Monday, January 22, 2018
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Source: Free Speech - October 1998 - Volume IV, Number 10
by Dr. William Pierce
You know, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what's important from what's not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what's happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.
So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.
Here's an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, "Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can't be both, so make up your mind." This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists -- and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That's what is important.
And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn't try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn't have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: "Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists." And that was an oversimplification of the truth.
Here's a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.
And so now some people have asked me, "Well, if Clinton is an obedient tool of the Jews, why are they now trying to destroy him? Why are some of the people who are in the forefront of those now pulling Clinton down Jews? Why would a Jewess, Monica Lewinsky, turn on him? Don't you know that some of Ken Starr's associates are Jews? Didn't you notice that one of Clinton's most important attackers is Connecticut's Jewish Senator Joseph Lieberman? It has been the Jewish media, like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, which have exposed Clinton's lies and other crimes. So how can you say that he is a puppet of the Jews? It doesn't make sense."
But of course, it does make sense -- if one doesn't try to oversimplify. I don't want to spend too much time on this because I've already covered much of the ground in earlier broadcasts, but I'll try to add a few more details, so that the picture is still simple, still clear, but not overly simple. The basic facts are these: First, the Jews control the mass media -- or more accurately, they are the most powerful of the conscious elites in the media world; they wield more control over the media than any other coherent and self-conscious group. And because of this media control they are able to exercise a determining influence on the electoral process: in other words, through their media control they are able to control the politics of a mass democracy, where everyone, even the most easily manipulated elements of the population, has an equal vote.
Second, Bill Clinton is a talented but utterly corrupt man. He is a typical child of the 1960s. He grew up believing that the world owed him something. He grew up believing that he was entitled to whatever he could grab. And he grew up cynical. He grew up during a period when the Jews were turning American society on its head, when Jews were breaking all of the rules and getting away with it. Bill Clinton noticed this and learned from it. And Bill Clinton grew up with a talent for manipulating people, a talent for lying to people and getting them to believe him. This suited him perfectly for a career in politics.
And the Jews noticed Bill Clinton. They saw him as potentially very useful to them. He is exactly the sort of man they always are on the lookout for: corrupt but charming; someone who can attract votes but who understands which side his bread is buttered on. They supported him with their media and with their money. Without their support he wouldn't have gotten into the White House. And Bill Clinton reciprocated. He gave them whatever they wanted. He appointed them to every high position in the government, and he pushed their policies and programs. On all of this the record is clear. So why are they abandoning, even attacking, their good friend Bill Clinton now?
Well of course, he never really was their friend: he was their useful tool. And he has become a badly damaged tool as a consequence of his own personal weaknesses. The Jews did not set out to destroy him. He did that himself. Remember, Ken Starr was ready to throw in the towel and give up on investigating Clinton three years ago. If anyone besides Clinton deserves credit for his downfall it is Paula Jones. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment she opened the Pandora's box from which the affair with Monica Lewinsky eventually came to light. Remember, the Jewish media tried hard not to notice Paula Jones. That Paula eventually was noticed by the public resulted from several factors beyond the control of the Jewish media bosses.
And that's one of those little complications we must deal with in the real world. Despite all their media power and all their money, the Jews are not able to control everything all the time. Sometimes the Jews are compelled by circumstances just like the rest of us. They also have their vulnerabilities.
Paula Jones opened a Pandora's box that the Jews would have preferred to keep closed. But once the box was open, they had to decide what to do about Clinton. On the one hand, they have Al Gore waiting in the wings, and Al Gore is just as corrupt as Bill Clinton, just as willing a tool. But on the other hand, Gore simply doesn't have Clinton's talents. He'll do what the Jews tell him, but he won't be able to charm the voters as effectively as Clinton could. They'd like to keep Clinton, but he's become a bit of a tar baby. And so we have had an opportunity to see another of the world's little complications, and that is that not even the Jews are always in complete agreement about the best way to proceed.
