Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Robert Faurisson Documentary (with English Subtitles)



Published: 2018-07-13

After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in two items published in December 1978 and January 1979 in the influential Paris daily Le Monde. This documentary is a recounting of events since that terrible and wonderful December 1978.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Organised Crime vs. National-Socialism



Inspired by Hitler’s success at restoring Germany’s pre-eminence and learning from Hitler’s success in burying the effects of the recession, America’s white community in the 1930s created over 100 pro-National Socialist organisations.

May 17, 1934

Ring-fenced by the First Amendment, they held public rallies, paraded in uniforms, carried the German Worker’s Party banners, and published anti-Bolshevik periodicals.

Organised crime in the United States was largely under Jewish control. Free from constitutional legalities, the mobsters confronted the workers who supported Hitler’s genuine non-Jewish socialism.

May 17, 1934, Madison Square, New York

National Socialist Bund rallies in New York City created a dilemma for the city’s Jewish leaders. With 20,000 members, the Bund was the largest anti-Bolshevik group in the United States.

Jewish leaders wanted the rallies stopped, but could not do so legally. Nathan Perlman, a former Republican congressman, believed that the Jews should demonstrate more combativeness. In 1935, he furtively contacted Meyer Lansky, a leading organised crime figure, and asked him to help. Lansky related what followed.

Meyer Lansky: Notorious Jewish Gangster

The Jewish lawmaker assured Meyer Lansky that a blank cheque and legal assistance would be put at his disposal. Lansky, dubbed ‘the mob’s accountant’, was the most notorious of America’s mobsters; the gangster ran an international syndicate.

The mobster referred to Germany’s Communists as “my brothers”. Lansky refused the judge’s offer of money and assistance, but he did make one request. He asked Perlman to ensure that after he went into action he would not be criticised by the Jewish press. The judge promised to do what he could.

May 17, 1934, Madison Square, NY

Lansky rounded up his mobsters who disrupted National Socialist meetings. Young Jews not connected to him or the rackets also volunteered to help. Meyer Lansky and others taught them how to use their fists and handle themselves in a fight. Lansky’s crews worked very professionally. The arms, legs and ribs of American workers were broken and heads cracked and the Jewish mobster earned quite a reputation for doing this work.

Lansky later described to an Israeli journalist one of the onslaughts in Yorkville, the German neighbourhood in northeast Manhattan:

“We got there in the evening and found several hundred people dressed in their brown shirts. The stage was decorated with a swastika and pictures of Hitler. The speaker started ranting. There were only 15 of us, but we went into action. We attacked them in the hall and threw some of them out the windows. There were fist fights all over the place.

Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out. We chased them and beat them up, and some of them were out of action for months. Yes it was violence. We wanted to teach them a lesson.”

Reflecting on his role in these episodes to me, Lansky fumed that he helped the Jewish community but was met with abuse. He believed the city’s Jewish leaders were pleased with his actions, but they failed to stop the Jewish press from condemning him. When the newspapers reported on the anti-Bund incidents, they referred to Lansky and his friends as ‘the Jewish gangsters’, which infuriated him.

Judd Teller, a reporter for a New York Jewish daily, relates how he met one day with several men who said they were from ‘Murder, Incorporated’. They wanted a list of ‘Nazi bastards who should be rubbed out.’

Afraid of the consequences of the casual murder of worker socialists the Jewish community was disinterested in the extreme violence proposed by their mercenary mobster.

Lansky replied, “Tell them to keep their shirts on. We won’t ice (murder) the bodies; only marinate them.” According to Teller the attacks by the Jewish mobsters was sufficient “marination” to drastically reduce attendance at Nazi Bund meetings, and discouraged Bundists “from appearing in uniform singly in the streets.”

After a series of attacks, the Bundists protested at having their meetings violently broken up and asked Mayor Fiorello La Guardia for protection from the Jewish mobsters.

La Guardia agreed under certain conditions. The Bundists could not wear their uniforms, sing their songs, display the swastika and workers flag, and could not march to beating drums. The Bundists agreed to his terms. La Guardia confined their parades to Yorkville and assigned Jewish and African-American policemen to patrol the route.

The Bund was also active across the river in Newark, New Jersey, which had a large German-American community. As a Jew, Abner Zwillman, who controlled the rackets in that city, was unwilling to allow the workers to operate with impunity in ‘his territory’. In 1934, he turned to Nat Arno, a Jewish ex-prize-fighter, and asked him to organise against the socialists.

