For those who haven't been keeping track, here's a fresh link to an extraordinary thread that started earlier this month when I reviewed Pat Buchanan's book on World War II. An anonymous reader posted a response suggesting that Buchanan knew more than he let on and regretting that the author didn't elaborate on Jewish responsibility for the war, which was twofold, as I understand the analysis. By "controlling communism in Russia," Anonymous claimed, the Jews provided a provocation for Hitler, while Jews outside the USSR goaded Great Britain to fight what Buchanan had characterized, for his own reasons, as an "unnecessary war."
In subsequent posts, Anonymous became insistent that communism be recognized as a distinctly Jewish (or "Talmudic") phenomenon for which Jewish people in general ought to acknowledge their collective responsibility. I disputed the history and the philosophy behind these assertions, treating Anonymous's numerous citations as anecdotal or impressionistic evidence while frankly rejecting the notion of any nationality or religious group bearing collective responsibility for an ideology. Occasionally supported by another anonymous poster, the main writer expressed a conspiratorial view of history and continued to disclaim Jew-hatred while elaborating further on Jewish iniquity through history. I indulged this because I thought the debate gave me an opportunity to address larger topics like conspiracy theory and collective responsibility. It also amused me because Anonymous gave the appearance of one whose initial mask of learned reasonableness gradually slipped to reveal something worse beneath.
That process may have culminated in the most recent Anonymous (or "Anonymous 1") post. Now that communism is an exhausted ideology, Anon1 writes, Jews "have merely transmuted their doctrines into more up to date forms. Instead of advocating communism as in days of yore, they now advocate liberalism, neoconservatism ("Israel uber alles"), feminism, civil rightism, bogus "wars on terrorism", globalism, ad nauseam. The poison is still operating." This is a breathtakingly indiscriminate list of allegedly obnoxious doctrines, leaving one to wonder what someone who opposes them all is for.
Here's a clue: "The destruction of the US as a white country is now an all but accomplished fact. This tearing down of the racial homogeneity of the US has been accomplished entirely by Jewish efforts to change the immigration laws. "
The beauty of this is that I don't really have to say anything more; this stuff speaks for itself, just as Anonymous 1 means it to. I invite readers to review the original thread and watch the responses that appear here and, as always, figure it out for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Anonymous 1 replies:
It is obvious that Mr. Wilson does not like my conclusions, although he does not dispute my facts. The charges which he disparages as "all over the landscape" are abundantly supported by documentary evidence. A blog is no place to review the evidence in detail because space does not permit it. However, a good place to start would be the trilogy of thr professor of anti-semitism, Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald has written three books on the subject of Jewish influence: (1) "The People That Shalt Dwell Alone", (2) "Separation and Its Discontents" and (3) "Culture of Critique". The approach, in all three cases, is to take what Jewish scholars admit in their own refernce works and draw appropriate conclusions. The academic approach to MacDonald's writings is rather like Mr. Wilson's approach to mine: to make accusations of nefarious intent rather than to rebut the facts.
As stated, I am not an endorser of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism. The whole system strikes me as unAmerican and totally unsuited to American mentality and historical tradition. Yet there are interesting similarities between National Socialism and Judaism. One might even say that Hitler substituted Germans as the "Chosen People" rather than Jews. One could even say that Nazism is Zionism for gentiles. Numerous Zionist leaders in Germany, such as Jacob Klatzkin, opined that that just as Jews wanted to purge discordant gentile elements from their midst, so too German National Socialism wanted to purge discordant Jewish elements from its midst. Thus, the appproach in both directions was essentially the same. Congruent with this ideological affinity a series of deals was made by the Zionist and Nazi leadership to purge Germany of Jews unwanted by the Germans-and ship them to Palestine as desired by the Zionist leadership. One move in this direction was the H'avaara, or "Transfer Agreement". By this device, approximately 40-60,000, 10%-15% of Germany's Jews, were shipped to Palestine minus a substantial exit tax on their assets. This served the dual purpose of (1) ridding Germany of Jews and (2) transplanting Jews to Palestine where most of them, quite frankly, did not want to go. But they were pawns in the game. Readers interested in such interesting details should consult "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" by Lenni Brenner.
These ugly details of history are hushed up by the Zionist infested media, who would much rather condemn the Palestinian Arabs for their exiled leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, shaking hands with Hitler in Berlin during the war. The secret collaboration of the Zionist leadership with the Nazis was more substantial. Another useful volume on this little known and deeply suppressed episode of history is "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question" by Francis Nicosia.
Anonymous 1 knows his history. That is why he can make statements which seem utterly extraordinary to the average reader. Extraordinary the statements are, but purely factual. This is why the real world is much different from the stage play presented to the public. Anonymous 1 wishes to emphasize, to borrow a phrase from the English historian David Irving, that "real history" is the key to real knowledge. Those who lack "real history" are floating around in a world of make believe. The way to get out of make believe (be it TV news, ideologies of all varieties and descriptions, history made for the masses, etc.) is to learn "real history". Real history may reveal power configurations and agendas unknown to the man-in-the-street, which is why the political establishment seeks to discourage "real history" at all costs. The condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahminijad is a good case in point.
Anonymous 1 goes where the facts lead. Always follow the facts, and forget preconceptions . That is the power of liberating the mind.
The real question, as Anonymous 1 emphasizes, is where the facts lead. A1 claims to be free of preconceptions, but the concept of "real history" expressed in the last post seems to presuppose the existence of "power configurations and agendas" that are by virtue of their existence sufficient to explain great historical movements. Before I comment further, however, I hope A1 will elaborate on what distinguishes "real history" from other approaches to the past.
As for affinities between Nazism and Zionism, this is just a labored way of saying that both are nationalist ideologies. In this they are little different from the "white" ideology that Anonymous 1 appears to espouse. Again, clarification may be in order.
I've actually defended Ahmadinejad's opinion on the Holocaust in the past. As I understand his translated statements, he's never denied that Germans killed Jews in large numbers. Rather, by "the myth of the Holocaust" he seems to mean the idea that the Holocaust is the justification for Israel's existence, his argument being to question why the people of the Middle East should pay for the crimes of Germany and Europe. He thus endorses a wide range of revisionist history in order to undermine what he takes to be Zionist propaganda, just as some people think it necessary to dispute what happened on September 11, 2001 in order to undermine the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. One can oppose the invasion and occupation, as I do, without trying to rewrite reality. Other people regrettably try to bend history to fit their immediate political or ideological agendas.
Anonymous 1 responds.
Let us begin with President Ahminijad. He is, as Mr. Wilson notes, quite correct that "The Holocaust", whatever it really was, in no way justifies Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. However, in assuming that the Germans really did kill six million Jews in purported "gas chambers", he is assuming facts not in evidence. The real number of Jews who perished In WW2 was probaby between one to one and a half million. The evidence for this is entirely convincing.
All German records are consistent that German policy for dealing with Jews was that of expropriation and expulsion, not extermination. The pre-war plan was to deport them to Madagascar; after the invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941, the plan switched to deporting them to the occuped territories in the east. Large numbers of Jews were killed in the fighting in Russia but the numbers are greatly exaggerated. Two-thirds of the Jews in Russia had already been deported by the communists themselves to work in the arms factories east of the Ural Mountains. (As already demonstrated, the Jews were the favorites of the bolshevik regime and constituted the most highly skilled engineers and technical workers in the Soviet hierarchy.) In western Europe, many Jews were not even deported until three years or more after the invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941. In France, deportations did not commence until afdter the Normandy invasion of June 1944. In Hungary, deportations did not begin until the same time. These Jews obviously could not have been shot in Russia because they were not even there. The diaries of Heinrich Himmler, the German secret police chief who was in charge of all anti-Jewish actions on the Eastern front, have been in Israeli hands since the end of the war, To this day, the Israelis have not released them. This logically suggests that there is something in the diaries which does not fit the standard story. The vast majority of the Jews in Russia survived the war because they were hiding east of the Urals, out of German control. The Soviet satrapies in Eastern Europe after the war were top heavy with Jews who obviously had not died in the war. Year after year, more and more Jewish "survivors" of a supposedly murderous extermination program crop up to demand more and more reparations. Logically, these "survivors" would not exist if the extermination had really taken place. There was a huge "Exodus" of very much alive, undercounted Jews through the Balkans after the war to invade Arab Palestine. Again, had the Jews really been "exterminated" during the war, where did they come from? Huge loss of life during a war does not prove "extermination". The Germans suffered huge post-war losses but no one claims that they were exterminated.
