscience support the anti-Christian state of Israel, bombing the homes, killing and maiming, torturing and oppressing fellow Christian men, women and children?�
This is a vital show for every Christian reader and listener of DavidDuke.com. Next time, you hear someone say, �God tells us that we must support Israel� you will have the clear Christian answer that just the opposite is true!
For documentation on this be sure to read some of the well-footnoted, sample chapters of Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening.
Source :
http://www.davidduke.com/general/should-christians-support-israeli-terroris…
-------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------
The Jewish State of Israel has no constitution, nor does it name its borders. Israel's hidden constitution is Judaism. Israel's undeclared borders range from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. Israel's desired jurisdiction extends over the entire Earth.
It could not be more clear that the Jewish State follows a foreign policy which obeys Jewish Law as iterated in the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, Maimonedes, the Cabalah, and the many commentaries and refinements of same. The Jews are genociding the native inhabitants of Palestine, just as their religion advises, and because
their religion teaches them to do so. They treat non-Jews as if non-humans, just as their religion requires them to do. They make perpetual war on every nation on Earth, just as their genocidal Jewish God has instructed.
The Jews of Israel are simply being Jews. Jews are an existential threat to the human race.
Israel contains one third of the Jews of the World. It is not some aberration of the Jewish spirit, but the condensation and concentration of the perverse Jewish mentality, which malady also pervades the remaining two thirds of Jewry, who almost unanimously support the Jewish State, and who certainly do unanimously support
the Jewish People and its consistent and constant crimes against the human race. Israel is Jewry and the danger of Israel is the danger of the Jewish People to all others, as the Jews have demonstrated each and every day of their existence.
The Jews, the entire Jewish People of 15 million, will not relent until they have wiped out all non-Jews in "Greater Israel". They will not stop destroying all other cultures, nations, religions, ethnicities, races, competition, etc. until they are either stopped, or succeed in their ancient quest to destroy the human race.
What Israel is doing is not some reaction to outside forces, nor was the formation of Israel a response to the Holocaust. Israel is simply following the plan laid out in the Jews' religious texts. The Jews have openly planned to take Palestine and genocide the native population of Palestine for some 2,500 years before the
Holocaust. The Jews have openly complained that "anti-Semitism" is a threat that gives them the right to genocide the Palestinians, not merely since the advent of Nazism, but for some 2,500 years.
The Jewish religion is the Constitution of the Jewish State of Israel, and, to a greater or lesser extent, the constitution of the nature of every Jew alive. The borders of Israel are the range the Jew roams over the entire World. The perverse Jewish mentality is inbred by a Jew's exposure to his parents and to his community. Judaism
passes in the spit and slobber of Jewish mother telling her Jewish child that he is a "Jew", as much as Judaism passes in the poison and pain of a Talmudic tractate. The secular Jews did not suddenly come to life after the Enlightenment and the Jewish Reformation a body of vampires that appeared ex nihilo, in vacuo, mostly
atheistical and undetached from formally practiced Judaism. Judaism is the Jew. It is a mindset that transcends and supercedes religion. It is a belief set, a way of life, a perception of one's self and one's relation to the World that makes a Jew, a Jew, and a danger to all of humanity.
In fact, the religious shell of Judaism is like the stretched and infected skin of a lycanthropic pustule. When you lance it to cure the infection, the virus only becomes more contagious and spills directly on the non-Jew.
The secular Jew is a deliberate product of the hyper-religious Jew, a monster created out of the hewed corpses of the fanatically religious Jew, a Golem which is conjured up to enter the World of the non-Jew and poison its blood, and boil its brain with a rabid lunacy that bites and spreads, until the infected community feeds on
itself and fills the fields with rotting bloating bodies, where once human beings tilled the soil and tended to their families. The religious Jew created the secular Jew as an army of Esthers who seduce with open thighs, broad smiles, and a Siren call that lures in the non-Jew to cast his skull upon the jagged rocks and color the seas
with his blood, sickened and blinded by the venereal disease of Judaism in secular form.