The Jewish gang’s most infamous action occurred in Schwabbenhalle on Springfield Avenue bordering the German neighbourhood in Irvington. According to Hinkes:

 “The Nazi scumbags were meeting one night on the second floor. Nat Arno and I went upstairs and threw stink bombs into the room where the creeps were. As they came out of the room, running from the horrible odour of the stink bombs and running down the steps to escape to go into the street to escape, our boys were waiting with bats and iron bars.

It was like running a gauntlet. Our boys were lined up on both sides and we started hitting, aiming for their heads or any other parts of their bodies with our bats and iron bars. The Nazis were screaming blue murder. It was one of the happiest moments of my life. It was too bad we didn’t kill them all. In other places we couldn’t get inside, so we smashed windows and destroyed their cars, which were parked outside. The Nazis begged for police help and protection, however, the police favoured us.”

Heshie Weiner, another participant in the fracas, remembers that one of the Nazis who came running down the stairs, had the indiscretion to shout “Heil” and was met by a chorus of iron pipes. Weiner claims that after this attack, “I never heard any more of Bund meetings by the Nazis in our area.”

In Chicago, Herb Brin, who worked as a crime reporter for the City Press, joined the local Bund as a spy for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of the B’nai B’rith. He told me, “I joined the Nazi party at the Hausfaterland on Western Avenue across from Riverview Park. It was a hotbed of Nazi activity,” he recalled. From 1938 through 1939, Brin kept the ADL informed about Nazi activities. What the ADL did not know was that he fed information about Nazi marches and rallies to Jewish gangsters. “I marched with the Nazis,” said Brin, “but I came back later with Jewish gangs and we beat them up good.”

Friday, July 6, 2018

Irving on Churchill


By Theodore J. O'Keefe
Published: 1986-12-01


World-class historian David Irving is no stranger to readers of the JHR. His address to the 1983 International Revisionist Conference, which appeared in the Winter 1984 Journal of Historical Review ("On Contemporary History and Historiography"), was something of a primer on Irving's Revisionist historiographical method. It was spiced as well with tantalizing hints of new directions in Irving's research and new book possibilities arising from them.

Not the least among Irving's revelations were those that touched on Winston Churchill, descendant of one of England's greatest families and leader of his nation and its empire (as he still thought it) at what many of his countrymen and many abroad still regard as Britain's "finest hour." Readers will recall that Irving exposed several instances of Churchill's venality, cowardice, and hypocrisy, including Churchill's poltroonish posturing at the time of the German air raid against Coventry and the facts of Churchill and his cronies' secret subvention by the Czech government.

It will also be recalled that in his lecture Irving spoke of his projected book on Winston Churchill, which at the time was to be published in the U.S. by Doubleday and in Great Britain by MacMillan, two great firms entirely worthy of an author who has been churning out meticulously researched historical bestsellers for a quarter of a century. As has been pointed out in recent issues of the IHR Newsletter, Irving's challenges to the reigning orthodoxy have become so unbearable to the Establishment that both the major houses refused to print the books as written. The task has now been undertaken by a Revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion, the new Irving book, Churchill's War, is slated to be available from the IHR by the end of this year.

Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia, South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century, with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of mordant new facts and insights on the life and career of Winston Churchill.

At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton), recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy (The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War II, had stated that Irving's Churchill book would "not be published by his company, over his dead body." Clearly Lord Stockton's recent demise didn't alter things at MacMillan, however.

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won't even find them published in Churchill's own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August, 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Bruning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, the six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, "I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October, 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."

Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn't give permission to Churchill to publish the August, 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill's memoirs, even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact, you begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today.

Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, "The truth is such a fragile flower, the truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies." This is the way Churchill put it.

Irving went on to describe several sources of secret financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during the "wilderness years" between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.

Irving on the Focus:

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen. Principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds... about $2 million in Canadian terms was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July, 1936. The purpose was, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word "other governments" advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me, all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chaim Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has, given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill s dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That s where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wideness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his files, again you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill's financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill's financial rescuer by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving's words, emerged "out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution." When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of l938, it was Strakosch, who was instrumental in setting the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all

Churchill's debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

Irving dealt with Churchill's performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain's First Lord of the Admiralty and then as Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill's "great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered and pioneered," and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill's staff at the time, that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.

Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

In May, 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn't a victory, it wasn't a triumph, nothing for the British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you're given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted.