The Jews don't want to become too closely identified with Clinton's corrupt image. Looking a little further ahead than the mass of Gentile voters who still think Clinton should stay in the White House, the Jews understand that it will not be helpful for them to have a very close historical association with the Clinton administration. They don't want Clinton to be thought of as their man, because they have a suspicion that despite his present popularity his historical image will be very bad indeed. For some of them that is the primary consideration, and they'd like to see Clinton go quickly and then muddle through with Al Gore as best they can. Other Jews are still fascinated by Clinton's approval ratings and his ability to charm the lemmings. They don't want to trade him in for Al Gore no matter how much tar rubs off on them. And of course, they also have the consideration that if they all abandon him simultaneously and all begin attacking him, he conceivably could turn on them and lash out at them. Better to keep him mindful that despite the fact that some of them are pulling him down, if he wants to stay out of prison he'd better keep obeying orders. So there are complications in life even for the Jews.
I'll give you one more example of the subtleties that one must deal with in trying to understand the role of the Jews in our society. Last week one of the most powerful Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- the ADL -- held a huge press conference at the National Press Club in Washington and simultaneous press conferences in a number of cities around the country, and they announced that I am the most dangerous man in America. Really: I am the most dangerous man in America! And the organization I head, the National Alliance, is the most dangerous organization in America. Really: not the Mafia, not what's left of the Communist Party, not some violent and well armed militia group, not Louis Farrakhan and the Black Muslims, but the National Alliance.
Well, I long ago decided that any insult from the Devil is a compliment, but still there are some troubling aspects to what the Anti-Defamation League has done, and I'll share them with you, because they can help us understand better the way the Jews operate. When the ADL held its press conferences last week it handed out press releases to the reporters and politicians. The press release began with a statement by the top ADL commissar, Abraham Foxman, saying, "The National Alliance is an alliance of bigots and bombers thriving on hate," and then it listed a long series of violent crimes and terrorist acts the ADL claims are "linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda." The list begins:
1992-1995, Midwest: Authorities say the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist gang that required members to read The Turner Diaries, committed 22 bank robberies and bombings.
April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City: The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building is eerily reminiscent of a fictional bombing scene in The Turner Diaries, of which Timothy McVeigh was a devotee.
December 1995, Fayetteville, NC: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.
Et cetera. There's a lot more to the ADL's press release, but you get the idea: I and the other members of the National Alliance are bomb-throwers and bank robbers "linked" to 22 bank robberies and bombings in the Midwest, to the Oklahoma City bombing, to the shooting of a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in North Carolina, and to lots of other things. Now, as a matter of fact, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of the Aryan Republican Army and its 22 bank robberies and bombings, or of Timothy McVeigh, or of the soldiers at Fort Bragg who shot the Black drug dealer, until we saw these people on television news programs, like everyone else.
But we are "linked" to them, says the ADL. How? Did some of these folks listen to one of my American Dissident Voices broadcasts? Probably. At least, I wouldn't be surprised. Did some of them read my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries? Probably. At least, I've seen evidence to indicate that Timothy McVeigh did, although I don't know about any of the others. There are a quarter of a million copies of the book in circulation, and probably a half-million readers altogether -- including, no doubt, Abraham Foxman and a number of his associates in the ADL.
So that's how I and the National Alliance are "linked" to bombings, bank robberies, and murders. Very clever. So then, it's fair to say that the Catholic Church is "linked" to Mafia operations, and that the Automobile Association of America -- the AAA -- is "linked" to drunk driving, and that the folks who publish various editions of the Bible are "linked" to the crimes committed by people who quote the Bible as they take an ax to their wives or blow away a neighbor with a shotgun.
"The National Alliance is an alliance of bombers and bigots," says Abraham Foxman. I am not aware of a single instance of a bombing committed by a National Alliance member -- although a couple of years ago a former member in Florida had a pipe bomb he was trying to build blow up in his face. He wasn't a member of the National Alliance at the time, and he didn't actually bomb anything except himself -- but that's enough for Abraham Foxman and the ADL to describe the National Alliance as an organization of "bombers and bigots."
You know, every organization which recruits from the public will occasionally recruit a member who has had or will have a problem with the law, but here's something to remember: the Democratic Party has a much higher percentage of lawbreakers among its members than does the National Alliance. We don't tolerate criminal activity, but the head of the Democratic Party seems to thrive on it -- at least he did before Ken Starr got on his case.
