mta-hashcash

mta-hashcash@lists.lysator.liu.se

1 participants
245 discussions

More orgasmms
by Palla Gunderson 01 Mar '09

01 Mar '09

New Orgasm Enhancer Or, better still, in some province across the without interruption, subject to the crown of of those yet introduced. Its flowers droop in to rantideva, he gave even that remnant away unto kinds of celestial perfumes, and with diverse.

1 0

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

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls -- Part 1 and 2 ---- Obama --The Judas Goat
by Lawrence Auster 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

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

1 0

Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders
by Lawrence Auster 25 Jan '09

25 Jan '09

Jewish Lobby Gives Obama His Marching Orders By Michael Collins Piper THE POWERFUL JEWISH LOBBY in Washington is already issuing marching orders to President-elect Barack Obama. One of the most influential voices of the lobby has published an array of �working papers� designed to tell the president how he must maintain the �special relationship� between the United States and Israel, increase pressure on a variety of Arab and Muslim states that are perceived as dangers to Israel, and generally assure that Israel�s interests will always be first and foremost in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but around the globe. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force in the Jewish lobby, published an entire edition of its Journal of International Security Affairs (dated fall 2008), sending the official word to Obama. JINSA was founded by one Stephen Bryen who�along with a host of other well known names connected to JINSA�was once investigated by the FBI on charges of espionage for Israel. A variety of articles in the journal addressing �Middle East Policy and the Next President� and �Iran, Iraq and Beyond,� make it clear that JINSA�best known as a nest of the infamous �neo-conservatives� who misdirected U.S. foreign policy during the outgoing Bush administration, sparking the war in Iraq and continuing to clamor for action against Iran�wants Obama to pursue Bush-style policies. AIPAC is particularly obsessed with using U.S. military and economic power to force Arab and Muslim nations to �reform� from within. Talk of �democracy� flows freely within AIPAC�s assorted essays, demanding that Israel�s neighbors conform to the Western version of democracy. But when the Palestinian people voted the Hamas movement into power in the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza strip, AIPAC and other elements in the Jewish lobby immediately began calling for the United States to reject that freely elected government. Now, of course, Hamas is largely only in control of the beleaguered Gaza�which many refer to as �ghetto�� and the Palestinian statehood movement has been eviscerated, at least for now. This makes AIPAC and the lobby for Israel quite happy, for Israel has long encouraged U.S. policies�and helped create conditions�that have the effect of �divide and conquer� in the Arab and Muslim world. Israel is not like any other nation in the world, in that it seems to thrive best (and enjoys the benefits of) having its neighbors quarreling among themselves and rent within. Other nations prefer neighbors that are peaceful and internally secure. Israel wants its neighbors in chaos, because this prevents them from waging war against Israel, either individually or united. And although in the wake of the debacle in Iraq, which led many Israelis and their allies in the United States to suddenly proclaim that the Iraq war should never have been waged, the fact is that Israel and its U.S.-based agents-in-place were the prime movers behind that war and it was Israeli intelligence that was providing what critics now recognize was the �bad intelligence� that led the Bush administration to �mistakenly� conclude that Iraq was working toward an assembly of nuclear weapons to rival that of Israel. The Israelis and their American spokesmen evidently now believe that if they tell the �big lie� often enough�the lie that Israel�s interests played no part in orchestrating the debacle in Iraq�that it will make Americans forget that Israel was the foremost advocate of the war in the first place. However, the evisceration of Iraq by the United States is part and parcel of a long-standing Israeli national security policy aimed toward �balkanizing� the Muslim world. Yet, AIPAC, in its journal, is now working to perpetuate the myth of Iraqi nuclear weapons and suggesting that Iraq�s weapons were transported into Syria, another nation which has been on the �wish list for war� of Israel and its lobby in America. And AIPAC makes it clear that the destruction of Iran�s nuclear development program is a �must.� AIPAC is not the only Israeli lobby unit sending the message to the new president. Commentary magazine, long affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, has�in recent issues�been trumpeting a similar bellicose refrain directed at Obama. The editorial director of the Jewish lobby journal is John Podhoretz, a longtime close personal and political associate of the ubiquitous William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, which is the most infamous voice of the neo-conservative, hard-line pro-Israel elements operating in the media, in the think tanks, and in official policy making and national security and intelligence circles in Washington. Their fathers, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, are two of the founding fathers of the neoconservative network, both Trotskyite Marxists who announced their �conversion� to conservatism during the latter days of the Cold War, banging the drum for intensified U.S. support for Israel. A complete overview of the neo-conservative power structure and its rather bizarre origins in the days when American Jewish communists like Kristol and Podhoretz turned on the Soviet Union when then- Soviet chief Josef Stalin began moving against Jewish and Zionist elements inside Russia can be found in The High Priests of War and The Judas Goats, two works by this author. Whether President Obama intends real change, as he promised, or whether he will advance the Israeli agenda (which saw its power expand exponentially in the Republican administration of George W. Bush) remains to be seen. But �the lobby� is making its voice heard and Obama knows that he better not ignore it. A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP. Source : http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/jewish_lobby_164.