You must chose

But chose wisely.....

Read More

Benjamin Ginsberg on Jewish hypocrisy and double standards

Tablet interview: “Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’”

[Tablet] One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

Say what? Displaced anti-Semitism would be if these Whites used Jewish hypocrisy as an excuse from some deep irrational hatred of Jews. But isn’t hypocrisy always seen as a negative? The White Protestants who are on trial here assume a principled morality. They assume that if inclusiveness is a moral imperative in the U.S. as our intellectual elites constantly tell us, it must be a moral imperative everywhere. But many of the same people who advocate inclusiveness in the U.S. advocate oppression in Israel. And there’s resentment by many Whites because as a result of the moral imperative of inclusiveness in the U.S., they are losing the country. So, yes, there is probably a “secret corner” of their brains where they would like to reassert themselves and boot out or oppress the interlopers. But that has to remain secret on pain of job loss and social opprobrium.  Because they no longer command the moral and political high ground, they don’t dare  say that.

[Tablet] Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.

[Ginsberg] I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.
You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”

The joke would be mildly humorous except that the Jewish left has been spectacularly successful. So I am not laughing because the not so hidden agenda of the left has been the displacement of the people and culture of European societies throughout the West. Again we see the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in a movement led by strongly ethnocentric activists intent on displacing the previously dominant Protestant elite and in the process becoming an elite themselves. Policies that are advocated in the Diaspora are rejected for Israel. The Protestant elite that was endlessly criticized for being non-inclusive turns out to be way more inclusive than their critics.

So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Or to rephrase his comments, I imagine students saying

“How come in my high school Whites are a minority in the same school that was all-White when my parents attended. However, in Israel they can enact immigration laws that keep out non-Jews?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Indeed, they are not wrong about immgration policy or about Christmas carols.

Ginsberg’s comments are another example of a phenomenon noticed by Andrew Joyce: “It appears that Jews are becoming more and more flamboyant and confident (or aggressive) in asserting their dominance. While the ADL would like us not to think of Jewish power and influence at all, there are recurrent examples where Jews unabashedly assert their influence.”

Source: http://bit.ly/104lO1O

Read More

Racism

Read More

The Jewish origins of multiculturalism in Sweden

by Dr Kevin MacDonald. 

In The Culture of Critique and other writings I have developed the view that Jews and the organized Jewish community were a critical necessary condition for the rise of multiculturalism in the West. In Chapter 7, on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I focused mainly on the U.S., but also had brief sections on England, Canada, Australia (greatly elaborated recently in TOO by Brenton Sanderson), and France.

One question I often get is about the role of Jews in Sweden and other European countries with relatively few Jews. Now there has been a translation from Swedish of an article, “How and why Sweden became multicultural,” that summarizes academic writing on the Jewish role in making Sweden into a multicultural society. This article should be read in its entirety, but some salient points:

The ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books.

Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. …

It was the conservative Rightist Party who first embraced the idea of cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent.

As in the U.S. and elsewhere, Jewish activists were aided by Jewish media ownership. Activists stressed the need to reshape immigration policy to atone for persecution of Jews—in the case of Sweden, the role of the Swedish government vis-à-vis Jews during World War II. (In the U.S., Jewish activists emphasized that the 1924 immigration law was motivated by anti-Semitism, and many activists, including academic activists like Stephen J. Gould (in his notorious The Mismeasure of Man; see here, p. 30ff, claimed that U.S. immigration restriction resulted in Jews dying in the Holocaust. Even Stephen Steinlight, who advocates restriction of Muslim immigration (and only Muslim immigration), termed the 1924 law “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,”a “monstrous policy”; see here, p. 5) 

Assimilation to Swedish culture was viewed as an unacceptable goal:

The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. …

It is not a coincidence that Europe’s organized Jews consistently dissociate themselves from politically organized critics of Islam, because every negative generalization towards a minority group ultimately can hit the Jews.

The article notes, and I agree, that Jews are motivated by the desire to break down ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies because of fear that such societies may turn on Jews, as occurred in Germany, 1933-1945, but also because of traditional Jewish hatred toward the Christian civilization of the West. It concludes by noting that, besides Jewish media ownership, Jewish influence was facilitated by the dominance of academic anthropology by the Boasian school — a Jewish intellectual movement — and its views on cultural relativism and denigration of Western culture.