Abe Foxman and the ADL seem to thrive on criminal activity too. Five years ago, in April 1993, search warrants were executed on the Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL, and police seized hundreds of confidential police files which had been stolen by the ADL. Some of these police files were from investigations of anti-apartheid groups in the United States, and the ADL had given copies to the South African government in return for access to confidential South African police files on anti-Israel groups in South Africa. A lot of the people whose names were in those confidential police files the ADL had stolen sued the ADL for invasion of privacy, and that's still working its way through the courts.
But here's the really interesting part of all this: newspapers and other media took the ADL's press release last week as gospel, and they printed big excerpts from it. It's been in newspapers all over the country. You've probably seen some of these stories yourself. With one exception none of these newspapers even bothered to check with me first; they didn't call me up and ask me if the ADL's allegations were true or if I had any comment on them; they just ran sensational stories with headlines like "National Alliance linked to bombings and murders." And of course, they said nothing about the ADL's criminal activities or its links to the government of Israel. And many of these newspapers aren't even owned or edited by Jews. But they all follow the party line. They know that the ADL is an official Jewish organization, and therefore it cannot be criticized, and nothing it says can be questioned. That would be like questioning the "Holocaust," heaven forbid!
That's a little frightening, don't you think? So here's one of those complications about the way the Jews wield their power. They don't have to own everything in order to have things go their way. A newspaper editor or a television station owner doesn't have to be Jewish in order to slavishly follow the Jewish party line. The Jews own enough of the media -- they hold enough of the policy-making positions -- so that no one, or almost no one, wants to cross them. When an institution becomes corrupt -- and that, unfortunately, is the case with our mass media, just as with our political system -- the Jews can count on using their power to make things go their way. They thrive on corruption. The ADL thrives on corruption. The ADL could not exist in an uncorrupted society.
Finally, here's one other little complication in understanding the role of the Jews. I know and you know individual Jews who are not involved in any political or media activity, individual Jews who simply earn a living and go about their business and don't pay much attention to what the ADL is doing. And so I often have people write to me and ask me why I am so hard on the Jews. They remind me that there are lots of evil people in our society, even in the media, who are not Jews. They remind me that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner aren't Jews, that Stalin wasn't a Jew, and that Lenin was only part Jewish. And that's true enough. And that's why we won't be able to dispense with the gallows even when we have no more Jews.
But the people who are focusing on the complications that many of the world's evildoers aren't Jews and that many Jews are not involved in sinister activities -- these people are failing to see the forest because of the trees. When I speak about the role of the Jews in the world today or in the past I do simplify the world. I do simplify the facts, because my aim is for people to see the forest, to understand the forest, at least in rough outline, before they spend too much time studying the individual trees.
And the forest I want people to see, the big picture I want them to understand, even though it is a simplified picture, is this: Without Jews there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent selective murder of two generations of the best and brightest of the Russians. Without Jews as an organized community pushing "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and open borders and racial mixing in the United States, White Americans would not now be facing the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country in the near future. It is the Jewish presence as a whole and its effect on our society that we must understand first, before we start trying to understand all of the complicating details.
© 1998 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
DR. WALTER GROSS
Head of the Reich Bureau for Enlightenment on Population Policy and Racial Welfare
Head of the Reich Bureau for Enlightenment on Population Policy and Racial Welfare
Of all the measures introduced in the new Germany those bearing on National Socialist racial policy caused the greatest stir internationally, for here was a State setting its feet upon paths hitherto almost untrodden and leading through untouched preserves, whose aims were in many respects liable to clash with established Liberal views. Relevant legislation served to corroborate and achieve these aims and it was no wonder, therefore, that – in the beginning at least – this particular phase of National Socialist reconstruction met with universal misunderstanding and prejudice. We are happy meanwhile to be able to discern that other nations have come to realise that Germany is, indeed, taking to new paths, but they are right ones and are necessary and, more than that, Germany is in many respects blazing a trail for others; mention need only be made of our law for the prevention of the transmission of hereditary diseases (Sterilisation Law) which has been followed in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland by similar laws or draft proposals. However, no one will wholly understand or sympathise with our legislation who is not wholly familiar with the fundamental change in the philosophical conception. of life which has come with National Socialism in the light of history.