The essence of the extermination claims rests on the "gas chamber" lie. German camp records of Auschwitz were taken by the Red Army back to Moscow after the war. The records disclose that somewhere between one hundred to one hundred fifty thousand people died in Auschwitz during the war, not all of them Jews. The main cause of death was typhus and disesases resulting from the weakening of the body by typhus, such as heart attacks. There is no mention anywhere in the records of "gassings", although there are executions for sabotage. The story for the rest of the German camps reads the same. Auschwitz was a giant industrial production center for the German wa effort. Huge numbers of Jews, free Polish labor, Russian POW's and others were put to work there. Synthetic rubber, coal and many other necessaries for the Wehrmacht were produced there. The Germans had no reason to murder their labor supply. In fact, there exists a documented order by Heinrich Himmler demanding that the death rate in the camps be reduced at "all costs". The order is unquestionably authentic. It cannot be reconciled with any Jewish extermination program.
The Auschwitz camps were buit in a very swampy, marshy area at the junction of three rivers in southwestern Poland, including the Sola and Vistula. Typhus was a big problem at the camps. Typhus is carried by lice and rodents which must be exterminated to control epidemics. In the summer of 1942 Auschwitz was shut down because of a huge typhus epidemic. Crematory ovens were built to sanitarily burn and dispose of the diseased bodies. The disposal rates of the crematory ovens were consistent with the deaths from typhus and related causes. During the trial of Ernest Zundel in Canada for publishing "false news", an American "gas chamber" expert, Fred Leuchter, was retained to perform the first on site inspection of the Ausschwitz "gas chamber" buildings. Leuchter, who firmly believed in the existence of the "gas chambers" prior to his visit, had to report that the buildings could not have functioned as "gas chambers". Prussian Blue, a hydrogen cyanide compound resulting from the adhesion of hydrogen cyanide to the brick walls, was nowhere in evidence. Prussian Blue was, however, found in abundance in delousing chambers used to cleanse clothing of prisoners. Leuchter had his career destroyed because of his findings. However, both his test results andhis conclusions have been verified by several subsequent investigations.
Thus, both the German camp records and the forensic tests tell the same story. The Jews have lied. The purpose of the kangaroo court at Nuremberg, run by Jews behind the scenes, was to manufacture fake "evidence" of the crime. This was done by excluding the German records, doing no forensic tests of the aleged murder weapon and introducing huge quantities of forged documents and inconsistent, ever shifting perjured testimonies of supposed eye-witness accounts of physical impossibilities. The prisoners were hung during the Jewish high holidays of October 1946. The sentences were pronounced by a German Jew, Wolf Frank and the hangman was the Jew in American uniform, John Woods Short. Such was the great kangaroo court which "proved" the extermination of the Jews for all time. After the war, the very much alive Jews migrated to all parts of the globe disguised as Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Czechs, etc. Favorite locations were New York City, South America and Palestine.
All these facts are kmown to President Ahminijad. As to the World Trade Centers all kinds of competent investigators of all shades of opinion have demonstrated that the buildings were blown up by controlled explosions from within. There is no need to go into the details here; they are voluminous and may be found in many websites devoted to the subject. The fact that it was the Jews in Israel working in collaboration with the Jews inside the US government who set up the incident, Pearl harbor style, is known to every public official in Europe, including an ex-president of Italy who publicly stated this about a year ago.
Mr. Wilson is correct that one need not be either a Holocaust Denier or a World Trade Center skeptic to benefit from revisionist research. As for denying reality, the reality on both thr "gas chamber" story and 09/11 is much different than the Powers That Be claim it is. Live and learn.
I'm getting the impression that few or no Jewish people read this particular blog. If they did, I'd expect someone to show up and maul Anonymous at some point. Maybe they're out there but consider the posts beneath their notice. I can't claim sufficient specialized knowledge to refute Anonymous's sources, but I would like to know the evidence behind the claim that the Jews controlled the Nuremberg trials behind the scenes.
More generally, I'm curious to know what decides a person to question what's taken to be uncontroversial history. Do they have insights in which conventional wisdom appears to be objectively wrong, or are they predisposed to distrust conventional wisdom, identifying it with an alien or hostile power?
I'll also ask again: how does the "white" ideology that Anonymous appears to uphold differ from such ideologies as Zionism or Nazism.
Anonymous1 further says:
I do not yet know what response, if any, I shall get to my documented destruction of the Holocaust legend. Here I wish to raise an additional point: by their methods ye shall know them. All over the world, Holocaust heretics are being fired, thrown into prison, and blacklisted because of their investigations and writings. Why?
Virtually all European countries now have laws against questioning the claim that "six million" Jews were killed during WW2. In France, the law even goes so far as to criminalize any dissent from the Nuremberg Trial judgement. It is a verdict carved in stone, the ultimate verity of the post-WW2 political order. Holocaust heretics impose no such laws on their critics. They let their investigations and the facts speak for themselves. Yet the other side will not rest its case on the counter-arguments. They resort to totalitarian, police state suppression. Why? What are they afraid of, if not the shocking truth that the story is a hoax?
"The Holocaust" is, in a sense, the mother of all lies. It is the one whopper which the Jews cannot explain away. All their other evils, from communism to sex slave trading, to behind the scenes manipulations of political events, can be rationalized or explained away on some semi-plausible basis (as, indeed, Mr. Wilson has attempted to do in his debates with me). But if the Nazi "gas chamber" story is a hoax, then there is no rebuttal. With one stroke, all talk of the "Protocols of Zion" becomes irrelevant. The long rumoured Jewish conspiracy does, in fact, exist.
That is the reason for all the suppression. It is the one issue on which the Jews cannot allow any debate to reach the public for, if it does reach the public, the Jews are finished. Who preaches open borders, diversity, racial equality, feminism, abortion and all the other doctrines which have transformed the fast disintegrating United States? Why, the same Jews who preached the lie of the Nazi "gas chambers"! "False in one thing; false in all things" to quote the legal maxim. That, in extremely simplified terms, is the hydrogen bomb power locked away in the "gas chamber" hoax.
Patrick Buchanan knows all these things. He can only hint at them. Anonymous1 shall do more than hint. He shall make plain not merely the facts but all which is implicit in them. The secret to the modern world lies in the hoax. To expose the "gas chamber" lie is to expose a truly satanic power which aims at world domination. That is not hyperbole; it is the deadly real peril which confronts the world. Patrick Henry stated at the time of the American revolution that "these were the times which try men's souls". Those times are upon us again-and the price which will have to be paid to break the culmination of a centuries old conspiracy shall be high indeed.
Anonymous1 responds:
I shall be happy to answer the question about Jewish control behind the scenes of the Nuremberg Trial. The late Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, father of present day Senator Christopher Dodd, wrote some very revealing letters to his wife in America regarding the Nuremberg Trial, which Christopher Dodd collected and published in book form, "Letters From Nuremberg". There, Dodd testified about his apprehension that the very large number of Jews operating behind the scenes at Nuremberg might give rise to the believe that Nuremberg was a Jewish "revenge trial". Several American jurists at Nuremberg, such as Judge Wennersturm, testified that 90% of the personnel at Nuremberg were "alien borm" (meaning Jews) and that they had no understanding of American concepts of justice but were simply out for revenge. I will now give some of the names of these Jews. One assistant prosecutor was Sidney Aldermam. Another was the Hungarian Jew Bemjamin Ferencs, who has been appearing on C-Span a lot of late. The future Hollywood actor, Tony Randall (Rosenberg) was there. So was the head of the VOX recording compamy, Bartholdy-Mensolsohn. The fellow in charge of procuring all American personnel for the trial was David "Mickey" Marcus, a Zionist New York Jew. One of his colleagues in the Civil Affairs Division/Judge Advocate General's Office was the Zionist agent, General Hildring. He, too, was deeply involved in the staging of the trial.It was the Robinson brothers of the Institute For Jewish Affairs of the World Jewish Congress who first proposed the idea of a "war crimes" trial to an initially skeptical Allied Commission.
If Mr. Wilson wishes confirmation of these facts, he should consult the relevant chapters in Professor Arthur Butz's book "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of Eastern European Jewry". As to the question of what creates a skeptic of official history the answer is as follows. When an individual notices that standard accounts do not explain obvious facts and inconsistencies, he searches for the "missing explanation". Let us take one very obvious example. Current history will not discuss why Adolf Hitler went after the Jews. When the inquiring student discovers that the reasons were: (1) overwhelming Jewish participation in communism;(2) Jewish power plays at the Paris Peace Conferebce of 1919: (3) Jewish economic exploitation of the misery of the German people, then he discovers that history is being doctored to make one particular people look good. He then goes looking for the same sort of cover up on other subjects related to Jews and finds a recurring pattern. If he asks why, then he discovers the immense Jewish power which exists in the economy and how that power is used to crush those who delve into subjects they should not be examining. It does not become difficult to connect the dots.