I agree entirely that Jewish influence stems from their being an academic and media elite, as well as their ability to develop highly effective, well-funded activist organizations. Here, the role of Bruno Kaplan of the World Jewish Congress is emphasized.

This is an important contribution to the understanding of the impending death of the West. Needless to say, such an analysis does not obviate the need for an understanding of why Western cultures have been uniquely susceptible to ideologies that view the destruction of the West as a moral imperative. 

****

And look at Sweden now, look at America now, look at the West now. Mass non-European immigration into the West was no accident, it was not a natural phenomena as the leftist deceptively claim. It was a purposeful plan to weaken our culture, our homogeneity and our will. Ignorance of the facts will ultimately lead to a future in which conflict, totalitarianism, and suffering will become the norm, and all because people were stupid enough to fall for the joint globalist/leftist mythical utopian ideals that are nothing more than fairytales. 

Source

Read More

Why Jewish Guilt in Communism Matters

Source

You see as normal a world in which Europeans are continually insulted by Jews for being “Nazis”, even the Europeans whose ancestors fought against the Nazis. You see as normal a world in which every manifestation of European nationalism is stigmatised as Nazism and greeted with special repressive measures.

In this world, flayed by guilt, which they passively and meekly accept and internalise, Europeans have no chance of defending their countries against islamisation. Seen as tainted by some kind of “Nazi” original sin, the only way Europeans can redeem themselves is to mutely hand their countries over to the aliens and hope for the best.

You see this world as normal because that’s the world we live in.

But I don’t see this world as normal. It is built on a falsified narrative of 20th century history, one which stresses the evils of nationalism, racism and right-wing politics. An authentic history, however, would acknowledge that anti-nationalism, political prejudice and left-wing politics had consequences that were as destructive, if not more destructive, than nationalism, and that the excesses of nationalism were among those consequences. In other words, extreme nationalism was a reaction to artificially-imposed extreme anti-nationalism. 

Those anti-nationalist ideas have been expressed in ideologies like Communism and multiculturalism. Each of these movements, if they even deserve to be considered separate movements, has exhibited the vastly disproportionate involvement of diaspora Jews in the fermentation of their ideas, their promotion through intellectual discourse and their implementation at the policy level. Anti-nationalism is, literally, the worst idea in history. 

If you could quantify the misery and death the violation of the nationalist principle – the idea that a people should live in a homogeneous ethnic group in its own territory under its own government – has provoked, it would be staggering to contemplate. History is largely the chronicle of the unpleasantness that arises when this principle is violated.

The islamisation of Europe is the consequence of the elevation of anti-nationalism to be the dominant moral ideal of our age. Immigration is the most obvious consequence of the elite’s embrace of this destructive ideal. And islamisation is the consequence of immigration.

When people are infected by HIV, they don’t die of HIV. HIV is just a state of weakness. It is when they catch a secondary infection in this vulnerable state that fatality results. That’s how it is with modern Europe. Islam is not the problem. Islam is what will kill us. But it’s the secondary infection, not the underlying malady. The underlying malady is anti-nationalism.

To some Europeans, it will no doubt sound banal to say that islamisation is the consequence of immigration because, for many of them, the two are inseparable. But this is much less obvious to Americans, since America has been a country of immigration since its inception. Because the American influence is dominant within the Counterjihad movement, and because much of the Counterjihad movement wishes to make itself as inoffensive as possible to elite opinion, in a pitiful attempt to win mainstream acceptance, this fairly obvious truth goes generally unacknowledged. Many Counterjihad activists will abstain from saying anything about immigration for fear of being accused of racism.

A more rounded history of the 20th century would be the clearest possible refutation of the ideal of multiculturalism. It would show that the fact of having different peoples living in the same territory inevitably produces unpleasant results. Even after centuries, separate peoples retain their own sense of ethnic distinctness because the urge to empathise with your own ancestral kin group is an ineradicable part of human nature. Cherishing their own separateness, these distinct ethnic groups inevitably generate conflicts of interests and end up plotting against one another. 

The Jews plotted against the Europeans in whose countries they were living and the Europeans plotted back, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the best way to have a harmonious world is to have separate peoples living in their own territories. That is the policy conclusion that an authentic 20th century history would tend to lead to.

The warped narrative we have all been treated to hitherto, however, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that nationalism, ethnic identification, and the quest for territorial homogeneity is a terrible scourge which we must all be on constant guard against; that having different peoples living in the same territory is a great and enriching thing; and that all we need is a state willing to victimise the majority population, criminalise its free expression and use its power to crush any incipient manifestation of pride or self-assertion among its people.