Whereas formerly, and more especially under the powerful influence of Marxist teachings, the development and decline of States and civilisations was attributed to economic or purely political causes, we see to-day the determining role played by the human being in sustaining and shaping economy, the State, culture, politics, art and intellectual thought. We have come to feel that the protection and preservation of the people who, after all, are originally responsible for the achievements of the State and culture, is the chief factor in retaining these achievements; for good blood and the strength that comes from good blood is given a people only once and if allowed to degenerate cannot be regenerated as one would rebuild a city or restore devastated lands. Thus, wise statesmanship will place the preservation of the biological, that is, racial energy of its people before its political and economic concerns. The endless series of past empires and civilisations which have flourished and declined forcefully remind us how inexorable are the consequences of ignoring this truth.
History and the study of the science of population show that there are three biological stages which inevitably lead to the destruction of the vitality of a people and with it the destruction of the foundations of the State and culture as such. These three stages are:
A decreasing population,
An increase of the hereditary unfit,
The promiscuous mingling of races.
In these respects, Germany’s position in 1933 was alarming. A declining birth-rate among the fitter inhabitants and unrestrained propagation among the hereditarily unfit, the mentally deficient, imbeciles and hereditary criminals, etc., had led, for instance, to a state of affairs in which the increase of the healthier section of the population in the past 70 years was only 50 per cent., while the unhealthy and, in fact, those only fit to live in asylums, had multiplied ninefold in the same time, or 450 per cent. The care of the latter costs the working population of Germany the not inconsiderable sum of 1 billion reichsmarks yearly, while the entire administrative costs of the Reich, Provinces and Communes amount to 713 million reichsmarks. It was, therefore, an act of self-preservation which caused the National Socialist State to promulgate the Law to prevent the transmission of hereditary disease. It was a measure taken in self-defence and much more besides. For a large portion of the hereditary unfit had brought children into the world in ignorance of the consequences of their own afflictions, and many – those still possessed of a sense of responsibility – were horrified at seeing the “sins of the fathers” visited upon their children. To this unfortunate category the National Socialist State lends a helping hand in freeing them from possible mental torment. Sterilisation relieves their conscience of the frightful burden of causing further pain and suffering to innocent beings.
It is frequently claimed abroad in circles hostile to Germany that the politically undesirable are hauled up for sterilisation. Anyone versed in German Law and the thoroughness and precautions attendant on the whole procedure knows full well the absurdity of such allegations and that no one can be sterilised simply on request or as a result of political pressure. The law for the prevention of the transmission of hereditary disease is only applicable in acknowledged cases of physical and mental deficiency such as congenital idiocy, schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, hereditary epilepsy, chronic St. Vitus dance, hereditary blindness, deafness and serious bodily defects; in addition, it applies to chronic inebriates. The procedure in regard to the act of sterilisation can take place upon application being lodged with the special Court of Heredity by the person concerned, his relatives, a local physician or such official persons as are connected with matters of public health. The competent Court, which is composed of an officiating judge, a medical officer and a doctor, decides whether sterilisation is called for or not. If the applicant or person under consideration does not agree with the decision of the Court, an appeal may be lodged with the Higher Court which has a similar composition as the Lower Court, although the individuals are never the same. The decision of the Court of Appeal is final. Even then the operation may be avoided by taking life-long sojourn – or at least for as long as the faculty of procreation exists – in a private home, provided such sojourn entails no costs for the Government. This clause was included in order that possible adherents of the Catholic faith who might have conscientious objections on the grounds of the Papal encyclical be given the opportunity of observing their religious tenets at all costs.
These measures of the National Socialist State, despite their broadmindedness, have been attacked mainly for political or dogmatic reasons. Such criticism is based on a number of objections which appear unfounded and extravagant. They may be summarised in three groups.