And you think, at first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, "Withdraw, fall back," or as Churchill put it, "Advance to the coast." That was Churchill's wording. "And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring allies that you are pulling out." The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.

I think it's the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud's widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister's files in the French National Archives in Paris. And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we're not allowed to see in London and there we know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill. He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because the British Empire would have been preserved. We would, by now, have been the most powerful race, can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on Earth.

Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler's peace offers in 1939,1940, and 1941 (Irving supports the thesis that Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background:

The crucial moment when he managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July, 1940. If we look at the one date, July the 20th, this I think was something of a watershed between the old era of peace, the greatness of the British Empire and the new era, the new era of nuclear deterrent and the holocaust, the nuclear holocaust, July 20, 1940. Mr. Churchill is lying in bed that Sunday out in Checkers when he gets a strange message. It's an intercept of a German ambassador's telegram in Washington to Berlin. It's only just been revealed, of course, that we were reading all of the German codes, not only the German Army, Air Force and Navy Codes, but also the German embassy codes. And if you're silly enough to believe everything that's written in the official history of British Intelligence, you will understand that the only reason that they released half of the stories is to prevent us from trying to find out the other half. And what matters is that we are reading the German diplomatic codes as well. On July 20th, the German ambassador in Washington sent an message to Berlin saying that the British ambassador in Washington had asked him very quietly, very confidentially, just what the German peace terms were. This, of course, was the one thing that Churchill could never allow to happen, that the British find out what Hitler’s peace terms are. He sends an immediate message to the foreign office, to Lord Halifax, saying, "Your ambassador in Washington is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German ambassador, even indirectly. " They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.

Now, on the same day, Churchill sent a telegram to Washington ordering Lord Lothian, the British ambassador in Washington, to have nothing to do with the German ambassador. And the same day, he takes a third move to insure that the peace moves in Britain are finally strangled at birth. He orders Sir Charles Portal to visit him at Checkers, the country residence of British prime ministers. Sir Charles Portal was Commander in Chief of Bomber Command. Now what is the significance? Well, the significance is this. Up to July, 1940, not one single German bomb has fallen on British towns. Hitler had given orders that no British towns are to be bombed and, above all, the bombing of London is completely forbidden and embargoed. Churchill knows this, because he's reading the German codes, he's reading the German Air Force signals, which I can now read in the German files. Churchill is reading the signals and he knows that Hitler is not doing him the favor.

Hitler is still hoping that this madman in England will see reason or that he will be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues. So he's not doing Churchill the favor of bombing any English towns. Churchill is frantic because he thinks he's being outsmarted by Hitler. On July the 20th he sends for Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Bomber Command, and he says to Sir Charles Portal, as we know from records from Command to the Air Ministry, "When is the earliest that you could launch a vicious air attack on Berlin?" Sir Charles Portal replies to

Winston, "I'm afraid we can't do it now, not until September because the nights aren't long enough to f1y from England to Berlin and back in the hours of darkness. September, perhaps, and in September we will have the first hundred of the new Sterling bombers..." But he also says, "I warn you, if you do that, the Germans will retaliate. At present they're not bombing English targets, they're not bombing civilian targets at all and you know why. And if you bomb Berlin, then Hitler will retaliate against English civilian targets." And Churchill just twinkles when he gets this reply because he knows what he wants.

We know what he wants because he's told Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador, Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late President, "I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the Americans into the war when they see the Nazis' frightfulness and above all it will put an end to this awkward and inconvenient peace movement that's afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population." I've opened Kennedy's diary, I've also read Kennedy's telegrams back to the State Department in Washington. They're buried among the files. You can't find them easily, but they are worth reading and you see in detail what Churchill was telling him. What cynicism. Churchill deliberately provoking the bombing of his own capital in order to kill the peace movement. He‘s been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler doesn't do him the favor.

Irving then gave a detailed account of the cynical maneuvering of Churchill to escalate the aerial campaign against Germany’s civilian population to the point at which Hitler was driven to strike back against Britain's cities, supplying the spurious justification for the R.A.F.'s (and later the U.S. Army Air Force's) monstrous terror attacks against centuries-old citadels of culture and their helpless inhabitants.