The recent persecution of Golden Dawn is a good example of where the dominant narrative takes us. Now, Golden Dawn are very far from being my political ideal. Whatever their imperfections, however, they were one of the best hopes for stopping the islamisation of Greece and Europe in the only way that actually matters: achieving governmental power and using it to stop Muslim immigration and facilitate or enforce Muslim ex-migration. 

That hope may now have been extinguished, partly through direct and indirect pressure from Jewish organisations; and partly through the mythologised narrative of 20th century history that assigns some demonic significance to nationalism, racism and right-wing politics more generally. The EDL likewise have been wounded by the same bizarre European guilt obsessions arising from this distorted account of history.

Jews generally have no difficulty with the concept of ulterior, even subconscious, motivation. Freud, after all, who pioneered the concept of the subconscious, was a Jew. It is common to hear, for example, European governments accused of disguised or subconscious antisemitism for their policies towards Israel or the Palestinians. Why, then, do you have such difficulty with the idea that the Jews active in Communist movements could have had ulterior or even subconscious motivations related to their Jewishness? 

Are we really expected to believe it was pure coincidence that a group of excluded outsiders embraced and implemented an ideology that denigrated almost every aspect of mainstream European society, that sanctioned its deconstruction, the erasure of all its traditions, the wiping out of Christianity, the suppression of European patriot movements and the criminalisation of antisemitism?

I don’t take accusations of antisemitism any more seriously than I take accusations of islamophobia or racism. These are terms designed to shut down rational discussion by imputing impure motivations to opponents and elevating subjective considerations such as emotion and motivation above the core criterion of objective truth. In the world of serious discourse, however, a person’s motivations don’t matter. Facts matter. It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of these facts. If any of the facts I have cited are inaccurate, I would welcome their correction. 

But that would be to engage in rational discourse. And we have seen no sign of a willingness to do that. Even you, in your comment, make no attempt to cite any factual inaccuracy. The post you are responding to consists almost entirely of quotes from a Jewish historian who acknowledges the Jewish role in the Communist dictatorships and balances this presentation of facts, overly so I would say, by offering a sympathetic appreciation of the context in which the Jews made the choices that they did.

Instead of rational engagement, we see exactly what I expected when I decided to broach this issue: the de rigueur insults of antisemitism, much like the de rigueur insults of islamophobia, and the silent withdrawal of support from websites that claim to be part of a Counterjihad movement. It is clear that these websites are primarily engaged, not in resisting Islamic Jihad, but in promoting the (perceived) interests of Jewry. 

They are interested in resisting Islam only insofar as the Islamic agenda conflicts with the interests of Jewry, which it clearly does to a significant degree. But that far and no further. When the two agendas come into conflict, the anti-jihad agenda falls by the wayside. Even the Counterjihad sites run by gentiles fear the disapproval of Jews, either because they are economically reliant on them in some way or because they have internalised the codes of conduct created to delegitimise criticism of Jews.

As I said, this response was anticipated when I first started talking about this issue. Nonetheless, it is dismaying to see the lack of moral and intellectual integrity in people you once respected. These are people who spend much of their lives presenting tangible evidence to a hostile mainstream audience unwilling to set aside its preconceptions in favour of the facts. At every turn, they are accused of having impure motivations, of being animated by hatred. 

You would hope, then, that these same people, having faced down the intimidating accusation of wickedness themselves, having bravely brandished factual truth in the face of the hostile arbiters of acceptable opinion, would themselves, when they found their own preconceptions challenged, be better than their own adversaries had been. But, tragically, they’re not. When presented with facts that challenge their preconceptions about Jews, they react in exactly the same way that their mainstream interlocutors do when presented with facts that jar with their preconceptions about Muslims.

The notion that a people – any people – could provoke a mindless, irrational hatred in almost everyone it comes into contact with is a very strange one, much like the idea that a religion could provoke irrational hatred and fear in anyone who comes into contact with its practitioners. 

Yet these very strange ideas are accepted without challenge in the mainstream discourse of our times. If I claimed, for example, that I knew of a dog that was persecuted everywhere it went: other dogs barked at it and attacked it; no one would give it food; children would throw stones at it for no reason; drivers would swerve to try and run it over, etc. the story would provoke extreme scepticism.