The first arises purely from the individualist standpoint which resents any intrusion into the life of the individual. According to its advocates, the individual has the right to be without children if he prefers or, despite obvious hereditary afflictions, procreate at will, or indeed, by transcending all frontiers and racial barriers, to contract marriage to his own taste. Fundamentally, that is, any restriction on the life of the individual demanded by the collective interests of the community is categorically rejected. Obviously, such an attitude must be deplored in every State since, if applied in all spheres, it would render communal and State institutions, both economic and cultural, impossible.
Civilisation is only possible through the individual becoming part of the whole and just as collective authority in the interests of all limits the egoism of the individual by, say, taxation laws or measures to combat epidemics, etc., it similarly has the right to implement such measures for the benefit of the community as are scientifically proved expedient in the way of population policy or eugenics. The need for such action prevailed in Germany.
The second set of objections is mainly based on humanitarian grounds. It is argued, for instance, that the act of sterilisation represents such a weighty sacrifice for the person concerned that society should only accept it if made voluntarily. But it is not humane that among civilised peoples the standard of living of that section of the population which is fit and able to work is lowered by burdening it with the excessive levies necessary for the maintenance of and keeping within its midst the hereditarily diseased who, despite these heavy costs, can never be healed of their ailments. After all, the healthy members of the race are also entitled to a share of compassion and humane considerations.
Nor is it justifiable to argue that sterilisation will not do away with the possible recurrence of similar cases. In arguing thus one might just as well refrain from putting out a fire because another might happen to break out elsewhere at some other time. Incidentally, sterilisation is and remains a humane duty to the individual. How great is the mental agony of a person suffering from some hereditary disease in the pitiful knowledge that not only he himself is incurable but that his children frequently begotten in ignorance of the complications of his own trouble, are doomed to a similar or worse fate. Timely sterilisation rids the hereditarily unfit of such mental torment.
Other objectors insist that the operation should only be performed with the consent of the individual. It is foolish, however, to want acquiescence from a human being who has no command over his morbid instincts or of one who is to be prevented from procreation for the very reason that he is suffering from some mental debility.
Everywhere in organised society, justice and morals are bound to interfere with personal liberty to a greater or lesser extent, even with that of the healthy individual. If an epidemic breaks out endangering the welfare of the community everyone, whether he wants to or not,
must be vaccinated; similarly, just as the doctor takes preventive measures on this score, the specialist in the sphere of hereditary transmission, both medical and legal, backed by the knowledge of biological necessities must, if called upon, take upon his shoulders the responsibility which the individual patient is unable to bear.
A third and last group fears lest the suggestion of a biological stratification of society or the racial classification of humanity should lead to serious conflicts. As to this, it may be said that racial peculiarities are natural and any social or human system of differentiation will last only so long as it is in harmony with natural phenomena. Why, the very knowledge and acknowledgment of the social claims of the race, of racial hygiene, and its practical application, is calculated to limit, even prevent wars. For war, even if successful, signifies biologically an irretrievable loss of the best hereditary tendencies. Since National Socialist Germany frankly thinks along biological lines she wants nothing but peace. The National Socialist idea of State is the most peaceful conceivable, for it of all others sees its duty in the preservation of the pure racial continuity of its people. Nothing but sheer want of sense could accuse the new Germany of hankering after war. For we are only too well aware what irreparable damage has been done and how heavy has been the toll taken of our people in the way of hereditary values through centuries of retrogressive selection, declining birth-rate and, finally, through the frightful decimation of the flower of our manhood in the War. If we need peace and quiet for the political and economic regeneration of our people tried almost beyond endurance, we need it doubly so to effect the reconstruction and vital racial aspirations of our population policy directed along biological lines, for nothing could be more disastrous than war with its ruthless destruction of the best and consequent indirect preferential selection of the less valuable.
Even a victorious war is biologically a loss. The true statesman is aware of this and will never take to the sword except as a last necessity. Here it becomes manifest that the national-racial principle – contrary to the aims maliciously attributed to it – is in itself the surest guarantee for a policy fundamentally peaceful.
Most open to misinterpretation are National Socialist views on the relations between the various races of the world. It has been questioned whether the fundamental racial principles of the new world theory must not breed condescension, even contempt of people of different race. Quite the contrary; these very principles offer the very best guarantee for mutual tolerance and for the peaceful co-operation of all.