The British historian further expanded on a theme he had touched on in his address to the IHR's 1983 conference: Churchill the drunkard. Irving substantiated his accusation with numerous citations from diaries and journals, the originals of which often differ from heavily laundered published editions. He concluded his address with an anecdote of a ludicrous incident which found Churchill pleading with William Lyon Mackenzie King, wartime prime minister of Canada, to shift production in his countries’ distilleries from raw materials for the war effort to whiskey and gin, twenty-five thousand cases of it. According to Mackenzie King’s private diary, the Canadian prime minister tore up Churchill’s memorandum on the subject at precisely twenty-five minutes to eight on August 25, 1943, and Sir Winston had to soldier on through the war with liquid sustenance from other lands and climes. As Irving emphasized, Churchill's drunken rantings, often during cabinet meetings, disgusted many of his generals, as when, at a meeting on July 6,1944, the prime minister told his commanders to prepare to drop two million lethal anthrax bombs on German cities. Of this meeting Britain's First Sea Lord, Admiral Cummingham wrote, according to Irving: "There's no doubt that P.M. is in no state to discuss anything, too tired, and too much alcohol."

Irving's demolition of the Churchill myth, based on a wealth of documentary evidence, most of which has been studiously avoided by the keepers of the Churchill flame, may constitute his most important service to Revisionism. The legendary V-for-victory-waggling, cigar-puffing "Winnie" is for many of a centrist or conservative bent the symbol and guarantee that Britain and America fought and "won" the Second World War for traditional Western values rather than to bleed Europe white and secure an enormous geopolitical base for Communism.

Irving's Churchill biography promises to make trash of authorized studies as that of Martin Gilbert (which has already been described in private by one Establishment historian as "footnotes to Churchill's war memoirs"). The publication of the first volume of Churchill' s War later this year should be an historiographical event of the first importance.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

The (((Biblical))) US Immigration Policy


Somewhere in the world, a little brown baby is crying. According to the jews and their insane rabbinical logic, this means Whites everywhere should meekly surrender their homelands, dig their own graves, and die. Please don’t have any White babies, because those might lead to a future for the White race; and that is precisely what the jews fear most. Instead, vapidly gaze into the talmudvision and watch the endless, insipid images showing the natural consequences of the r-selection reproductive strategy pursued by the dark, nightmare creatures whose 80 IQ and underdeveloped frontal lobes hamper their capacity for drawing cause-and-effect associations. They are your equals, say the jews; they’re just as good as the children you didn’t have because they would have gotten in the way of all that empty materialism and careerism. Keep watching the greasy tears pouring down the fat, screaming face of that brown, vaguely human cowbird, goyim. Then trust the sanctimonious, rat-faced man when he tells you that flooding your homeland with a few billion of these sullen, hostile genetic aliens is The Right Thing To DoTM.

If shamelessly preying upon the empathy and altruism that are uniquely part of the White genetic inheritance doesn’t convince you, the jew is ready with its old standby for persuading Whites to act against their best interests: the (((Wholly Babble))). Cucktianity is a perverse religion that was originally dreamed up by an unhinged jewish subversive, and then purposefully weaponized by his tribal brethren as a tool for destabilizing and destroying White societies. To this day, the Christian branch of Judaism continues to be a spiritual sickness in many Whites that causes otherwise functional people to enthusiastically support the extinction of their own race through embarrassingly trite, but suicidal mantras such as “love thy enemy” and “turn the other cheek.” As befits a weapon designed by rootless jews, the universalist nature of JUDEO-Christianity was intended from the beginning to provide a religious excuse for the foolish belief that radically disparate and incompatible races could be “equal” (except for Whites who are bad, and jews who are “g*d’s” favorites). This is a kosher con-game that has consistently tricked Whites for 2,000 years, has done immeasurable damage to the character and quality of the White racial lineage, and has advanced the talmudic imperative to extinguish the White race into a swamp of brown genetic sewage through miscegenation. It is spiritual cuckolding that encourages racial cuckolding. It has been so successful, that the jews can openly boast about it, as did (((Marcus Eli Ravage))) all the way back in 1928. In the intervening 90 years since Ravage made it plain that “good cucktians” were really dupes who had ill-advisedly swallowed kosher spiritual poison, the brazen jewish arrogance has only gotten increasingly shrill. A rabbi in the California failed-state is openly basking in the (((Biblical))) nature of U.S. immigration policy.

Last week [Rabbi Jill Jacobs] visited McAllen, Texas, with a group of clergy – including 10 rabbis – to bear witness to the situation on the border, where new policies are forcing the detention and separation of families and the refusal to hear asylum claims from victims of gang and domestic violence.”