Israel is not a secular democracy. It is a religious mockery. It is a rabid bat flying to the ends of the Earth, to end the Earth. No one will be free nor safe until the disease is quarantined and dies out.
Source: http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/israel/how_can_israel_claim_to_be_a_%27dem…
--------------------
The problem with intellectually insecure whites
By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009
America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues � at least in the long run. After all, it�s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90%
white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.
And it�s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish
community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial
Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu � another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.
The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation � which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by
overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have
discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.
But I digress.
In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan (�For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better�) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that
discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.
It�s not surprising that the New York Times � the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media � ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences
would find it interesting.
Now we have an article �The End of White America� written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.
Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald�s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: �Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?� � Well, it�s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don�t look out the white race will be�will be utterly submerged.
It�s all scientific stuff; it�s been proved.�
Buchanan�s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as �rationalized hatred� presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard
and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore �precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan�s profile � wealthy, Ivy League�educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure � might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.�
Let�s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:
The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995�s White Man�s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will
be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.
The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like �the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.�
Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.
Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as
individuals. And it means that whites � especially white males � are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.
Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002
�2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.
Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."
Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, �I think white people feel like they�re under siege right now � like it�s not okay to be white right now, especially if you�re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. �We used to be in control! We�re losing
control�� Another says, "There�s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."
It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.
A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I�m the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when
you ask them to talk about who they are is, �I don�t have a culture.� They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture � They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."
This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop�a product of the African American
urban culture.
The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites � and only this group � there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead�a
suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'�
This is what I term implicit whiteness � implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."
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, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.
The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.
It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,
A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very
different levels of education and among people of different social classes.
Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a
formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.
I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.
The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually
bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.
This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world
will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: "�Like, I�m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there�s a bunch of white people who are desperate � desperate � to say, �You know what? My skin�s white, but I�m not one
of the white people who�s destroying the world.��
As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like � what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.
This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their
confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, 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.
Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. 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.
But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won�t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.
It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing
ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.
This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The
�God damn America� sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.
The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous
consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure � as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were �Stalin�s willing executioners.�
Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder,
torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.
Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the �transformation� of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, �cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.� And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted
that:
the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of �unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness��. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a
leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...
After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, �in all the
institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard� (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, �the Russian Federation�was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society� (p. 276).
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.
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.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University�Long Beach.
Permanent URL with hyperlinks:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html
-----------
Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza?
A timely discussion between Rev. Ted Pike and Dr. David Duke, one especially important for the Christians in our audience
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradio090122DukeandPikeonGaza.mp3
In this vital discussion, Rev. Pike and Dr. Duke explore the Pro-Israel attitude of some Christian evangelical organizations, and why their position not only goes directly against Christian morality and decency, but actually is directly opposite of that expressed by Christian Scriptures. Today, Many Christians are instructed that Jews
and today�s Israel has a special covenant� with God. In fact, the New Testament in the clearest of language states that the Jews �continued not in my covenant, and I considered them not, saith the Lord.� Here�s the quote that Christians aren�t supposed to notice.:
8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:10)
They also don�t seem to notice that a 2000 year old Judaic war against Christianity that has been waged since time of Jesus Christ and still goes on today with the most powerful Jewish organizations attempting to destroy European and American traditions, that has even become a war on our Christmas traditions.
Dr. Duke and Ted Pike also speak about how over a hundred thousand Christian Palestinians have suffered with their families from anti-Christian Israel! Christian support of Israel has resulted in the very birthplace of Jesus Christ, go from 90 percent Palestinian Christians to 35 percent today because of Israeli terror and
occupation. They ask, �How could any Christian in good conscience support the anti-Christian state of Israel, bombing the homes, killing and maiming, torturing and oppressing fellow Christian men, women and children?�
This is a vital show for every Christian reader and listener of DavidDuke.com. Next time, you hear someone say, �God tells us that we must support Israel� you will have the clear Christian answer that just the opposite is true!