It would sound so utterly fantastical, so at variance with our normal understanding of the world, as to hint almost at something supernatural. Individuals who claimed to be persecuted in this way would be classed as paranoid schizophrenic. Rather than indulge these fantasies, the best way to help someone suffering from this affliction would be to explain to them that other people’s responses to them would be governed by their own behaviour, just like every other person in the world, and that the idea of being singled out for persecution in some fateful way was absurd. The fact that so many seemingly rational Jews can take seriously the idea that they have some mystical identity which causes them to be persecuted for no reason is deeply disturbing. 

This bespeaks an Oriental, non-European mindset in which things happen because of supernatural agency. The European mind, by contrast, seeks rational explanations for the way the world works.

When one people attempts to live as a discrete minority in the homeland of another, setting itself apart, adopting an us-and-them mentality, favouring its own in-group in every interaction, it is going to end badly, sooner or later. This is simply human nature in operation. It is not the result of some mystical evil called antisemitism.

The lesson to be drawn from the tragic experience of the Jews throughout history is that anti-nationalism – in other words having different peoples living in the same territory – is a bad idea. Yet most Jews, at least diaspora Jews, have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. No people can be secure without a homeland of its own. yet the effect of the anti-nationalist ideas advocated by so many Jews is that the peoples of Europe will lose control of their homelands.

I have to say I am repulsed, but not surprised, by the inability of Jews to acknowledge fault. It is the perfect analogue of the Muslim inability to acknowledge fault because it conflicts with their Koran-mandated self-image as the “perfect nation”. How is it antisemitic to simply take note of the fact that anti-nationalist ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Jews have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them? If I take note of the fact that Socialistic ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Scots have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them, does that make me antiscotistic or Scotophobic?

Why can you Jews not make such a simple acknowledgement yourself? Are you so steeped in a lachrymose narrative of victimhood in which innocent Jews suffer continuously at the hands of evil goy that you cannot admit that Jews, like every other people on earth, have, at times, had conflicts of interest with other peoples and, at times, have committed grievous wrongs against those other peoples? No European people that I am know of claims to have innocently glided through history without ever having had a conflict of interest with other peoples, without ever having engaged in contention with other peoples and, at times, having wronged those other peoples. 

To my knowledge, Muslims are the only other people who make this claim. The Koran tells Muslims they are the “Perfect Nation”. Jews believe they are the Chosen People. Although rarely voiced publicly these days, it is clear that this idea still influences the outlook of many Jews. Nothing else can account for such a reluctance to acknowledge fault or the strength of the curious conviction that a people is destined to be the constant target of persecution and that this persecution will be completely unrelated to its own actions.

You say you have no difficulty blaming Jews when appropriate and then cite an example in which you blame Jews for not resisting Nazism more forcefully. But this was mere passivity on the part of the Jews, not actual wrong-doing against another people. Can you give me any example from history in which Jews engaged in wrong-doing against another people?

I have to say that the unwillingness of Jews to acknowledge responsibility for their historical actions takes me much closer to a feeling of general antisemitism than my awareness of the Jewish role in Communism does. The Jewish role in Communism is a detail of history from a time in which there were many mitigating circumstances to explain the choices Jews made. The Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility is not a historical curio, however. It is right here among us in the present day and it comes from Jews who live in completely secure circumstances and who otherwise sound like reasonable people. 

We could compare the Jewish role in the atrocities of Communism to the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians in the WW1 era. As various diplomats have pointed out when attempting to persuade the Turkish government to be rational on this issue, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with modern Turkey. If Turkey acknowledged that the genocide had occurred, admitted wrong-doing by a previous generation of Turks and expressed its regrets, the issue would be closed and we could move on. 

The fact that modern Turkey is unwilling to do this, however, hints that something sinister and ugly is going on. It suggests that whatever attitudes lay behind the Armenian Genocide still exist. And Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge their culpability in relation to the atrocities of Communism evokes the same possibility.

Discussion and exploration of Jewish guilt in Communism is important for the following reasons:

• 1) It would establish that anti-nationalism had consequences that were as destructive, or more so, than nationalism. 

This is critical. The dominant political narrative portrays Nazism and, by extension, right-wing politics generally as being uniquely sinister and associated with violence and mass murder. Factual analysis doesn’t support that claim, however. 