The Sanhedrin that truly rules Weimerica heads to the world’s most porous, pathetic excuse for a border to ensure that not even the most mild and ineffectual efforts are being made to prevent a formerly safe and prosperous White homeland from being inundated by the brown tide from the Central American cesspool. According to the jews, every piece of worthless, welfare-seeking flotsam should be entitled to an “asylum claim” just because they’re not White and want to pick carrion from the corpse of the USSA. The legalistic jews knowingly fail to mention that being the victim of crime, being impoverished, or simply crying crocodile tears does not make one eligible for asylum. Did anyone notice the deafening silence from the jews (who are so self-righteous and vocally aggressive in advocating for non-White immigration of all kinds) when the question of whether the US should consider the legitimate asylum claims from White South Africans?

We did…spend time with some of the luckier families – those who were not detained at entry but instead were granted a “credible fear” interview (the first step in the asylum process) and released wearing ankle monitors. These families hoped to reunite with family elsewhere in the country and pursue asylum claims in their new communities.”

How does our dysfunctional, corrupt, and (according to a rabbi) JUDEO-Christian immigration system determine which foreign invader to detain, and which to release into the heartland of our ostensible “country”? We hire a bunch of patriotards to conduct “credible fear” interviews! If a Mestizo is sober enough to mumble out, “Dey is goin’ to git me, manng!” then he has a credible fear, and gets a free pass to join the swelling colonies of his co-ethnics who are busily draining the precious vitality from what was once a White nation with a future. The only ones that get detained are the incompetent drug mules, notorious repeat offenders, and likely anyone doesn’t look quite brown enough.

[Attorney General Jeff] Sessions found a convenient justification for demanding obedience to an immoral law. Too bad he didn’t look a bit earlier, to the story of Sodom…While Sessions probably believes that the sin of Sodom concerns homosexuality, the Bible and rabbinic tradition think otherwise. Per the Prophet Ezekiel, “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).”

Hypocrisy and deceit come as easily to the jew as breathing. The most arrogant species that has ever plagued the face of the earth has the temerity to shriek at us about how politely asking the most blatant violations of our sovereignty to stop is “arrogant” to an extent that requires a visitation of divine wrath. The rotten rabbi Jacobs must be very worried about her fellow tribe members in Israel who are deporting all those poor and needy blacks seeking asylum. Just like in their obscene religious texts, the jews will slander you if you resist their open-border depredations; if the jews win, their slanders become history.

The Talmud goes on to imagine a series of deceptive and violent practices that the people of Sodom would employ to maim and starve any foreigners who dared enter their land… The ancient rabbis understood that immoral societies such as Sodom justify themselves through the establishment of unjust and immoral laws. So the Talmud identifies the four judges of Sodom, whose names roughly translate as “Liar,” “Habitual Liar,” “Forger” and “Perverter of Justice.”

Could those “foreigners who dared enter their land” perhaps have been amoral, rootless merchants peddling filth, pornography, and any other kind of hedonistic perversion that only a semitic mind could fathom? Could the authors of the (((Wholly Babble))) and the toxic talmud be describing a healthy reaction (one that has happened over a hundred times in more recent history) to expel the nation-wrecking jews from a city or country they had infested? Who would suspect “g*d’s chosen people” of a relentless propaganda campaign to vilify a people who tried to unsuccessfully resist their depredations?

We’re repeatedly bombarded by a babble of broken pidgin English, spewing forth from angry, ugly brown faces, ungratefully demanding our largess, our labor, and our land for their benefit. We must not lose sight of the fact that this bombardment is being directed at us by the jews. The non-White hordes deserve our resistance, our contempt, and a show of our racial strength and pride for their opportunistic attacks on our homelands; but it remains the jews who are ultimately culpable for orchestrating their actions against us, and organizing them to have such a concerted and devastating effect on White communities. We must not abrogate our duty to protect our homelands, our people, and our future because some jews will hurl invective at us. Whether we resist them or not, the jews will spit their venom at us. If we allow the jews to dictate our immigration policy, we will end up as hated minorities in our own lands, and vanish into the deracinated mass of miscegenated morons over whom the jews wish to rule. We must expose the JUDEO-Christian insanity for what it is: a shamefully successful jewish ploy to manipulate Whites to their immense detriment. We need to expose the fact that jews are openly using the (((Wholly Babble))) to promote the continuing invasion of White homelands, and hopefully awaken our race to the existential dangers of believing anything said by any jew (even jewsus). We must stop the jewish-orchestrated White genocide.