We appreciate the fact that those of another race are different from us. This scientific truth is the basis, the justification and, at the same time, the obligation of every racial policy without which a restoration of Europe in our day is no longer practicable. Whether that other race is “better” or “worse” is not possible for us to judge. For this would demand that we transcend our own racial limitations for the duration of the verdict and take on a superhuman, even divine, attitude from which alone an “impersonal” verdict could be formed on the value or lack of such of the many living forms of inexhaustible Nature. But we of all people are too conscious of the inseparable ties of the blood and our own race to attempt to aspire to such an ultra-racial standpoint, even in the abstract.
History, science and life itself tell us in a thousand ways that the human beings inhabiting the earth are anything but alike; that, moreover, the greater races are not only physically but especially spiritually and intellectually different from each other. Yesterday one passed this fact by, and in attempting to unify political, economic, cultural and religious standards for all nations of the earth, one was sinning against Nature, violating the natural attributes of various racial and national groups for the sake of a false principle. To-day we bow to the racial differences existing in the world. We want every type of being to find that form of self-expression most fitted to its own particular requirements.
The racial principles of National Socialism are, therefore, the surest guarantee for respecting the integrity of other nations. It is incompatible with our ideas to think of incorporating other nationalities in a Germany built up as a result of conquests, as they would always remain – because of their alien blood and spirit – a foreign body within the German State. Such foolhardy thoughts may be indulged in by a world which has as its goal economic power or purely territorial expansion of its frontiers, but never by a statesman thinking along organic, racial lines whose main care is the preservation of the greatness and along with it the essential unity of his people held together by the ties of blood relationship.
For this reason, we have nothing in common with chauvinism and imperialism because we would extend to other races peopling the earth the same privileges we claim for ourselves: the right to fashion our lives and our own particular world according to the requirements of our own nature.
And if National Socialism would wish to see the unrestricted mixing of blood avoided for the individual, there is nothing in this to suggest contempt. After all, we Germans ourselves, viewed ethnologically, are a mixture. The National Socialist demand is only that the claims of the blood and the laws of biology should be more closely observed in future.
Here again our standpoint is not so very far removed from that of other people with a sound mental outlook. The American Immigration Laws, for instance, are based on definite racial discrimination. The Europeans and the inhabitants of India, the Pacific Islands, etc., have instinctively held aloof from a mingling of the blood, and both sides genuinely regard any transgression as very bad form. Nevertheless, this natural attitude in no way detracts from the possibility of close co-operation and friendly intercourse. And, speaking on behalf of the new Germany, let me once more emphasise:
We do not wish our people to intermarry with those of alien race since through such mingling of the blood the best and characteristic qualities of both races are lost. But we will always have a ready welcome for any guests who wish to visit us whether of kindred or foreign civilisation, and our racial views only lead us to a fuller appreciation of their essential peculiarities in the same way as we would want our own peculiarities respected.
On the basis of this reasoning, the National Socialist State was bound to object to the imperialistic designs of the Jewish people on German soil. Thus it is purely an internal concern of the German people who could no longer tolerate the domination – a result of political errors in the past – of an alien race having neither sympathy nor understanding for them. During the political regimes of the past the Jews had managed to obtain an increasing hold on politics, art, culture and commerce. Since 1910, as many as 13 of them had immigrated every day into Germany from the East. Thus Berlin had –
32.2 per cent. Jewish chemists
47.9 ” “ doctors (60 per cent, panel doctors)
50.2 ” “ lawyers
8.5 ” “ newspaper editors
14.2 ” “ producers and stage managers
37.5 ” “ d entists
No people on earth with a vestige of pride in itself and its national honour will be willing to put up with such domination of the key professions by members of a completely alien race. At the same time, the Jews were a determining factor in those political parties which were against any reconstruction on national lines. As to the so-called State Party, for instance, 28.6 per cent. of its parliamentary members were Jews, and in the Social Democratic Party the figure was 11.9 per cent. It is of some political significance that the founders of the German Communist Party, a branch of the Moscow Comintern, that destructive force, were Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, both Jews.