The mass exterminations resulting from the political prejudice of Communism were greater in scope than the Nazi extermination based on racial prejudice. Throughout the post-WW2 era, right-wing terrorism has been almost unknown in Europe, while left-wing terrorism has been a chronic problem. In the present day, Europol issues annual reports cataloguing terrorist incidents in Europe. From these reports it is clear that right-wing terrorist incidents are rare to non-existent, while dozens of left-wing terrorist incidents occur every year. Highlighting the atrocities of Communism is one way of restoring balance to public perception.

• 2) It would make it clear that when individuals who self-identify as belonging to different peoples live in the same territory, they will, ultimately, perceive themselves as being threatened by the interests and actions of the other group and will try to ward off the perceived threat from the other group. 

This will cause unpleasantness to at least one of the ethnic factions and very often both. And this is true regardless of how highly qualified or economically successful the groups are, refuting the core contention of the immigration apologists that immigration should be assessed solely in terms of the obvious indicators of economic success.

• 3) It would establish that Europeans can be victims as well as perpetrators. Unlike anti-semitism, which is a marginal phenomenon, anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of the world. It is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is not even regarded as a distinct ideology. It is simply regarded as “the norm”. 

The emotional grip of this ideology rests on tales of Europeans doing bad things to non-Europeans in instances such as the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, imperialism, etc. These accounts are, to say the least, unbalanced. 

They leave out key facts such as that all societies we know of practised slavery since the dawn of recorded time and that Europeans, after indulging in the practice for a few hundreds years, were the ones who stamped it out; that imperialism often brought betterment to the countries that experienced it in ways that can be measured through metrics such as life expectancy, population size, etc. 

Standard accounts of the Holocaust are also fundamentally unbalanced in that they neglect to mention the key fact that Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism, that Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, and that millions of Europeans, and almost every constituent element of European society, were liquidated under Bolshevist rule. This was ethnic war wearing a mask of morality.

• 4) It would destroy the destroy the harmful myth of the innocence of Jews. The dominant narrative of the 20th century assigns Jews the role of passive, innocent victims to a mindless, irrational evil. 

This gives them a special moral authority, which they have not hesitated to invoke at every opportunity to push for open-borders immigration, diversity and the de-Europeanisation of European societies more generally. 

This may not be as apparent in America. But in Europe, any attempt to limit immigration, to discuss its harmful effects or to distinguish between various streams of immigrants results in the Nazi card being played almost instantly. Once the truth that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism, and Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, is established in the public mind, that special moral authority disappears for good. 

The standard mythology is an extraordinarily powerful tool that Jews can use to advance their own purposes. It is understandable that any people would be reluctant to give up such an all-conquering trump card. Nonetheless, truth demands that they do so.

• 5) It is simply a moral imperative that atrocities of this magnitude be acknowledged and their perpetrators held to account.

Everything that is true of the Holocaust – the memorials, the commemorative ceremonies, the presence in textbooks and the popular imagination, the mantra of “We must never forget” – is equally true of the atrocities of the Bolshevist regimes, which were greater in scope than the Holocaust. It is an abomination that these truths are not more generally known. Imagine that we lived in a world where the Holocaust had been obscured from history. 

People were generally aware that there had been a war, that bad things had happened and that a lot of people had been killed, but nothing about a deliberate program to exterminate the Jews was known to the ordinary person. Only a few people reading esoteric books would occasionally stumble on this truth. 

Whenever they tried to raise it for public discussion, they would be immediately accused of paranoid anti-Germanism, anti-Europeanism or anti-Christianism and silenced. That’s the world we live in. In reverse. Anyone who denies Jewish guilt in the atrocities of Communism after the facts have been presented to them is the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.

• 6) There is, it seems to me, inherent value in establishing the point that the world is explicable, that there are reasons why things happen. If we are to improve the world, we must first understand it. 

A narrative that postulates the existence of a mindless, irrational evil that mysteriously blinks into existence from time to time is childlike, primitive, absurd and un-European. 

This is how Orientals see the world, in the simplistic chiaroscuro of good vs. evil. A mature understanding of the world can accommodate nuance and assign more morally complex roles to history’s actors than the cartoon characterisation of goodies vs. baddies. 

The truth about the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe is that Jews and Europeans mutually victimised one another for reasons that were partially understandable, even if the atrocious form their vengeance took is ultimately unpardonable. If we wish to avert the possibility that such things could happen again, we must understand why they happened the first time. 

And the standard narrative – that the Nazis came to power through a combination of economic crisis and the spellbinding rhetoric of an evil demagogue – is simply false. Such an account deprives Nazi atrocities of their meaning. 