For documentation on this be sure to read some of the well-footnoted, sample chapters of Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening.
Source :
http://www.davidduke.com/general/should-christians-support-israeli-terroris…
-------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------
The problem with intellectually insecure whites
By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009
America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues � at least in the long run. After all, it�s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.
And it�s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu � another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.
The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation � which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.
But I digress.
In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan (�For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better�) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.
It�s not surprising that the New York Times � the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media � ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.
Now we have an article �The End of White America� written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.
Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald�s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: �Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?� � Well, it�s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don�t look out the white race will be�will be utterly submerged. It�s all scientific stuff; it�s been proved.�
Buchanan�s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as �rationalized hatred� presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore �precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan�s profile � wealthy, Ivy League�educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure � might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.�
Let�s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:
The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995�s White Man�s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.
The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like �the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone�s lives, producing a culture that�s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.�
Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.
Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites � especially white males � are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.
Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002�2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.
Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."
Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, �I think white people feel like they�re under siege right now � like it�s not okay to be white right now, especially if you�re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. �We used to be in control! We�re losing control�� Another says, "There�s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."
It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.
A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I�m the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, �I don�t have a culture.� They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture � They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."
This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop�a product of the African American urban culture.
The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites � and only this group � there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead�a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'�
This is what I term implicit whiteness � implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."
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 result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.
It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,
A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes.
Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.
I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.
The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.
This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: "�Like, I�m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there�s a bunch of white people who are desperate � desperate � to say, �You know what? My skin�s white, but I�m not one of the white people who�s destroying the world.��
As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like � what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.
This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, 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.
Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. 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.
But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won�t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.
It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.
This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The �God damn America� sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.
The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure � as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were �Stalin�s willing executioners.�
Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.
Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the �transformation� of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, �cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.� And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that:
the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of �unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness��. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...
After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, �in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard� (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, �the Russian Federation�was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society� (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.
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.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University�Long Beach.
URL with hyperlink sources:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html
-------
Jewish extremist power once again raises its head in Eric Holder hearings
1/18/2009
Preface commentary by David Duke � The following article just appeared in Salon Magazine and it shows the real reason why Obama�s Attorney General designate, Eric Holder, approved the unprecedented pardon of a fugitive from Justice, the Zionist big shot Marc Rich (shown at left). Once again, America is shown how Jewish extremists and the interests of Israel are treated in �chosen manner� over ordinary Americans. Barack Obama of course is just like Eric Holder, he has long put the powerful interests of Jews and Israel first and has a Jewish extremist chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, to prove it. As the article shows, the Israeli cover up continues with the confirmation hearings of Eric Holder.
The real reason Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich
During Eric Holder�s confirmation hearing, Arlen Specter scolded the attorney general-designate, but no one mentioned Israeli pressure. By Joe Conason
Eric Holder is sworn in at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill.
| Jan. 16, 2009 | From beginning to end, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Eric Holder's nomination as attorney general observed the ban on candid discussion of the main objection to confirming him. The forbidden topic: the real reason behind the pardon of Marc Rich eight years ago, a controversial action that Holder reviewed as deputy attorney general -- and that he failed to oppose for reasons he did not mention.
In an editorial that appeared on the morning of the hearings, the Washington Post urged the Senate to question Holder "closely" on the Rich matter. But it is difficult for senators (and editorial writers) to ask pertinent questions when they are completely ignorant of the real background and motivations of the players in the case. Even now, the true machinations behind the Rich pardon cannot be discussed honestly -- perhaps because they implicate the government and the security services of the state of Israel.
Sitting quiet and grave before the committee, Holder listened as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., one of the leading windbags of our time, held forth on how dreadful Rich is and how awful the pardon was. The fugitive trader, who still lives in Switzerland, had "a reprehensible record," Specter said -- alluding to reports that Rich did business in Iraq and Iran. The Pennsylvania Republican demanded to know how Holder could possibly have recommended a pardon for such an odious figure.