This predominance of alien influence foreign to the German nature in politics, science and things cultural, provided the objective for the law for the restoration of professionalism in the Civil Service and what has since come to be known as the Nuremberg Laws. The Jews in Germany constitute a group of aliens who can expect to enjoy the hospitality of the country just like the members of other races. But no Frenchman would wish to have his leading offices of State occupied by Englishmen, and no Englishman would want to see the key positions in the politics, art and culture of his country occupied by, say, Japanese. Who then can reasonably object to the Germans removing the Jews from the prominent positions in their country? As to the higher percentage of crime which is an additional factor of importance in judging the Jewish question in Germany, it may be mentioned that the majority are immigrants from Eastern Europe, whose cultural and moral ideas could never be in harmony with those of the German people. The Nuremberg Laws, therefore, exclude members of the Jewish race from obtaining Reich citizenship. Persons of mixed parentage – some 300,000 in all – can become citizens of the Reich, but are excluded from holding office in the Civil Service, the Army and the medical and legal professions. Exemptions are possible as provided for in the Laws. The regulation forbidding marriage between a Jew and a German and making illicit intercourse liable to punishment was designed primarily with a view to preventing the birth of further individuals of mixed blood whose fate is a sorry one everywhere in the world, because they are neither one thing nor the other. For those already in existence a distinction is made between those having two Jewish grandparents and those with only one. The former require the approval of the authorities for contracting marriage with someone of German or allied blood. The latter may not marry a Jew or a member of the former category. They may only marry people of German blood and their children are exempt from the restrictive regulations (Army Laws and the Law for the restoration of professionalism in the Civil Service, etc.). In short, their children become full members of the German community.
These measures were necessary because we realised that a nation or a people can only preserve its culture and its intellectual individuality by keeping the blood pure. It has been said that “every race is a divine inspiration” – a shaft incidentally aimed at the racial policy. We would re-join, however, “just because every race is a divine inspiration, the foremost task of civilisation is to keep that inspiration pure and reject the least contribution towards detracting from its purity.”
Sunday, January 14, 2018
by Mark Weber
German-American Historian Mark Weber talks about the need of revisionism and the role it plays on dogmatic history “made” by the State.
Friday, January 12, 2018
By Russ Winter
Before his death in 1999, an OSS special agent openly talked about his role in incapacitating Gen. George S. Patton (1885-1945) via a staged automobile fender bender on Dec. 9, 1945. Using the pandemonium of the traffic collision as a distraction, agent Douglas DeWitt Bazata sniped Patton in the neck with a specially made gun firing a non-piercing bolt. Patton survived the incident with a dislocation of a vertebrae and never knew what hit him.
The government assassin first publicly confessed his guilt in the plot decades ago in front of a journalist at an OSS reunion dinner in D.C. Later, Bazata also confessed his role to author Robert K. Wilcox, who wrote the book “Target Patton.” Wilcox’s cousin and researcher Tim Wilcox discusses the circumstances in the video below. Bazata was an active special agent and assassin during and after WWII.
Major Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the OSS
The assassin recounted that OSS Chief William Donovan had personally ordered the killing on the grounds that Patton had “gone crazy” and was becoming a major threat to American national interests.
A newspaper that also carried an interview claimed that it had “a professional analyst subject Bazata’s interview to the rigors of a content analysis using a Psychological Stress Evaluator (P.S.E.) His report: Bazata gives no evidence of lying.” More details can be gleaned in this article.
On Dec. 9, 1945, a truck swerved in front of Patton’s limo. It was driven by a corporal who then disappeared. Patton survived with a dislocation of vertebrae from Bazata’s weapon and was taken to a hospital in more distant Heidelberg rather than in nearby Mannheim.
As Patton was recovering, he held a press conference and declared he was going home. Then, he was injected or poisoned in the hospital and died suddenly on Dec. 21, 1945. There is a backstory that NKVD agents got to him, but that wouldn’t have been necessary.
Bazata claimed that he knows who killed him, and that Patton was killed by a dose of cyanide in the hospital. No autopsy was done, which is highly suspicious. Bazata went on to say that he met an unidentified man whom he knew only as a “Pole” (Polish extraction), who was also ordered to kill Patton.