The Jews who died at Hitler’s hands are not honoured or ennobled by false accounts of what led up to their murder. The opposite is true. The truth is that at the heart of the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe was ethnic conflict. 

And this ethnic conflict only came about because the principle of nationalism – different peoples living as homogeneous groups in their own homelands under their own governmental authority – had been violated. Jews were living outside of their ancestral homeland ruled by non-Jews. Germans were living outside of Germany ruled by non-Germans. The twin facts set off emotional chain reactions culminating in tragedy.

Once I see general acknowledgement by Jews of their moral culpability in this; once I see them express repentance and engage in the critical and public moral self-examination that Europeans have engaged in with regard to nationalism; once I see Jewish guilt in Communism become a matter of public knowledge and parallels drawn with the modern Jewish embrace of multiculturalism, 

I will be happy to let this issue drop. Until then, I will continue to talk about it. If that makes people unhappy or uncomfortable, then they had best go elsewhere.

Read More

More Jewish History

Source

Judaism, however, was subverted long before the Khazar/Ashkenazi wolves slipped under the deceptively useful Judaic sheepskin. Almost eight centuries earlier Christ’s apostle John records in Revelation 2:9, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” How did this catastrophic confusion and misrepresentation come about?

Immanuel Velikovsky in his epic work Ages in Chaos: From Exodus to Akhnaton presents record of the Israelites battling the Amalekites on at least two occasions as they fled Egypt, doubtless replete with rape of and co-mingling with the Israelites. 

This contributed not merely to the Israelites’ failure to follow the leadership of Moses, but by the time of Christ, to have adopted satanic teachings subsequently distilled into written form by Rabbis Aschi, Maremar and Abina as the Babylonian Talmud. 

The Amalekites prove to be forebears of the Khazars and descendants of the Edomites. Gerald Soman, in the Manifesto of the World Jewish Federation, January 1, 1935 writes, “No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.”

Hasdai ibn Shaprut, foreign minister to Abd-al-Rahman, Sultan of Cordovia, in a letter to King Joseph of the Chazars (about 960 AD) speaks of … the Chazars [who] once dwelt near the Seir Mountains.

“Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir. (Genesis 36:8).

The Seir mountain range south of the Dead Sea was known as the “land of Edom” (Genesis 36:21) and was home to the Edomites for nearly a millennium. They arrived in the region at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 13th century BC (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, pg. 372). In the 6th century BC, “after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Edomites began to press northward” into what became Khazaria. (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Henry S. Gehman, 1970, pg. 418)

Edom is another name for Esau, brother of the biblical patriarch Jacob (aka Israel), father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Esau rejected God, sold his birthright to his brother Jacob, and defied God and his family by intermarrying with Canaanite women. 

He hated God and Jacob, and vowed revenge against Jacob and his descendants, the Israelites. Throughout history to this day Esau/Edom’s descendants have waged war against the true descendants of the Israelites and have systematically worked to destroy Western Christian civilization oppressing all races other than the Jew. (www.vaticproject.blogspot.com)

By the time of Christ, these who “claimed to be Jews but were not” were adequately in control to pressure the Roman government to arrest and crucify Christ. Cicero, a Roman legislator, spoke of the manipulation exercised by Jews a century before the crucifixion of Christ. 

“Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.” 

Marcus Tullius Cicero, a first century BC Roman statesman and writer, quietly expressed this to the presiding judges in his oration as defence counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who had interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters in Jerusalem. 

For a man of Cicero’s stature to have to “speak softly” reveals how pervasive was the malevolent influence of organized Jewry on the Roman Empire. Cicero also writes, “The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of … deceivers.” 

Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman Empire acknowledged as the downward turning point of that great state, Dio Cassius, a second century AD Roman historian, records in Roman History, 

“The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood… In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today.”

Read More

France Fights Masonic Jewish Hegemony

France is ruled by Freemasonry and Organized Jewry. One is designed to serve the other. The will of French citizens, their vote, the survival of their history, their heritage, their culture and ancestral religion (Catholicism), does not matter to this clique.

Their aim is to destroy every root, every memory, every link to the past, every vestige of religious meaning, and above all, any shred of patriotism left in the heart of the French people. That's why they always emphasize the dark side of French history and ask the French people to genuflect in front of Jewry and the holocaust.