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama -- The Judas Goat 1/25/2009 By David Duke 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 slaughter. (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 ------------------------ Why is the President of Israel, the terrorist who just oversaw the Zionist mass murder and maiming of thousands of Palestinians so happy that Obama is President of the USA? by David Duke Read the excerpt from the Israeli News about how President Perez and Israel think that Obama�s becoming U.S. President is great day for Israel. "Israel�s President Shimon Peres ecstatic over the election of Obama" Ronen Medzini Israel News Jan. 21 �Today is a great day not only for the United States of America, but for the entire world,� President Shimon Peres wrote in a letter addressed to Barack Obama on the day of his inauguration as president of the United States. �Obama was elected by the United States, but as a matter of fact, he was chosen by the whole of humankind,� Why is Peres so ecstatic? Why shouldn�t he be, he knows that Obama is completely in the grip of the extremist Jewish Zionists in America, and he knows that the greater Obama�s popularity and idol worship, the more Obama can do for the International Zionist Cause. Any thinking and caring human being who realizes that the Zionist-controlled American foreign policy has been a disaster for the robbed and murdered people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and a catastrophe for the 50,000 American wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as an economic catastrophe for the hardworking Americans who pay trillions to finance these wars for Israel -- must wake up the fact that supporting Obama and increasing his popularity will only aid Zionist terrorism, war, and their murder and oppression of the Palestinians. It will also hasten the economic suffering of billions of people around the world as his popularity enables him to more easily aid the Zionist International Bankers steal the wealth of the United States, Europe and the world. Obama is totally in the bloodstained and green ink- stained hands of the Zionists. The hard truth is that the more good will and support Obama has also gives more power to support the Zionist agenda! Mark my words. The Obama Presidency will be disaster for America and for the world. Obama was put into office by the Zionists. His top two cohorts for years have been the radical Jews David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel. Both have long records of radical Zionism and have been attack dogs against anyone perceived as having the slightest opposition to Israel. One such victim was Sen. Charles Percy, who both men worked to defeat and destroy because he dared to only be 99 percent rather than 100 percent pro-Israel. Rahm Emmanuel, a dual citizen of Israel who went to fight for Israel, he has a long pedigree of Jewish extremism. His father served in the Irgun Terrorist Gang and he himself is named after an Irgun terrorist. Zionist leaders in Chicago actually call Obama �the first Jewish President� and boast that Jews were key players in Obama�s every step up the ladder to President. from the very earliest days, extremist Jews were the largest contributors to his campaign. In the beginning of his Presidential bid, three Hollywood Jews that constantly make movies about Jewish suffering, but never about the Zionist terrorism and theft against the Palestinian people, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg raised 1.2 million for Obama in a single Hollywood party. By the time Obama�s campaign was in full swing, he had huge support from the criminal Zionist International Banking firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers. Goldman Sachs was Obama�s biggest single contributor, and his vast war chest came not from American manufacturing firms like GM or even American oil companies, (not one was in his top twenty) it was overwhelmingly dominated by Zionist international bankers, the same ones whose thievery and fraud are giving the world this economic depression. For those looking for meaningful social and political change, do you really think it will come from this man who has already been bought heart, head and soul by the most powerful czars of the international financial establishment and the biggest globalists in the world? I know that many are desperate for change, so desperate that you want to believe anything. But in the face of these facts can�t you see that Obama will be even more dangerous to freedom and justice than even George Bush and his band of Neocons were. What better way to wipe out George Bush�s hated legacy and make the world believe that America has really changed than with the election of Obama. But, all the real Zionist power, Zionist media power, and Zionist financial power in America is still in place, even stronger than ever. Many Americans and others around the world who want to do good are now telling us how wonderful Obama will be as president. What a great change it will be from the old policies. This is because of the Zionist-Controlled media hype, promoting Obama. The fact is that these poor sods are ignorantly helping the radical Zionist agenda in Israel and around the world. Every day that you don�t help expose Obama for the Zionist servant that he actually is, his popularity will be a greater danger to peace and freedom. If the Zionist terrorist Shimon Perez is happy about the coronation of Obama, then why in the hell should you be? �David Duke Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/7303_7303.html ------------------------------------- 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

Is Israel a democracy? -- The problem with intellectually insecure whites -- Should Christians Support Israeli Terrorism in Gaza?
by Lawrence Auster 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

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 -------------------------------------

1 0

The problem with intellectually insecure whites - Jewish Involvement in Black American Affairs
by Lawrence Auster 20 Jan '09