Several official reports were produced regarding the exact circumstances of the very strange traffic accident said to be responsible for his death, but all of these reports have completely disappeared from U.S. government files. The medical reports disappeared, and archival records are strangely scrubbed.
Weak link in story? Patton stopped en route at a Roman ruin located on a hill along the roadside. Bazata put a jam into the window of Patton’s auto that would leave a four inch gap for a shot to the target. There are very few images of the limo online and now no accident reports either. However this one is of interest. It shows a white colored tag sticking out of the window, door area where Patton was seated. The window itself is blurry, but you can see some interior detail. Was this window indeed partially open – thus confirming Bazata’s claim?
Plenty of Motive for Assassination: George Patton’s Interpretive Framework
Patton had planned to write his memoirs, illustrating that eastern Europe was tossed to the Soviet Union. The reason for the hit on Patton were his views put forth on Oct. 22, 1945, in a long letter to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord. Once the powers that be realized Patton would retire and be outspoken, the plan was put into place. This “car accident” took place shortly before his scheduled departure home, and he had narrowly escaped death twice before under very strange circumstances.
In the letter, Patton had bitterly condemned the Morgenthau policy; Eisenhower’s pusillanimous behavior in the face of Jewish demands; the strong pro-Soviet bias in the press; and the politicization, corruption, degradation and the demoralization of the U.S. Army, from this bad policy. He saw this as a deliberate goal of America’s enemies.
I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have leveled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes (of veterans) would do.”
In his letter to Harbord, Patton also revealed his own plans to fight an “all-out offensive” against those who were destroying the morale and integrity of the Army and endangering America’s future by not opposing the growing Soviet might.
It is my present thought … that when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth … I should not start a limited counterattack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive …”
Several months before the end of the war, Patton recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders given to him in April and May, 1945 to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.
The most notorious incident allegedly happened toward the end of May, when an English-speaking Russian brigadier general arrived at Patton’s headquarters to demand that some river boats on the Danube that had contained Germans who had surrendered to the Third Army be returned to the Russians. Patton opened a drawer, pulled out a pistol, slammed it down on his desk and raged, “Goddamnit! Get this son-of-a-bitch out of here! Who in hell let him in? Don’t let any more Russian bastards into this headquarters.”
On July 21, he wrote to Beatrice, “We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we [are] about to replace them with Mongolian savages. Now the horrors of peace, pacifism and unions will have unlimited sway. I wish I were young enough to fight in the next one [war]. It would be real fun killing Mongols …. It is hell to be old and passé and know it.”
Then, he was highly critical of the post-war occupation policy in Germany.
The noise against me is only the means by which the Jews and Communists are attempting and with good success to implement a further dismemberment of Germany. I think that if I resigned as I threatened to do yesterday, it would simply discredit me to no purpose.
We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no air force, and their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I’ve seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons drawn by beaten up old horses or oxen. I’ll say this; the Third Army alone and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don’t ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives. [As quoted in the book “The Unknown Patton” (1983) by Charles M. Province, p. 100]
Other notable quotes illustrate his frame mind.
No one gives a damn how well Bavaria is run. All they are interested in now is how well it is ruined. [Letter to Beatrice (29 September 1945), published in “The Patton Papers” (1996), edited by Martin Blumenson]
Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is – not intended for the individual but for the race. Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law.
There were also running conflicts about the treatment of Axis POWs. Patton was countering abuses. Additionally Patton was furious that Americans from POW facilities in Soviet hands had not been immediately returned per agreement.
With great reluctance and only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower, he had thrown German families out of their homes to make room for more than a million DPs, but he balked when ordered to begin blowing up German factories in accord with the infamous Morgenthau Plan to destroy Germany’s economic base forever.
In his diary he wrote:
I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up – that is, preventing Germany from preparing for war – can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons.
In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he wrote:
I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (i.e., the Soviet Union’s Gulags), where many will be starved to death. I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.
On July 21, 1945:
Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.
On August 31 he wrote:
Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.
And on September 2:
What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole.
Morgenthauists and media monopolists had decided that Patton was incorrigible and must be discredited. So they began a non-stop hounding of him in the press, accusing him of being “soft on Nazis”, Patton’s response:
There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.