The aim of Organized Jewry is not to exert a benevolent and impartial power for the benefit of mankind and its general well-being. Its aim is to replace God, and to be worshiped the same way.

For century, France was the bastion of Christianity and stands in the the way of the Jewish globalist agenda. They do not want any nation left standing that could challenge their domination. Organized Jewry's thirst for power, greed for money, ignorance of moral and religious ideals all are behind our present culture of death and destruction.

"PROGRESS AND CHANGE"

In France, behind every call for "progress" and "social change," you always find a Jew.

The removal of death penalty was initiated by the Jewish lawyer Robert Badinter. The abortion law was perpetrated by Jewess Simone Veil. The "anti-racist" groups were all set up by Jews. (SOS Racisme was created by the Jew Julien Dray and the Jew Harlem Désir; all chairmen have been Jews since then, up to today with the Jewess Cindy Léoni).

As in every country they settled, French Jewry has created many groups to exert pressure on the host people to disarm legitimate resistance to their Luciferian agenda.

The survival of French people as autonomous entity doesn't matter to them, because they simply don't regard themselves as any part of it. Their sole allegiance goes to their tribal entity, Freemasonry, and for some, Israel, but not to France and its people.

JUDEO MASONIC CONTROL

jmlp.jpgHence, they made of the Front National and [its founder] Jean-Marie Le Pen (left) their number one enemy. He  refused to bow in front of the Jewish power. Therefore,  he had to face this occult power that control everything and hold  the destiny of France and of its people in its hand, just as they control the fate of the American people (leading them to bankruptcy)...

History is stubborn; that's why they are suppressing the young generation. (Jewish Freemason Minister for Education Peillon removed Louis XIV, Napoleon, and François 1er from school books last year...).

Only the colours of events appear to change, but in fact the meaning of history remains the same.

But let's make one thing very clear. We are obviously not talking about individuals here. We are talking of Jewish Money Power and all its proxies, mainly Freemasonry (B'nai Brith, Bilderberg, Skulls and Bones, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc.) We are talking about a centuries-long agenda of subversion that is now close to fruition.

The two most important Jewish populations - outside of Israel - are to be found in France and in the U.S. That alone explains the recent policy of war carried out by the French government.

Hollande1.jpgThe current President of France is the Marrano Crypto-Jew Hollande

The current minister for Foreign Affair is the Jew Fabius

The current minister for Education is the Jew Peillon

The current minister for Economy is the Jew Moscovici

Obviously they are all Freemasons...

I could draw the same list about people on the media (press, TV, etc) university and so on. French people are getting more and more aware of it. But  they cannot yet understand how Jews can be so evil toward them when they hold the best positions in most sectors of economy (particularly in media, culture and of course banking). They enjoy much higher status than the average French citizen. But it's surely not enough for them...

Jean-Marie Le Pen was told by a high ranking B'nai Brith member that they feared that their "thought control" will fail to prevent him from being elected in 2002; and thus for years, the Front National was the main subject of concern of organized Jewry. That is the reason behind the media campaign of slander on the party and its President.

The "Republican Front" (Front Républicain) was put in place by the other opponent parties (Socialist and UMP) during an assembly of B'nai Brith (Masonry exclusively for Jews). It was an agreement among political parties to combine their vote whenever they were facing a Front National member during an election... (That's the democratic ethic of the political elite in France, to bypass the vote of citizen in order to maintain their grip on all positions of power...)

This is how the Socialist party and the Leftists ensured their election.

Source: http://bit.ly/18s9gBJ 

Read More

The Jewish role in Communism.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel, is quite open about the Jewish role in Communism.

Under the entry for “Communism”: in Volume 5, page 792, the following appears:

“The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part In Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.”

On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to say that ”Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica on page 793 then goes on to reveal that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as to ”not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to describe the overwhelming role Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says : ”Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime.”

On page 794 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, this Jewish reference book then goes to list the Jews prominent in the upper command of the Russian Communist party: these included Maxim Litvinov, (Later foreign minister of Soviet Russia); Grigori Zinoviev, Lwev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek, amongst many others.

The organizer of the Revolution was Trotsky, who prepared a special committee to plan and prepare the coup which brought the Communists to power. according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, this committee, called the Military Revolutionary Committee, had five members three of whom were Jews.

The Politburo, the supreme governing body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution had four Jews among its seven members, according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica.