As to the inquiry on what distinguishes a white activist from a Nazi or a Zionist, the answer is: The difference is one's own group and its interests. To my mind it is axiomatic that the US was created as a white country and should stay that way. The virtues of racial homogeneity are well-known. A people of common blood, common values and common culture do not suffer the discords which come from a mish-mash of indigestible elements. Patrick Buchanan understands this point as well. Individualism is a wonderful thing but who wants to be an individual in a society where your neighbor is brown or yellow and speaks Mandarin Chinese or Spanish?
Mr. Wilson should be grateful that no Jews are reading his blog. If they were, he would experience a pressure such as he cannot imagine coming down on his head. The world's most powerful minority does not appreciate being exposed. There will be no factual refutations of the material here presented because there are none. Professor Butz's book demolishing the Holocaust was published in 1976. No Jew has attempted a refutation in the meantime. That fact is enormously significant. A refutation would be the easiest thing in the world, if such were possible.
"Satanic power" is always hyperbole to those who don't believe in Satan, like me. While Anonymous 1 claims that the term isn't hyperbole, it's not clear whether that means, as far as Anon is concerned, that it is literally true. Once more, a clarification would be helpful.
Here's a clarification from me: it was Thomas Paine who, at least most famously, wrote that the crisis of the American Revolution was "the times that try men's souls."
As for Nuremberg, the elder Dodd's comments are purely speculative, while the names cited by Anon amount at best to circumstantial evidence unless Anon can substantiate what each person actually did. It isn't enough to infer from results, at least for me.
Current history, of course, makes sweeping claims for why Hitler persecuted the Jews, but most historians offer different explanations, with which Anon may or may not disagree. Curiously, Anon's own list doesn't include the "stab in the back" that allegedly ended the Great War, a point where I might have expected Anon's analysis and more conventional accounts to converge. Interestingly, Buchanan remarks that Hitler didn't really believe his own propaganda on this point, but he doesn't adequately footnote that assertion. As for the larger question, it still isn't clear what Anon considers the "obvious facts and inconsistencies" that steer some toward revisionist history, unless I'm to infer that some people would automatically assume that Hitler had to have a good or plausible reason, while others would not.
I'll defer my comments on Anon's racial ideology to another occasion, but I definitely disagree with it.
Mr. Wilson has a serious misconception as to what constitutes proof. He asks for the names of the Jews who were running the Nuremberg Trials. I provide him with the names and instigators-and then he says this means nothing unless I can actually show what each individual was doing at the trial. This is a little bit like arguing that unless I provide a cuuriculum vitae for each Jewish commissar in Joseph Stalin's government that there were no Jewish commissars in Joseph Stalin's government. I fail to follow the reasoning. Senator Thomas Dodd was an actual participant at the Nuremberg Trials. His testimony is consistent with that of many other partipants at the trial. If Mr. Wilson is going to argue that this is merely "circumstantial" and proves nothing, then presumably he would argue that the overflowing reports of the Military Intelligence Department and the State Department in the year 1919, also based on eyewitness testimonies of observers and participants in the "Russian" revolution, were also "circumstantial". This is twaddle. The evidence is ironclad and admits of no dispute.
The claim that Hitler went after the Jews for no reason is also twaddle. The reasons were exactly as I described them. Just in case Mr. Wilson does not know this, the Jews were expelled from one country after another during the Catholic centuries of European history for exactly the same reasons that Hitler expeled them-because they were anti-social, anti-national bastards. Nazi policy was not much different in this regard than traditional Catholic policy.
On the subject of racial ideology, the founding fathers of America were all white supremacists. Anyone can read their documented statements in their writings and find this to be the case. Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries firmly believed in white supremacy. These attitudes only began to change when Jewish communists, disguised as "social scientists", like Ashley Montagu and Franz Boas, began to infiltrate American universities in the 1930's. At the same time the American Communist Party, under the direction of Joseph Pogany/Joseph Schwartz, a former commissar of Hungary's Jewish communist Bela Kun regime, began to preach the cause of black "Civil Rights" here in the US. Racial equality is not merely scientific fiction; it is purely the Communist Party line-and always has been. Any right-wing researcher knows this to be the case.
As to the famous stab-in-the-back charge of the First World War, only two things need be said: (1) Germany was definitely defeated because of the arrival of the AEF; (2) Germany was not helpless on the battlefield despite some reverses. Had the war continued, the Germans could have inflicted enormous losses on the enemy before succumbing. The armistice came because both sides desired it. The Germans knew they were in a losing position; the Entente knew that forcing the war into Germany would have cost more hundreds of thousands dead and wounded. The Armistice was agreed to based on Wilson's "Fourteen Points" which the Entente agreed to and then violated. Hence, the charge of betrayal.
On standards of historical proof Mr. Wilson's mind is wanting. If the fact that the Jews have provably lied about the biggest hoax of all time, the so-called "Holocaust" does not raise in his mind certain questions about Jewish power and influence in the world, I can only marvel at his naivete. As to his indifference to matters racial, I can only suggest that he review the mind set of his ancestors and then learn where the racial equality propaganda is coming from-from the mouths of the same lying aliens who created the "gas chamber" whopper.
Anonymous 1 has provided names of Jews present at Nuremberg, but has not proven that they instigated or "ran" anything. Likewise, even if the revisionist account of the gas chambers is correct, that does not prove that "the Jews lied" because it hasn't been shown that, if a lie, it was a Jewish one. Missing from Anon's account so far is the history of reportage on the gas chambers or the six-million dead claim, neither of which can necessarily be linked to Jews. Dodd's comment remains one man's observation and cannot be treated as equivalent to a preponderance of evidence. More comments along the same lines from other observers would make the argument more convincing.
No one has ever argued that Hitler attacked Jewish people for no reason, but most people have questioned his reasons. This goes to the heart of the issue between Anonymous 1 and me. Obviously there has to be a cause for anti-semitism. Someone did not just get up in the morning and say, "I want to get those Jews." It has to be based on a perception of Jewish people and what they do. In other words, it's inevitably a reaction to Jewish conduct. The main question is whether it's ever a reasonable or justified reaction. Anon believes that it is on the ground that Jewish conduct is somehow harmful to the homogeneous tribalistic cultures Anon appears to prefer. My view is that the conduct of Jewish individuals may obviously be as harmful as that of any other individuals, but that collective guilt is never a rational response to the offense.
As for the United States, it's questionable that "white" was even a category in the Founders' minds. Few if any were racial egalitarians, and many if not most would have believed in African inferiority, but they were unlikely to think of all peoples from Europe as belonging to some "white" category. "Whiteness" didn't really become a popular concept until lower-class European immigrant groups like the Irish Catholics, encouraged by the Democratic Party, claimed equality with Protestant natives on the basis of skin color, refusing to be relegated to the same class level as Blacks, or below, as some Protestant extremists might have perferred. Anonymous is entitled to prefer European-derived cultures, but ought to call them by their proper names.
I don't know if Anonymous 1 is entitled to suggest that a Jewish Communist invented the civil rights movement in the 1930s. Perhaps the point is that "whites" only began to believe in civil rights when Pogany aka Schwartz began his work, but that seems just as nonsensical as the idea implicit in Anon's comment that black advocacy for equality well predating the '30s is irrelevant to the story. A1 might want to look back to the 1830s and look for Jewish influence on the abolitionist movement and all the participants in it who advocated black equality before the Communist Manifesto was even written. Good luck with that.
Once again I am happy to respond.
Since this is a blog I cannot, for obvious reasons of space, present the totalty of the revisionist position in a few comments. But I can offer a few incisive points. Senator Dodd's comment on the proliferation of the Jews at Nuremberg is not merely one man's opinion. Judge Wennersturm, who was also a participant at the trials, commented at length on the fact that 90% of the personnel there were "foreign born", an obvious euphemism for Jews. There exist many other such comments. Hungarian author Louis Marschalko, in his book "The World Conquerors" documents that 2400 out of 3000 total personnel at Nuremberg were Jewish. English author, the renowned journalist Douglas Reed, in his book, "The Controversy of Zion" affirms the Jewish role at Nuremberg. It can be argued that the "gas chamber" hoax did not orignate with the Jews, but with the British. English historian David Irving has discovered a letter from one of the heads of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) written just prior to the end of the war, that the British drop the "gassing" claims out of which they had made so much mileage, because such claims were provably false. Whether the Jews originated the lie or merely borrowed it from someone else, they took the ball and ran with it at Nuremberg-and have been running with it ever since.