No doubt Holder was advised by the president-elect's transition team not to argue with Specter or anyone else about Rich. He must have been told not to talk about the foreign-policy issues that heavily influenced his view of the Rich decision. So he offered a meek mea culpa, took his lumps from Specter, and promised that his mistakes had made him a better man. Considering that his objective is to get through the hearings without undue stress, that was probably the wisest course. Telling the truth would only have inflamed the Republicans and the press, while creating unwanted drama for Obama.
Still, it would have been a refreshing change from the usual confirmation minuet if instead of humbly apologizing, Holder had tartly instructed the buffoonish Specter, his fellow senators, the press, and the public about the actual circumstances of the Rich affair. He might have started with the fact that continuous lobbying on Rich's behalf from the highest Israeli leaders and their American friends -- among whom Specter no doubt counts himself -- became even more intense in the days before Clinton left office. He could have noted that such pressures coincided with Clinton's efforts to conclude a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. And he could have explained to Specter that Rich's deals in Iran and Iraq were often related to his other role -- as an asset of the Mossad who gathered intelligence and helped to rescue endangered Jews from those regimes.
It is clear that Holder and his colleagues in the Justice Department had ample reason for concern over the proposed pardon, in part because pardoning a fugitive violated precedent. But for the Post to call him "the pardoner" in a front-page headline directing readers to the editorial was grossly unfair. Clinton had sole constitutional discretion to grant the pardon, and he would have done so whether Holder liked it or not.
But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable contributions of Rich's ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly after the Holder nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the pressure from "the Israelis" that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon -- as he told Beth Nolan, then the White House counsel.
Placed in its international context, that remark puts an entirely different coloration on Clinton's decision and on Holder's forbearance.
As the president mulled Rich's application, he was preoccupied with his final and most ambitious efforts to revive the Mideast peace talks that had imploded at Camp David during the summer of 2000. He was talking virtually every day with Ehud Barak, then Israel's prime minister, trying to persuade the Jewish state's leader to approve concessions to the Palestinians. That was only weeks before national elections were to take place in Israel, with Barak trailing in polls and heading toward defeat.
Echoing Barak's pleas on behalf of Rich were Clinton's old friend Shimon Peres, former Mossad director general Shabtai Shavit, and a host of other important figures in Israel and the American Jewish community. Winning the pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries where he did business. Although commentators in the mainstream and right-wing media have discounted this aspect of the controversy, they often seem as unfamiliar with critical facts as the average senator.
Following weeks of preparation by Clinton, the last round of serious peace talks opened in Taba, Egypt, on Jan. 21, 2001, the day after he signed the Rich pardon. Those negotiations eventually failed, yet they came closer to achieving a workable settlement than any before or since.
Meanwhile the fugitive financier, as he is still known, has never returned from his lair in Zug, Switzerland, to the United States. (The mainstream press never mentions that, either.) In other words, he has never used the pardon -- perhaps because he would first have to pay up tens of millions of dollars he owes in back taxes, a condition set by Clinton.
Clinton's decision is subject to harsh criticism in both substance and appearance, even by smart people who know the truth. But the pardon power exists so that presidents will be free to make such hard choices for reasons of state. As a lame duck, Clinton had no other means to induce his Israeli partner to take any risk for peace. All of this has been ignored ever since by the likes of Arlen Specter and the Washington Post -- and was obscured once more because Holder didn't want to start an argument with the Washington establishment, which forgets nothing and, even more reliably, learns nothing.
HTML source with hyperlinks:
http://www.davidduke.com/general/7175_7175.html
---------------------------------------------
Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY 10025
Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net
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
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
This is the Postfix program at host mail.intersystems.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
<it2001(a)intersystems.de>: host 213.157.25.146[213.157.25.146] said: 550 5.1.1
<it2001(a)intersystems.de>... User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)