mta-hashcash February 2009

mta-hashcash@lists.lysator.liu.se

1 participants
3 discussions

The Jewish Led Alien Invasion
by Lawrence Auster 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

Give me your tired, your huddled masses, Yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. � Emma Lazarus The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the foundation for the Zionist State.Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration. Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European colonization as morally justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some find European-American attempts to preserve our unique genes and culture from non-European immigration - morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of diversity, opinion surveys in America show overwhelming opposition to unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true in every European nation. It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority�s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non-European immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non-White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non-White birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of America�s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy. As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new immigration policies of the United States and Europe would greatly damage Western societies. Only a short time after the change in immigration policy, crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education suffered and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial transformation accelerates, these ills will reach catastrophic proportions. What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America�s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter. By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration poised the greatest short and long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America�s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.[869] Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, �Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with �wretched refuse�?� He quickly answered his own question. �It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.� Smith explained that Emma Lazarus � like many other immigration activists � was a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported �diversity� for America. He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor the arrival of �wretched refuse� on America�s shores. It is instructive to note that this beautiful statue of European Womanhood faces not to Africa, Asia or South America, but the land where she was born, France and Europe itself. Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia�s pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A Jewish supremacist dedicated to the creation of an elite Jewish State in Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the world. Drew Smith owned many books on the immigration issue, including some by Jews, in which he had underlined important passages. I borrowed them and passionately delved into them. Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group�s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort. In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish involvement in remarks before Congress. The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned�. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.)[870] Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes about the Jewish influence. Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission�s bill�. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications.[871] In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the Jewish immigrants and stated that many Jews have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals.� The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals � who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us. Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories [and] they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.[872] The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that Walter �should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bills.� (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[873] When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented �the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.�[874] It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand. They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation�. I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South. . . . Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here. (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[875] Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non-European. America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all spheres of American life. In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called �Let�s Open Our Gates.�[876] that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his �unequivocal opposition to the national quota system.� In a 1956 editorial they praised him for �courageously taking a stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.�[877] Jewish Motivation Behind Immigration It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations that pushed for open borders to admit that they were motivated by interests that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans. They promoted open immigration as �patriotic.� From the early days of the century, they made public pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial to the United States, cleverly masking their strategic motivations.After the passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish authors such as Naomi W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in Russia in the 1880s through the Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in Western nations served Jewish interests because �survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands.�[878] Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy serves Jewish interests because �an internationally minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries�[879] Perhaps even more important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in which Jews could thrive.In his monumental book A History of Jews in America, Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports �legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority�s host society.�[880] So, in effect, by breaking down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes on to explicitly show how pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity: But Kallen�s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority�s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived anti-Semitism, through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own.[881] Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that �ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups� and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.�[882] [883] In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse �gay rights� and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called �social issues.� [884] John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states in clear terms that Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat of the political and cultural representation of �the common people of the South and West.�[885] During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had piously stated that there should be no discrimination against any group in immigration and that such could only be good for America. But, Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests. One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is �discriminatory� and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel.[886] Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents? Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one; they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat. Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as �racists� those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel�s immigration policy that excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor. A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage: They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties. Equally distressing is Bonn�s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove German ancestry. [887] Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so different? Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal�s open immigration advocacy. Only Israel�s immigration policy � the most draconian of all � is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal identifies himself as the offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration of Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive. Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to this country but wind up behind barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son [himself]�. Even reluctantly recognizing some economic limitations, this country should have the moral elegance to accept neighbors who flee countries where their life is terror and hunger, and are run by murderous gangs�. If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians should be welcomed with song, embrace and memories.[888] As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal editorial calling for the acceptance into Israel of the million or more Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty of the refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian refugees into Israel with �song and embrace.� Rosenthal is not stupid, but he is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that making full citizens of all the Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way that non-European immigration erodes the America of our forefathers. On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been created but for their emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the Jewish immigrants with song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now called Israel. He has only one overwhelming concern: Jewish Supreamcism. Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the wetbacks with whom he identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the advantages of American citizenship, but he will not � and cannot � become a real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist agenda. As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of their role in dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B�nai B�rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote: It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes.[889] Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he looks forward to �constitutional constraints� (restriction of freedom of speech?): 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 have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic 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. [890] As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively Jewish-run national state have been nourishing massive nontraditional immigration into America, and they look forward to the time when the voting demographics of the United States reflect that transformation. I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill � who coined the term �melting pot� � envisioned his Jewish state as a melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and Judaism. Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it. One American cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that �The bottom always gets burned, and the scum rises to the top.� It is true that America has seen a melting of the different nationalities of Europe into a traditional American majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the Jewish media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only marginal melting of the Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through their advocacy of miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration and differential birthrates. Jews have also promoted, through �zero-population� advocates such as Paul Ehrlich, smaller families among the natural leaders of the American majority. Jewish promotion of the women�s liberation movement and abortion on demand has lowered the birthrate of America�s most productive and educated classes. Their blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means necessary. Continued massive non-European immigration satisfies these aims. In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war � and our side is suffering great losses. To lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live. America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the top floors. Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our brethren across Europe. Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist drive toward globalization, and the destruction of any sort of ethnic or national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. They seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, deracinated individuals incapable of collective resistance. If we remain silent in this critical time in our people�s history, our people will be extinguished and silent forever. This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the peoples of the Earth. References 869. Smith, Drew L. (1971). The Legacy Of The Melting Pot. North Quincy, Massachusetts. Christopher Publishing House 870. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,265-6,266. 871. Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World And The New: The Significance Of Past And Present Immigration To The American People. New York: The Century Co. p.144.. 872. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,272. 873. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 2,285. 874. Joint Hearings Before The Subcommittees Of The Committees On The Judiciary, 82nd Congress, First Session, On S. 716, H. R. 2379, And H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951. 563 875. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 4,320. 876. Javits, J (1951) Let�s Open Our Gates New York Times Magazine July 8. p.8, 33. 877. Congress Weekly. (1956). Editorial of February 20. p.3 878. Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free To Desist: The American Jewish Committee 1906-1966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society Of America. 879. Ibid. p.342. 880. Sachar, H. (1992). A History Of Jews In America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 881. Ibid. p.427. 882. MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. 883. MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. 884. Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain people: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books. 885. Higham , J. (1984). Send These To Me: Immigrants In Urban America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 886. Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press. p.181. 887. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9. 888. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9. 889. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). July. 23. 890. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). Feb. 19. Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-24-the-jewish-role-in… ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to Lawrence Auster's Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact : lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

1 0

Adolf Hitler - An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize
by Lawrence Auster 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

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

1 0

Wealth of U.S.A. Plundered by Jews -- The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogma -- Why No Neocon Assassinations?
by Lawrence Auster 05 Feb '09

05 Feb '09

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

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

mta-hashcash February 2009