There is indeed, a "collective guilt" issue with respect to the "gas chamber" hoax. Although not every Jew participated in the creation of the legend, they have virtually all collaborated in the perpetuation of the legend. It is the legal principle of "accessory after the fact". If a citizen helps a fugitive from the law, he becomes an accessory to the crime, even though he himself did not participate in the original crime. Similarly, if Jews participate in the cover-up of the "gas chamber" hoax by passing laws criminalizing the investigation of the matter, if they throw people into jail and fine them for violating these laws, if they destroy careers of dissident thinkers and the like, then they have implicated themselves as "accessories after the fact". Few, if any Jews, have protested against these abuses. By going along with the abuses, they have additionally implicated themselves. These are harsh conclusions but justified conclusions.
As to the racial predelictions of the founding fathers, it is true that they were not racial egalitariand. And, yes, it is true that among the sentiments of the time even many fellow whites were considered racially unacceptable. Benjamin Franklin disliked German immigrants as incompatible with liberty loving Englishmen (and, in truth, German immigrants were promoting socialism in the US before Russian Jews began arriving in the 1880's to amplify the trend). Other whites from southern and eastern Europe were considered undesireable until the 1965 Immigration Act was passed. All this is incontestably true.
Mr. Wilson is also correct that Jewish involvement in abolitionist and revolutionary activity before the time of the Communist Manifesto was written is also well-worth looking into. It is a fact that when the 1848 revolutions in Europe failed, large numbers of German and Jewish emigrants from those failed revolutions came to the US and played prominent roles in the abolitionist and Civil War politics of the era. I particularly reccomend a book "Red Republicans: Lincoln's Marxists" available as a print-to-order book. The hard fact of the matter is that the Republican Party, founded in 1854-1855 was founded primarily as a creation of the 1848 refugees from Europe. Most people would be shocked to hear this, as Republican has become synonymous with conservative. But 'tis so. Read the book and review the evidence. I will mention two famous 1848'rs. One was the family of Louis Brandeis, the later Supreme Court justice. Another was the Hungarian Jew, August Biondi. Brandeis came to Louisville, Kentucky and was very involved in abolitionist political activity before the war.
Wilson is also correct that Jewish behaviour, or perceptions of it, had a great deal of input in inducing Hitler toward his anti-Jewish measures. If he still thinks that collective guilt is inapplicable, he should review the intense solidarity which Jews show in preserving their "gas chamber" legend. Two works which go to the heart of the question of whether Jews really are radicals and subversives are the "Jews, War and Communism" series by Zosa Szajkowski and "A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York" by Tony Michels. The first is an apologetic account designed to absolve Jews of the "Jewish-bolshevik" charge; the other is a rather more candid admission of their real role in radicalism.
As to Jewish involvement in civil rights and feminist campaigns, I would not argue that Jews invented either concept but I would say that they have been at the forefront of pushing them. Blacks were demanding freedom before Jews jumped on the bandwagon but anyone can see that Jews have been the financiers and controllers of civil rights for a very long time. The NAACP was founded by Arthur and Joel Spingarn; Kivie Kaplan and Jack Greenberg were also leading lights of the organization. One would find the same pattern in many other black advancement organizations. The feminist movement began in that same fatal year of 1848. Jews did not originate feminism but that they revived it in 1963 with Betty Friedan-Goldstein's bok "The Feminine Mystique" is beyond dispute. Betty was a secret Jewish communist and devotee of Joseph Stalin. Much of her communist background is still covered up because it is too revealing. That which has emerged is sufficiently condemnatory. She was a member of the Congress of American Women, the chief legal front of the Communist Party, USA for females (more popularly known by its acronymn of COW). She was also a newspaper editor for the United Mine, Electrical and Radio Workers Union in the 1940's, at a time when the aforesaid was the most thorougly communist infested union inthe country. For more information read "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique" by Daniel Amneus,University of Massachussets Press. It was always a plank of the Communist Party in the '40's and '50's that women should be "liberated" from the home and driven into the workplace. Read what Henry Makow has to say on the subject at "Save The Males" or read "Red Feminism" for the damning communist editorials of those years.
The subversion of America and its way of life goes much deeper than most people realize. I post this material to point people in the right direction and to get them to think. The "gas chamber" hoax is not important of itself; it is only important as a guide to the controlling power behind revolutionary upheaval. That is the essential point of this entire discussion.
Anonymous 1 must realize that probably a majority of people of all religions and races in the western world are "accessories after the fact" to the alleged gas-chamber hoax. Assuming for speculative purposes only that you are right, you must acknowledge that most people uncritically accept and perpetuate the "hoax," not just Jewish people. If you take everyone else off the hook, including the British, whom you are willing to say actually started the whole thing, then your comments begin to read like gratuitous special pleading against the Jews rather than an appeal to truth or justice.
On American history Anon's chronology remains shaky. Radical abolitionism in the U.S., at least as expressed by "whites," dates at least as far back as 1831, when William Lloyd Garrison first published The Liberator. Abolitionism was a vital movement generating hostile responses from Southern statesmen and Northern mobs well before any refugees from 1848 would have landed here. The Republicans, of course, were not abolitionists until they could justify abolitionism through wartime necessity. They emerged following the collapse of the Whig Party after a brief battle for ascendancy with the Know-Nothings. Lincoln opposed nativism on the slippery-slope principle that any ethnic distinction could become a basis for disenfranchisement if the Know-Nothings set a successful precedent. Immigrants of any kind would steer clear of the nativist party, but while the Irish cleaved to the Democratic party, Germans in many places rallied to the Republicans, with Carl Schurz as their representative figure. Radical and socialist thought may have swayed many Germans, but as many may have been swayed by Know-Nothing support for prohibitionist movements that might have denied the newcomers their beer. The Jewish influence on all this was probably minimal, though for trivia's sake I'll mention that the most prominent Jewish-American statesman of the period, Judah Benjamin, served in the Confederate government. As for 1848, the Seneca Falls conference comes too soon after the upheaval in Europe, or even during them (the conference convened on July 4), in the pre-Atlantic cable era, for the European insurrectionists to have any decisive influence upon figures like Stanton and Anthony who had already been involved in American radical politics, including abolitionism, before that year. As for Jewish patronage or sponsorship of the black civil rights movement, I say good for them.
On Anonymous's last point, one man's "subversion" is another man's "reform," and my sympathies will generally be with the reformers against those who call them subversives. Subversive of what, after all? What, ultimately, does Anon mean by the "American way of life" that is supposedly menaced by the "satanic power" to which Anon has referred, purportedly without hyperbole, in the past?
Mr. Wilson's comments lack both clarity and logic. My point was never that abolitionist sentiment did not exist before the revolutions of 1848, nerely that Jews from the 1848 revolutions came to America as refugees and participated in and promoted those revolutions. I believe that point stands unrebutted.
As to the utterly inane comment that if Jews have been at the forefront of movements promoting black "Civil Rights", so what? I can only shake my head in wonder. Has Mr. Wilson not noticed the disparity between the way Jews abuse Arabs in Palestine and the way that Jews bleed for blacks in these United States? Does he not understand that blacks (easily the most worthless, genetcally inferior race on earth) are merely a tool to be used to attack whites? If Mr. Wilson objects to my assertions on black racial inferiority he should ask himself why they relapse into the jungle whenever white rule is removed in Africa. The comments of the well-known Reverend Wright are not atypical as the media would have the average American believe. The average black hates whites and would like nothing better than to slaughter them. The same applies to Mexicans who openly confess in their Spanish language newspapers what they intend to do after "reconquering" the United States. Perhaps Mr. Wilsom should try reading these racist rags which are easily accessible off the internet.
The argument that all peoples are accessories in the perpetuation of the "gas chamber" hoax is idiocy in the extreme. Most people are dupes of the hoax, not accessories to it. The Jews bear the responsibilty for perpetuating the hoax and using it to extort reparations for a slaughter which never occured. What is Mr. Wilson talking about?