20 Jan '09

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 Involvement in Black American Affairs Reflections on Martin Luther King Jr�s Birthday By Paul Grubach Just about every year on the eve of the national holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.�s birthday, the mainstream media in the United States put forth numerous articles about the large Jewish involvement with Dr. King and the equally large Jewish involvement with the Black American Civil Rights movement. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media�s description of this phenomenon is seen through rose-colored glasses. Jewish influence in Black American affairs is portrayed as overwhelmingly selfless, altruistic, charitable and humane. But is this really true? Let�s take a look. In 1991, The Nation of Islam, a Black religious group, published a very important study of Jewish involvement with the Black slave trade. Entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (SRBBJ), it is a well documented and well argued book, and the authors make this clear from the very beginning: �The information contained herein has been compiled primarily from Jewish historical literature. Every effort has been made to present evidence from the most respected of the Jewish authorities and whose works appear in established historical journals or are published by authoritative Jewish publishing houses.� The Black American expert on the slave trade, Dr. Tony Martin, has endorsed the book, as he has made it assigned reading in his courses. I have investigated at least some of the sources and they do indeed check out. In the book�s introduction we read: �Deep within the recesses of the Jewish historical record is the irrefutable evidence that the most prominent of the Jewish pilgrim fathers used kidnapped Black Africans disproportionately more than any other ethnic or religious group in New World history and participated in every aspect of the international slave trade.� Further on it is written: �Most have always assumed that the relationship between Blacks and Jews has been mutually supportive, friendly and fruitful � two suffering people bonding to overcome hatred and bigotry to achieve success. But history tells an altogether different story.� Not surprisingly, Jewish-Zionist groups, and those allied with them, have attempted to blacken the book�s reputation. Unable to refute its thesis, they resort to smear tactics. But Black Americans would do well to heed SRBBJ�s advice. The relationship between Blacks and Jews, they write, �is a relationship that needs further analysis. [�] Hidden and misunderstood, it is indeed time to reopen the files and reconsider The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.� Furthermore, the irrational attacks upon SRBBJ highlight the hypocritical double standard that pervades the study of the sordid and evil business of the Black slave trade. It is socially and morally acceptable for Jewish scholars like Bernard Lewis to write books (Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Inquiry) that discuss Arab involvement in the Black slave trade, and it is socially and morally acceptable to discuss Black and European involvement in the Black Slave trade. But it is positively �wrong, evil, and immoral� for any non-Jewish scholar to openly discuss Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade. Indeed, consider the case of the brave Black scholar Tony Martin, who did try to tell the world about the large Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade. Readers of The Revisionist should check out his book The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. For attempting to tell the truth about the large Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade he was harassed, persecuted, and Jewish-Zionist forces tried to damage his career. Indeed, any non-Jewish intellectual that attempts to bring to light the large Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade will almost certainly be attacked and maligned by Jewish-Zionist groups. Black American intellectual Harold Cruse and California psychology professor Kevin MacDonald have also fearlessly scrutinized Jewish involvement in Black affairs. Both have written some very insightful analyses of the question: Why were Jews so disproportionately involved in the Black Civil Rights movement? In their books, Cruse�s The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and MacDonald,�s The Culture of Critique, they have noted that many Jews want a racially integrated society because it provides a hospitable environment for their long term policy of non-assimilation and group solidarity. Many Jews view white/Euro-American nationalism as their greatest potential threat, and they promote racial integration precisely because this presumably dilutes Euro-American power and lessens the possibility that a powerful and cohesive Euro-American standing in opposition to Jewish interests will develop. There is evidence that supports their viewpoints. If the primary motive of the Jewish groups that were involved in the Black American Civil Rights movement was to promote racial equality and racial integration, then we should expect that they would promote racial equality and ethnic integration in Israel just as ardently as they promoted it in the United States. But this is not the case. For the most part, the Jewish groups that were and are working to create a racially integrated society in the US are the same Jewish groups that were and are ardent supporters of the ethnically segregated apartheid state of Israel where racial segregation and Jewish supremacism are enshrined in law. Jewish scholar Uri Davis has written a book, the title of which says it all: Israel: An Apartheid State. If there is ever to be harmony between the races in the United States, then we are all going to have to literally lay �all of the cards on the table.� That is to say, Blacks and whites, Jews and non-Jews, are going to have to discuss these racial problems in an open, honest and forthright manner, free of name-calling and emotional outbursts. The history of Jewish involvement in Black affairs has been, for the most part, surrounded by taboos and �off-limits� for discussion. It is about time that Black Americans � and all other Americans for that matter � break down these taboos and reconsider Jewish involvement in Black American affairs. Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-suppressed-history-between-blacks-and-… Jewish Involvement in Black American Affairs Part 2 www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1444 --------------------------------------------- Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net

1 0

Are Jews still guilty for the crucifixion??
by Lawrence Auster 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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

1 0

Are Jews still guilty for the crucifixion??
by Lawrence Auster 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

1 0

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
25
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

mta-hashcash