Source: http://ow.ly/pfPSc

 

Read More

GOP to nominate Netanyahu as US presidential candidate

The Republican National Convention is expected to nominate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as the party’s candidate for president of the United States at their August convention in Tampa, Florida, The Jerusalem Roast has learned.

With the candidacies of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former house speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and Texas congressman Ron Paul all in peril due to the heavy in-fighting between them, senior officials have turned to Netanyahu as the only possible politician with a chance of beating US President Barack Obama in the November 6 elections.

“Netanyahu has it all,” a top GOP strategist said. “He has Romney’s economic credentials, Santorum’s conservative agenda, a kooky blonde third wife like Gingrich, and best of all, he just doesn’t like Obama.”

Born in Tel Aviv and raised in a Philadelphia suburb, Netanyahu is permitted to run after the US Senate, House of Representatives and State legislatures recently amended the constitution to waive the requirement for presidents to have been born in the US. Obama, whose own birthplace has been questioned, supported the change.

In an interview with the Roast, Netanyahu said if elected US president he would remain prime minister of Israel. He boasted that he would have no problem running both countries into the ground simultaneously.

“I already run a Jewish state with 7 million prime ministers,” he said, paraphrasing former prime minister Golda Meir. “How hard can it be to run a country of 300 million gentiles?” Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded to the reports of Netanyahu’s impending selection by donating 1 billion Iranian Rials to Obama’s campaign, and by threatening to attack Republican strongholds in the American South on Election Day.

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni announced that she would explore the possibility of running in the election as a third-party candidate, saying “I don’t want those poor Americans to be stuck with only Bibi or Barack.”

SOURCE

Read More

Jewish holiday Chanukah -- very relevant to the culture wars in America today!

We hope you all had a Merry Christmas! Wednesday, Dec. 28, is the final day of the Jewish holiday Chanukah, which lasts 8 days.

The holidays often coincide, and a lot of people think that Chanukah is sort of a "Jewish" version of Christmas.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The holidays are completely different. Unfortunately, most people (including most Jews) don't really understand what Chanukah is all about.

Actually, Chanukah is very relevant to what we're going through right now in America and around the world. It's about struggling against — and ultimately winning, with God's help — a seemingly unwinnable culture war against extremely oppressive government-enforced secularism and paganism.

Fighting the culture war/symbol of culture war. Rabbi Moshe Lieberman (defiantly!) lights Chanukah menorah on the public green in Newton, Mass., one of the most left-wing cities in the state!

In the second century B.C., the powerful Syrian empire had conquered Israel. By around 170 BC they were ruthlessly forcing paganism on the country and banning traditional religious practice.

Pagan holidays, customs, and religious practices were imposed on the citizens of Israel. Statues of pagan gods were erected throughout the country. People were required to bow down to idols and make sacrifices to them. If they refused they were tortured and killed. (You think the imposition of "Earth Day" and "Holiday" parties are annoying? That's just the beginning . . .)

They were allowed to have some "private" religious beliefs, but no public acknowledgement of God was allowed anywhere. Sabbath observance, study of the Bible, and other Jewish customs and rituals were completely banned. People who did not comply were executed.

Sadly, many Jews embraced the pagan customs and willingly abandoned God. And most others simply complied and offered no resistance. (Does all this sound familiar?) As a result, the anti-religious oppression continued unimpeded.

Finally, a small band of unyielding believers had had enough. They fled into the hills, formed a resistance movement, and gathered a guerilla army to fight back. Such a fight was considered impossible against the Syrian empire. But they fought nevertheless. They didn't give up. Their guerilla encounters got bolder and bolder, and began to yield incredible successes. And with God's help they finally won. Within three years they drove out the Syrians and took back the country!

Then they came to clean out and re-purify the Great Temple in Jerusalem that had been turned into a pagan shrine. But they had only a one-day supply of holy oil to light the sacred lamps and re-dedicate the Temple. That miraculously lasted eight days — until more holy oil could be made. Thus the eight-day celebration of Chanukah (which means "dedication" in Hebrew) ever since.

So thus, the holiday of Chanukah — as traditionally understood — is about fighting and winning a war against oppressive state-forced paganism, overcoming near impossible odds.

This ought to be an annual lesson to us. Even though the forces ruling us want to drive out God from our lives and ever more ruthlessly impose Godless secularism on us throughout society, do not give up. It's not lost. Seemingly impossible circumstances can and will be overcome with God's help. But you must be willing to fight back.

Happy Chanukah!
-Brian Camenker

Read More