Now for a definition of Americanism. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a Constitutional Republic of limited government, extremely restricted spending and taxing power, based on white (or, if Mr. Wilson prefers, European) supremacy and suffrage for property-holding white males only. I do not think any reasonable reading of the policies and writings of the founders would permit any other conclusion. They certainly did not stand for global intervention in European wars (which intervention, as I have shown, was strongly influenced by, if not totally controlled, by Jewish forces behind the scenes). Nor did they stand for unlimited immigration of indigestible races of which the Jews have been the worst offenders. "Diversity" was a concept of which they never heard and which would have been totally alien to their mindset. John Adams basically told his wife, Abigail, to shove it when she demanded the vote for women. Women, after all, did not put their lives on the line at Valley Forge or Yorktown (an inconvenient fact which none of them wish to remember to this day). The founders did not support communism. The Jews certainly have. In the Jewish world view, "Americanism" consists of little more than the view that all Americans are merely individuals, entitled to as much of the "good life" as possible, without any consideration of a common biological, cultural and religious tradition. On the basis of the provable facts of American history, such a view is an outright lie.
I do not dispute that within the context of a free society, many options are possible. But to insist that America is nothing more than every man for himself (a large part of American history, I admit) is to disregared some very provable facts to the contrary. Indeed, the view of American history which Mr. Wilson espouses was once known as "cultural pluralism" in the 1920's, when it was invented by the New York Jewish intellectuals and Mr. Horace Kallen in particular. Mr. Wilson, in short, should research where "his" ideas really orginated. Mine were not derived from Mein Kampf, as Mr. Wilson may suppose.
Again, if Anonymous would read elsewhere in this blog it would become obvious that I don't espouse an "every man for himself" viewpoint. If anything, "every man for himself" could more accurately describe Anonymous's worldview, since nearly everything that might mitigate the "every man for himself" impulse is denounced as some subversive Jewish scheme.
Since Anon's opinion of blacks does not raise any real question of historical analysis it should be sufficient for me to describe it as barbaric. As an unreasoning racist, for there is no other kind, Anonymous is in no position to judge the clarity or logic of anyone else's commentary.
All I can say to other readers is that maybe I have a higher regard for blacks than I do for Jewish people, because I've been able to tolerate Anon's argumentation up to this point, no matter how bigoted Anon's view must have seemed to most people, but the blatant bigotry exhibited in the latest comment really infuriated me. Maybe I deluded myself into thinking I was debating principles of historical analysis with an at-least semi-rational person, only to have it put in my face now that I was only ever dealing with a rabid animal. For all that, the outcome was probably inevitable, and on some level I probably expected it. I did say that my goal was in part to draw Anon into dropping the mask of reasonableness, but it was still disgusting to see the true face at last. I hope it's been a lesson to others as well as for me.
Mr. Wison's claim that those who espouse racially oriented views are "unreasoning racists" is highly amusing. Was Thomas Jefferson an "unreasoning racist" when he wrote that blacks were "much inferior" to whites in reasoning capacity and that they had no future in a white country? (That is exactly what he did write in the second half of his famous sentence deleted from the Wahington monument where the first half of the sentence reads: "Nothing is more certainly written than that this people shall be free.") Was Winston Churchill an "unreasoning racist" for his white supremacist views expressed in Mr. Buchanan's book with which this discussion began?
I recall that when a Jewish doctor named Baruch Goldstein gunned down forty or more Arabs at prayer in a mosque in Palestine some years ago he was praised by his fellow Jews, both in Israel and New York, as the "sweetest Jew who ever lived". Some enlightened Jews opined that Dr. Goldstein did not kill enough Jews actually, but he had made a "good start". One rabbi prolaimed that a "thousand dead Arabs were not worth a live Jews fingernail". I believe that these comments go far beyond anything which I have yet written.
Perhaps Mr. Wilson should read Professor Kevin MacDonald's article on his blog entitled: "The Utter Normality of Ethnic Homogeneity"-for everyone except whites, of course. Mr. Wilson did not disprove my statements about black and hispanic racism. He did not say that the articles do not exist or that they do not say what I claim they say. As to factual support for my claims of black inferiority the evidence exists in abundance. Black academic achievment is consistently below white performance-and all efforts to improve it through affirmative action and the like have failed. The black crime rate is ten times that of whites. Scientific studies on their lesser cerebral development are shouted down but are nowhere refuted.
So where is the "unreasonig racism"? I have taken a position fully supported by the facts. Mr. Wilson would rather call me names. Finally, the Jews, who have spearheaded all movements for racial equality in this country while denying it to the Arabs in Palestine, are provably the most determined-and successful racists- in all history. The Jews for centuries have married almost exclusively within their own group and shunned the "impure" gentile world by voluntarily segregating themselves in their ghettos. Their Talmudic scriptures teach precisely that only Jews are human beings, that non-Jews are animals in human form fit only to be enslaved or exterminated by the "Chosen People". If Mr. Wilson wants confirmation of the facts, he should consult "Endektes Judentum" ("Secrets of the Jews Revealed") by Johannes Eisenmenger and "Synagoga Judaica" by Johannes Buxdorf. Since these books were published in the 18th century and are somewhat difficult to find in English translation, he might consult the little pamphlet "Facts Are Facts: The Truth About Khazars" by Benjamin Freedman and then check out the alleged passages against the originals in the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud. (I did. They are accurate.) He might also consult the late Professor Israel Shhaak's book "Jewish History,Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thouand Years" for additional confirmation. The true nature of the master people racism of the Talmud has been debated, over and over again, before the popes during the Christian Midle Ages. The Jews came out consistent losers. Try reading of Nicholas Donin in 14th century France, the converted Rabbi Pfferkorn debating Johannes Reuchlin during the Reformation, etc. The evidence of Jewish racism bordering on insanity is abundantly documented. I am also aware that certain researchers, such as August Rohling and the priest Father Pranaitis, fared rather badly in court because they only studied certain odious passages and not the Talmud as a whole. But the truth about the ugly passages still remains.
Racial differences in intelligence and compatability are a documented fact of life. This certainly does not mean that I despise all non-whires. Far from it. The Orientals, the Japanese and Chinese in particular, are very intelligent, capable and hard-working. They are not to be looked down on. Certain hispanics, particulary the upper-class ones with substantial streams of Germanic blood from the Visigoths in Spain, also have much to reccomend them. But I repeat: racial realities are a fact of life. The Chinese, in particular, are acutely race conscious. The Japanese treat the Korean minority within their midst as second-class citizens. Race, and consciousness of it, is a fact all over the globe. Try waking up to the facts, Mr. Wilson.
(By a man who is no bigot.)
Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill were unreasoning racists. So is anyone who pre-judges any individual on the basis of racial identification.
Anonymous seems to treat it as a debating point that there are Jewish or Asian bigots. I never disputed the point. However, most expressions of racism pale beside the gigantic pseudo-scientific effort in the 19th and 20th centuries to justify European subjugation of most of the planet on the basis of "white" supremacy. The answer to all such claims is that virtue does not inhere in blood, "Germanic" or otherwise. No one has the right to assume himself superior to anyone else on the basis of a first glance. Race chauvanism is a fact that everyone on Earth is going to have to outgrow eventually if the human species is going to survive. Does Anonymous have an alternative suggestion?
Extract from Sir Reginald Paget's book Manstein: His Campaign and His Trial (Collins, 1951), page 109
The (US) Simpson Inquiry Commission "reported among other things that of the 139 (German) cases they had investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigating Team."
JEWS AND COMMUNISM IN SOUTH AFRICA
Against the international background of heavy Jewish involvement in Communism, did the South African experience show any parallels? Perhaps the best way to gain an insight into this topic is to quote from four books, three of which are by Jewish authors.
BOOK ONE
A History of Communism in South Africa by Dr Henry R Pike (published by Christian Mission International of South Africa, Germiston, South Africa (1985, 1988).
A large number of Jews have worked to promote Communism in South Africa, as Pike’s book indicates. Many of these Jews were involved in the organization of trade unions, particularly black trade unions. Some of the names mentioned by Pike are A Z Berman ‘a noted Marxist’ who headed the Industrial Socialist League in Cape Town; the communist writer David Shub, Solly Sachs, secretary of the Garment Workers Union and expelled from and then readmitted to the South African Communist Party, Bennie Weinbren who directed the Non-European Trade Union Federation, Issy Diamond, Abraham Levy, Hymie Levin, Issie Wolfson, Julius Lewin, Louis Joffe, Dr Max Joffe, Molly (Zelikowitz) Wolton, Lazar Bach, Rebecca (Notlowitz) Bunting, Fanny Klenerman, Michael Harmel, Sam Kahn, Katy Kagan, Eli Weinberg, Yetta Barenblatt, Hymie Barsel, Leon and Norman Levy, Lionel Forman, Jacqueline and Rowley Arenstein, Errol and Dorothy Shanley, Monty Berman, Bertram Hirson and Neville Rubin.
Dr Pike (p 212-3) quotes from a South African Government Gazette Extraordinary (vol VI 16 Nov 1962 pp 2-28) which listed ‘persons who have been office-bearers, officers, members or active supporters of the Communist Party of South Africa’. The list included 66 ‘clearly identifiable as Jews’, 61 ‘white non-Jews’ and two uncertain. At the time, the South African population was approximately 3 million whites, while the South African Jewish population was 110 000 (World Almanac 1958 p270). So there was approximately one Jew for every 26 white non-Jews in the country. If there had been an equal distribution of Communist involvement between non-Jewish whites and Jews, the Jewish membership of the Communist Party should have been one-twenty-sixth the white Gentile representation. Instead, we find slightly more Jews as members. In other words, Jews were almost thirty times more likely to become members of the Communist Party than were white Gentiles. If Jews with non-Jewish names were also counted, the ratio would be likely to have been considerably higher.
In theory this could be explained away as simple Jewish concern for the welfare of the underdog, the lowest classes, and in the South African context, evidence of Jewish sympathies across racial barriers, or non-racism. In testing such a hypothesis to see whether this is indeed the case, we can look at another instance. Such concerns have been notoriously, and very conspicuously, almost totally absent in the protracted conflict in the Middle East. There, international Jewish support has been overwhelmingly and steadfastly in favor of the Jewish Israelis, and not of the Palestinians who have lost their country, and in thousands of cases their lives, to the violent settlers from Eastern Europe and America. After all, the entire territory was under Palestinian political control until 1947. The Jewish population of the area in 1917 was a mere 7% of the 700 000 inhabitants. The other 93% were Arabs. In 1947 the United Nations under tremendous US pressure gave the Zionists, who owned only about 6% of the land, 56% of the territory of Palestine. Since then, there has been a steady take-over of the remaining territory by force, violence, warfare, bribery and stealth.
Perhaps you might think Dr Pike is just ‘anti-Semitic’ and his approach is biased. But have a look at the next author:
BOOK TWO
Jews and Zionism: the South African Experience (1910-67), by Dr Gideon Shimoni (Oxford University Press, 1980).
This book appears to have been written for a Jewish readership.
Two extended quotes from the book will serve as a summary of the situation some decades ago.
[Dr Shimoni was born in South Africa to parents from Lithuania, but settled in Israel where he lectured at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and where he gained post-graduate degrees in Jewish history. While bitterly contemptuous of South Africa under the apartheid system, Dr Shimoni in effect identifies with the concept of geographically based ethnic groupings that was the basis of the South African system. This kind of irony, not to say hypocrisy, is typical of Jews opposed to ‘racism’ in Europe, the US or South Africa.]
Dr Shimoni writes of ‘..the extraordinary salience of Jewish individuals in the white opposition to the regime of apartheid. Throughout this period Jewish names kept appearing in every facet of the struggle: amongst reformist liberals; in the radical Communist opposition; in the courts, whether as defendants or as counsel for the defense; in the lists of bannings and amongst those who fled the country to evade arrest. Their prominence was particularly marked in the course of the Treason Trial which occupied an important place in the news media throughout the second half of the 1950’s. This trial began in December 1956, when 156 people were arrested on charges of treason in the form of a conspiracy to overthrow the state by violence and to replace it with a state based on Communism. Twenty-three of those arrested were Whites, more than half of them Jews. They included Yetta Barenblatt, Hymie Barsel, Lionel (Rusty) Bernstein, Leon Levy, Norman Levy, Sydney Shall, Joe Slovo, Ruth (First) Slovo, Sonia Bunting, Lionel Forman, Isaac Horvitch, Ben Turok, Jacqueline Arenstein, Errol Shanley, Dorothy Shanley. To top it all, at one stage in the trial the defense counsel was led by Israel Maisels, while the prosecutor was none other than Oswald Pirow. The juxtaposition was striking: Maisels, the prominent Jewish communal leader, defending those accused of trying to overthrow White supremacy; Pirow, the extreme Afrikaner Nationalist and former Nazi sympathizer, defending White supremacy.’ (pp. 227-8).
‘In this extended five-year period between the emergence of violent opposition and its effective suppression, the prominent involvement of individual Jews was in the public eye more than ever before. This was even more so than in the dramatic circumstances of the ‘Rivonia arrests’. On 11 July 1963 the police raided the home of Arthur Goldreich in Rivonia near Johannesburg, where it captured, by surprise, the leadership cadre of the Umkonto we Sizwe underground. Seventeen people were arrested.. Five of those arrested were Whites, all of them Jews. They were: Arthur Goldreich, Lionel Bernstein, Hilliard Festenstein, Dennis Goldberg and Bob Hepple.. [There was an] overwhelming impression that Jews were in the forefront of the White radicals who were trying to overthrow the system of White supremacy in South Africa. When the secret African Resistance Movement (ARM) was crushed during 1964, it again became evident that many Jews were involved. One of its founders was identified as Monty Berman.. others were Adrian Leftwich and Bertram (Baruch) Hirson. Among those who were associated with ARM were Neville Rubin and Michael Schneider [and ] others implicated were Frederick and Rhoda Prager, Raymond Eisenstein and Hugh Lewin..’ (pp. 232-3).
Dr Shimoni records with obvious distaste the wording of an Afrikaans letter in a newspaper criticizing this fundamentally hypocritical proclivity of Jews: ‘They (the Jews) themselves are the most exclusive apartheid people, yet they exert themselves here for integration.’ While Jews themselves have shown no intention to integrate or merge with the African masses, they have been hyper-critical of mainstream whites who are reluctant to follow this route, criticizing churches with segregationist policies, while their synagogues have remained ethnically 100% Jewish.
BOOK THREE
Cutting Through the Mountain: Interviews with South African Activists Edited by Immanuel Suttner (Viking-Penguin, England and USA 1997).
This book also appears to have been written for a Jewish readership. It is a thick expensively bound book of over 600 pages, financially supported by the Liberty Life Foundation created by the Jewish mega-capitalist Donald Gordon. Suttner says ‘a disproportionate number of individual Jews played a part in transforming South Africa into a more just society. There are two streams: those who fought ‘within the system’ as jurists, members of parliament, via the media, or in civil society, and those who entered ‘illegal’ organizations which were socialist, communist or mass-based in character.’ (p.2) He says the book ‘welcomes (these Jews) back not only as worthy South Africans, socialists, communists or liberals, but as worthy Jews’ (p.3). Some of the ‘remarkable people’ (page vii) who are heroes of the book include:
Taffy Adler who was involved in the 1970s and '80s in the 'formation and consolidation of the black trade union movement'. His father was a Lithuanian Jew who emigrated to South Africa in 1926 and who 'was tremendously loyal to Stalin and Russian communism' right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. His uncle, Michael Harmel, became general secretary of the South African Communist Party.
Ray Alexander (Rachel Alexandrowich) arrived in South Africa from Latvia and joined the SA Communist Party five days later. She played a leading role in the organization of trade unions. She was married to Jack Simons, a 'devoted communist' and lecturer at the University of Cape Town.
Pauline Podbrey (Podbrez) born in Lithuania came to South Africa at the age of eleven. She joined the Communist Youth League, run by Max Joffe, and the related Labor League of Youth, run by Hilda Bernstein. Of the Communist Party she says 'the majority of the members were Jewish…looking back on it now, it seems as if everybody was Jewish.' (*p52). She married a prominent Indian trade unionist and Communist Party leader, resulting in her mother being ostracized by the South African Jewish community, although it has been and still is normal practice for this community to depict white non-Jews as despicable prejudiced racists.
Joe Slovo born in Lithuania, came to South Africa where he joined the Young Communist League at the age of sixteen. He became a central member of the Communist Party of South Africa and a 'hard-line Stalinist', becoming general secretary in 1986. He concentrated on building up Umkhonto we Sizwe, the ‘armed wing’ of the ANC (African National Congress), becoming its chief of staff and head strategist in the campaign of bombings directed at civilian targets and other acts of terror. He only abandoned his commitment to Stalinism and Soviet-style communism when the Soviet bloc started falling apart in the late 1980s and it became necessary to do so. A key strategist representing the ANC in the negotiations with De Klerk’s government in the hand over of power, he became a minister in Mandela's Cabinet.
when the ANC came to power in 1994. He died of cancer a few years later. His daughter published an autobiographical book describing her father’s affair with a Jewish Communist friend’s wife and his utter refusal to acknowledge the son born of this relationship.
Gill Marcus, the daughter of parents involved with the Communist Party, a long-time member of the Party and of the ANC, is now a Deputy Governor of the South African Reserve Bank after being a member of the first Mandela Cabinet.
Ronnie Kasrils became a central figure in the South African Communist Party and head of military intelligence of the ANC's military wing. He became Deputy Minister of Defense in the Mandela government, and is now Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry.
BOOK FOUR
Traitors’ End: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Movement in Southern Africa by Nathaniel Weyl (Arlington House, USA, 1970).
‘For the most part, the Jews had come to South Africa from Lithuania at the turn of the century.. They had been popular at first, but by the mid-1930’s this was no longer the case. The Jews had become heavily urbanized. In Johannesburg, they constituted 17 per cent of the population and were sufficiently conspicuous so that the metropolis was sometimes referred to, not as Jo’burg, but as Jewburg. They aroused envy and some rancor during the years of depression because they controlled a large part of the business of Johannesburg and other cities.. Anti-Semitism was fed by the economic discontent.. A perhaps more important ingredient was the prominence of South African Jews in finance, mining and the other economic command posts of the nation, on the one hand, and in revolutionary and racial reform movements on the other. From the outset, the Jews had been prominent in the Communist Party and its various fronts. They were equally conspicuous in the various movements that sought to break down the barriers separating the White from the non-White population. South African anti-Semitic propaganda.. depicted the Jew as a deracinated element who sought to destroy White civilization and nationalism with the twin weapons of Communism and international finance. Given the visible prominence of Jews in both areas, this doctrine fell on receptive ears.’
The famous Rivonia Trial of the 1960’s resulted from a raid on a farm near Johannesburg in which many of the top leadership of the Communist party were detained. The White defendants were virtually all Jews, including Dennis Goldberg, ‘a civil engineer who served as commander in a Communist camp that trained young guerrillas’, and Lionel ‘Rusty’ Bernstein, the only prisoner to be acquitted. A Johannesburg architect, Bernstein ‘admitted to having been a Communist for 25 years, but successfully alleged that he had left the party, without, however, changing his revolutionary convictions.’ (Weyl pp 122-3). Amongst those implicated during the trial were the Jews Joe Slovo and his wife Ruth First, Bob Hepple and Michael Harmel. ‘Operation Mayibuye [a plan for guerrilla warfare, armed invasion of South Africa and Communist conquest of the country] was drafted by Arthur Goldreich, perhaps the most important of the men captured by the South African Police at Rivonia. Goldreich managed to bribe his way out of prison.. During the trial, Goldreich was referred to by Nelson Mandela and other defendants as a military expert who served as an officer in the Israeli war for independence.. Goldreich’s plan was modeled on the guerrilla strategy of the Chinese Communists.. Goldreich’s notebook shows constant preoccupation with the practical details of revolutionary war. He goes into the types of explosives and fuses needed and their characteristics…’ (Weyl pp124, 127-8).
‘On December 16, 1966, the United Nations branded Rhodesia "a threat to international peace". President Johnson’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, immediately pledged United States support for sanctions against Rhodesia "in order to drive home to the illegal regime (of Ian Smith) that the international community will not tolerate the existence of a discriminatory system based on minority rule in defiance of the United Nations and its principles." Ambassador Goldberg’s logic was extraordinary, to say the least. Over half of the 122 UN member states had governments not based upon majority rule As for the United Nations statement that Rhodesia threatened international peace, the statement simply reversed the facts of the matter. Rhodesia was exposed to attacks by guerrillas, armed, financed, trained and abetted by Black African member states of the United Nations in flagrant defiance of the UN Charter.. Ambassador Goldberg had shown on previous occasions that, where racial issues were involved, he practiced a double standard of morality in favor of Black demands.. Ambassador Goldberg was not alone in his fanatical hostility to White rule in Africa..’ (Weyl pp 162-3).
Jews in South Africa in the main and those mentioned above in particular have all been pushing for a majoritarian government in which population numbers effectively mean that whites have no say over their own affairs. The new ANC-dominated South Africa is proclaimed to be a ‘democracy’, although a leading political scientist, Professor Hermann Giliomee has described the election system as a simple ethnic census. Whites, for example, have no effective power over the government as far as their own interests, such as schooling for their children or their language rights are concerned. The Constitutional Court, supposedly the custodian of these rights, has an over-representation of Jews who have shown little sympathy for white non-Jewish rights. Even the traditionally English South African game of cricket is being transformed - the Jewish former director of the cricket board, Dr Ali Bacher, did everything in his power to turn cricket in the country into a black-dominated sport.
There are various kinds of hypocrisy at work here. Authors such as Immanuel Suttner perhaps unwittingly communicate their clear belief that Jews are morally better than South African whites, because of their political stance. This in itself is not only racist but also not true. We can study the attitude of South African Jews to Middle Eastern issues to see whether they really do display a genuine moral superiority. Until a few years ago South African Jews gave more per capita to Israel than any other Jewish community in the world, including that of America (Suttner p. 420).
‘When Ronnie Kasrils, a leader of the ANC’s armed campaign against apartheid South Africa, returned home after 27 years in exile, he was lionized by a local Jewish establishment belatedly eager to associate itself with the struggle. His picture was put in the Jewish Museum in Cape Town and his name in the Book of Honor. The Jewish community basked in his reflected glory’ (Fair Lady 22 May 2002 p.37). South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris officiated at the funeral of Joe Slovo, calling Slovo ‘a better Jew than most’ (ibid p.39). Who was Slovo? He was general secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa and chief of staff of the armed terrorist wing of the ANC (African National Congress). When Kasrils, in an awkward position because of his cabinet post in the ANC government which includes several very influential Moslems, became one of a very small number of Jews to speak out against Israeli policies against the Palestinian people in Palestine, his name became mud. He signed a petition along with 286 other Jews to the effect that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians does not have their blessing. The South African Zionist Federation quickly organized a rival petition in support of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, and collected 11500 signatures. Helen Suzman, the veteran anti-Apartheid Jewish member of the South African parliament and consequently the recipient of numerous international honors and awards, ‘believes that everything Israel has done has been retaliatory’ (ibid p39) in spite of the fact that the Israelis, with support from Jews elswhere particularly in the US and its government, have been able to take over Palestine with absolute impunity, disregarding with absolute and violent contempt the lawful human and property rights of the Palestinians. This hypocrisy is very common, not to say dominant, in the Zionist community which forms the overwhelmingly dominant part of South African Jewry.
No candid discussion of the issues raised above was permitted to take place in South Africa before the fall of white rule owing to the ownership pattern of the newspaper cartel. There has been much talk of a ‘Jewish Capitalist-Communist nexus’ - we have to recognize that monopoly capital has an affinity with Communism. According to Antony Sutton (Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution) international bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1917, Trotsky and 200 revolutionaries were literally transferred from New York's Lower East Side to St. Petersburg to foment the revolution in Russia. Jews are internationally synonymous with hyper-capitalism or monopoly-capitalism, where ever-greater financial power is continually being sought, and there is the impression that the hunger behind this urge is insatiable. Media control is an important part of this program, because criticism must be stifled at all costs. These powerful people are ever-seeking to instruct or coerce non-Jewish people of European ancestry in the direction of non-discrimination, but always supporting their own country with its fundamental racial discrimination whereby Palestinians born in Jerusalem have no rights, while even atheistic Jews born in Milwaukee or Miami have full citizenship rights in Israel.
The large reserves of gold, diamonds and other natural wealth attracted Jews in large numbers from Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Russia. The discovery of gold in the Boer republic of the Transvaal turned out to be tragically unfortunate for the Boers. According to J A Hobson, an English liberal-socialist thinker and correspondent who reported on the Boer War, ‘a little ring of international financiers’, mainly Jews, led Britain into the war for their own selfish capitalist interests. (Hobson, The War in South Africa – its causes and effects (New York, Macmillan, 1900, pp194, 184, 190). Boer farms and towns were burnt to the ground. Boer women and children were herded into concentration camps, where 26 000 died through epidemics and unsanitary conditions. But the Jews gained a wonderful ascendancy in the gold and diamond industry, with leading names including Barney Barnato, Solly Joel and Lionel Phillips. Eventually the Oppenheimer family, with financial support from Rothschild interests, controlled not only the largest gold mines in the country but also the world diamond cartel De Beers and a very large part of the South African economy, as well as the English language newspaper monopoly. De Beers in recent decades has been often implicated in trading in ‘blood-diamonds’ from war zones in Africa. (The international diamond trade in New York and Amsterdam is also largely Jewish-controlled.) The Oppenheimer press cartel normally depicted white efforts in South Africa to find political self-determination, including the apartheid policy of parallel or separate development, as totally and utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. At the same time the cartel ensured that the Israeli State did not come in for parallel criticism for its incomparably inhumane and violent oppression of the native Palestinians. The Jews have found it useful to their ethnic agenda to exacerbate tensions between white and black in South Africa, with the clear objective of subverting the apartheid idea of ethnic self-determination for a situation in which non-Jewish whites would be subject to unfettered black political and social control. Since this goal has been achieved, Jews have been emigrating in large numbers, primarily to the United States. Although scornful of white non-Jews for racism during the apartheid era, none of these Jewish emigrants are known to have moved to any African country. As Immanuel Suttner says ‘The Jewish community.. will likely continue to shrink through emigration, and those Jews who choose to stay in South Africa, and choose to involve themselves fully in South Africa’s unfolding story, face a difficult period of redefining their role and finding a niche in which they believe they are relevant and useful.’ (Cutting Through the Mountain p.4).
Why are Jews prominent as political activists in all western countries, but definitely not on behalf of the Palestinians, as fifty years of history have shown? Why were US Congressmen Stephen J. Solarz and Howard Wolpe, instrumental in securing financial sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, but ‘unwavering in their commitments to Israel’ (ex-Congressman Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Insttutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (1985) p70-71). Are hidden tribal-racial agendas a factor in "liberal" American universities and, above all, in politics?
I will describe a mathematical method that I have used to determine the number of holocaust survivors who were alive immediately after the war in 1945.5.
My calculations are totally based on mathematics and a report of Professor Sergio Dellapergola, Head, Division of Jewish Demography and Statistics of the A. Harmen Institute of the Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
In his report, Professor Dellapergola informs us of two major facts according to his study: 1. the number of Jewish holocaust survivors alive World Wide in 2003 was 1,092,000
and 2. a table that gives us the number of holocaust survivors in Israel who are alive, or expected to be alive, in the years from 2002 to 2020.
I entered his data from the table in my calculator and I used second degree regression analysis. I found the number of Jewish survivors living in Israel in 2003, to have come originally from a 1945.5 group of survivors, numbered 1,586,300.
I then used this number, the number of known world wide survivors, and the number of survivors alive in Israel in 2003 and a simple ratio to calculate the total number of holocaust survivors (alive) in 1945.5.
I thus created two equal fractions, a ratio: the number of holocaust survivors alive living in Israel in 2003 over the number of these soon to be Israeli survivors who were alive in 1945.5 = to the number of total holocaust survivors alive world wide in 2003 over the total number of holocaust survivors alive in 1945.5.
I used the Professor's numbers and this new ratio 265,000/1,586,300=1,092,000/x, where x is the total number of holocaust survivors alive in 1945.5, to find x.
I found the total number of holocaust survivors alive in 1945.5, x, to be about 6,540,000.
I think this number will surprise some people who have been trained to believe that the Nazis killed almost every Jew in Europe except for the relatively few who escaped to Israel.
Barrington James
It is obvious that Mr. Wilson has a deep seated bias which is impervious to reason. He writes: "Racial chauvinism is a bias which we must all outgrow. No one has the right to consider himself, a priori, superior to anyone else based on racial considerations." It is, alas, a standard litany which nowhere addresses the real issues involved.
In any given population, there are individuals at the top and lower ends of the spectrum. It is possible to find a high end black who is superior to a low end white, etc. None of this bears on the issue of whether certain groups, as a whole, are more capable than other groups. Moreover, the implied argument that conceptions of racial superiority bathe the world in blood is, at the least, questionable. A much better argument can be made that it is the forced intermingling of incompatible groups which leads to violence. The Balkans in Europe are a good example. These areas are rife with never ending bloodshed because incompatible groups who despise each other are crammed into narrow, contiguous areas where they are constantly at each others throats. The United States, historically, has had a minimum of these problems compared to other countries because of the consanguineity of blood and culture of so many of its closely related inhabitants. Mr. Wilson seems peculiarly perturbed at the European colonization of the world. Why? In a great many instances, British rule did measurably improve the lives of the colonized inhabitants. Blacks in Africa were better off once the British had freed them from the ravages of the Zulus and other tribes. The British were rough customers, of course, like the Romans and other empire builders of history. But once the conquest was over, English world rule did have its benefits. Americans wiped out a lot of Indians, as did the Spanish. But the Indians, North American and South, had been slaughtering each other for centuries before the arrival of the whites. They had no conception of "human rights". The "human rights" only arrived courtesy of the allegedly inhumane conquerors.
Conquest has been practiced by many peoples,and not just whites. The barbarities of Genghiz Khan and the Mongols were far worse than anything charged against the white race-and no lasting good ever came of it. One could say the same for the behaviour of Tamerlane and the Khazar Turks, progenitors of so many "Russian" Jews. In case Mr. Wilson has not caught up with the facts, conquest is a fact of life. Apparently, he has been indoctrinated with the propaganda of his pinko professors that: (1) conquest is bad: (2) getting rid of white supremacy shall get rid of conquest.
Mr. Wilson is a Boy Scout. He has bought the propaganda fiction that all are just humans, that skin color reflects nothing any deeper, that racialy determined incompatabilities can be brushed aside by egalitarian fictions and that if we all just learn to love and respect each other and practice the joys of "diversity", all will be well with the world. It is an adolescents view of reality, and nowhere accords with the facts of human behaviour.
The issue wasn't whose conquests were the worst but whose notion of ethnic superiority had the worse consequences between Jews and self-styled "Whites." Skipping over the pointless dissertation on the Jewish wickedness of combating apartheid, we discover that Anonymous would rather be "White" than a human being. We should respect that decision.
I shall have to clarify once again, as "Anonymous 1".
I did not post the material on South Africa. It is all true, of course. As to Mr. Wilson's charge that I would rather be white than human, just what does that mean? It is hardly possible to separate one's race from one's consciousness as a human being. My views on race and the preservation of the US as a white country are no different from Patrick Buchanan's. If Mr. Wilson is going to condemn me for such views, he should condemn Buchanan on the same basis-and stop reviewing his books.
As you must well know by now, jews have been conspiring for a few thousand years to take over the world. The "Land overflowing with milk and honey" was just a metaphor for the planet Yahweh created and has given to his loyal children, the sons of Abraham. Anyone who opposes them must and will be destroyed by the hand of Yahweh.
Even "christianity" is a part of the conspiracy. Jesus was a jew. All of the early church leaders were jews---even those who were not residents of Judea, such a Paul, who was a Greek jew.
Yes, Anonymous, we are striving to rule the world, and with the aid of our minions, it is inevitable. Yahweh gave us this world. It is ours.
Anonymous, you are nothing. An ignorant primate, filled with hate because your life sucks ass and you need someone to blame it on. You are, indeed, little more than a rabid animal and you should do the world a favour and stick your fucking head in an oven with the gas turned on high. You and all the assholes like you are despicable and I refuse to admit that you are a human being. You are NOTHING.
I am overjoyed that my critics have nothing to say-other than spew forth the sane hatred of which they accuse me. Atleast Mr. Wilson is more rational (even if clearly wrong about a few points).
This has little to do with hate, other than a hatred of ignorance and lies. You obviously suffer from paranoid delusions and a sense of persecution. Individuals like you are the primate equivalent of a rabid dog. There is only one way to deal with rabid animals and that is to put them down. I would suggest you go get yourself some therapy and take the medication you're supposed to be taking before someone puts you down. And once again, your opinions mean absolutely nothing, because, in the eyes of sane individuals you are nothing. You throw some obscure references up, but just because some lunatic gets published, does not make their lies truth. I see lots of published material regarding "Harry Potter" and the world of magic. That doesn't mean there really exists a Hogwarts. You are a demented and unwholesome lifeform. You do not speak truth, only lies and right-wing, paranoid-driven propaganda. Go take your meds, loser.
Erhymethine has a slight problem. He has never read Jewish reference works. I have. As to the charge of "loser", I have more money in my account than Erymethine will ever see in his life. Perhaps he should spend 18 hours a day in a lower east side sweat shop-while reading Forverts in Communist Yiddish.
Post a Comment