The official blog of the site “Der Stürmer” – http://der-stuermer.org
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
Sunday, August 27, 2023
Jews and the Media – Part II
Part II
„Journalists, editors, and politicians for that matter, are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure...Israel’s presence in America is all-pervasive...You don’t want to seem like you are blatantly trying to influence whom they [the media] invite. You have to persuade them that you have the show’s best interests at heart...After the hullabaloo over Lebanon [cluster bombing civilians, etc.], the press doesn’t do anything without calling us for comment.“
„Allowing NBC to televise this matter [revelations about former Prime Minister Peres formulating the U.S. sale of weapons to Iran] is evidence that some U.S. agencies are undertaking a private crusade against Israel. That’s very severe, and is something you just don’t do to a friend.“ (Chicago Tribune 11/24/84)
Israel was caught stealing U.S. technology for cluster bombs and chrome-plating cannon barrels. Subpoenas against Israeli citizens were dropped by „our“ government after Israel pledged to „co-operate.“ (Chicago Tribune 11/24/86).
„All I had held against the Jews was that so many Jews actually were hypocrites in their claim to be friends of the American black man...At the same time I knew that Jews played these roles for a very careful strategic reason: the more prejudice in America that could be focused upon the Negro, the more the white Gentile’s prejudice would keep...off the Jew.“ (New York Magazine, 2/4/85)
„The role of Jews who write in both the Jewish and [American] general press is to defend Israel.“ (Commentary of Editor Norman Podhoretz)
„Much of what you have read about the war in Lebanon -- and even more of what you have seen and heard on television - is simply not true.“ (New Republic Editor-in-chief Martin Peretz)
„The use of force, including beatings, undoubtedly has brought about the impact we wanted -- strengthening the [occupied] population’s fear of the Israeli Defense Forces.“ (Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin)
„If we’d like to launch a war against the Washington Post, we’ll pick the time and place.“ (Spokesman for the Israeli Embassy)
„...[Israel] is able to stifle free speech, control our Congress, and even dictate our foreign policy.“ (They Dare to Speak Out, Paul Findley)
The stage was set for the Pied Piper of Harvard to lead a parade of mesmerized youth to a new dimension of spiritual experience that science had told them did not exist. Timothy Leary’s LSD (along with the other psychedelics) turned out to be the launching pad for mind trips beyond the physical universe of time, space, and matter to a strange dimension where intoxicating nectars were abundant and exotic adventures the norm. For millions it was a ‘mind- blowing’ experience that forever changed their world view.
The Beatles played a key role in leading a generation of youth into drugs. Leary, just back from India, called them ‘the four evangelists.’ Relaxing in his tepee and listening to the Beatles’ album Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Leary said, ‘The Beatles have taken my place. That latest album - a complete celebration of LSD.’ The Rolling Stones and other big-time Rock groups were evangelists also. In 1969, Life magazine quoted Rock star Jimi Hendrix: ‘...through music, you can hypnotize people...And when you get [them] at [their] weakest point, you can preach into the subconscious minds what we want to say.’ He was frank to admit, ‘Definitely I’m trying to change the world.’ Lloyd Richards, dean of the Yale School of Drama, has said, ‘The arts define whatever [the] new society is that we’re evolving...’ The awesome power of music to mold the thinking of the masses (and particularly of its youth) has been demonstrated by those who unquestionably knew what they were doing. Crosby, of the Crosby, Stills & Nash group boasted:
‘I figured that the only thing to do was to seal their minds. I still think it’s the only thing to do. ...I’m not talking about kidnapping... [but] about changing young people’s value systems...’
All of the above were Jews!
„Within the studies and on the screen, the Jews could simply create a new country - an empire of their own, so to speak, one where they would not only be admitted, but would govern as well. The would create its values and myths, its traditions and archetypes.“ (An Empire of Their Own [How the Jews Invented Hollywood], by Neal Gabler (Crown Publishers, inc. N.Y. Copyright 1988, pp. 5-6)
„Television has allowed us to create a common culture, and without it we would not have been able to accomplish our goal.“ (American Story, Public Television, Dr. Morris Janowitz, Prof. of Psychology, Chicago University, December 1, 1984)
„An intelligent man, thoroughly familiar with the newspapers, can, after half an hour conversation, tell anyone what newspaper he reads...even high prelates of Rome, even Cardinals Amette and Mercier show themselves more influenced by the Press of their country than they themselves probably realize...often I have noticed that it is according to his newspaper that one judges the Papal Bull or the speech of the Prime Minister.“ (J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, 1920; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 171)
„The corruption does not consist in the government exercising influence on the Press; such pressure is often necessary; but in the fact that it is exercised secretly, so that the public believes that it is reading a general opinion when in reality it is a minister who speaks; and the corruption of journalism does not consist in its serving the state, but in its patriotic convictions being in proportion to the amount of a subsidy.“ (Eberle, p. 128, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, p. 128; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, 173)
„The great telegraphic agencies of the world which are everywhere the principal source of news for the Press (just as wholesale businesses supply the retailers), which spreads far and wide that which the world should know or should not know, and in the form which they wish, these agencies are either Jewish property or obey Jewish direction. The situation is the same for the smaller agencies which supply news to the newspapers of less importance, the great publicity agencies which receive commercial advertisements and which then insert them in the newspapers at the price of a large commission for themselves, are principally in the hands of the Jews; so are many provincial newspapers. Even when the Jewish voice is not heard directly in the Press, there comes into play the great indirect influences, Free Masonry, Finance, etc.
In many places Jews content themselves with this hidden influence, just as in economic life they consider Joint-Stock companies as the most profitable. The editors may quite well be Aryans, it is sufficient that in all important questions they should stand for Jewish interests, or at least that they should not oppose them. This is achieved nearly always by the pressure of advertisement agencies.“ (Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, p. 204; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 174)
„The Jewish Press of Vienna sold everything, put everything at a price, artistic fame as well as success in business. No intellectual production, no work of art has been able to see the light of day and reach public notice, without passing by the crucible of the Jewish Press, without having to submit to its criticism or to pay for its approval. If an artist should wish to obtain the approbation of the public, he must of necessity bow before the all powerful Jewish journals. If a young actress, a musician, a singer of talent should wish to make her first appearance and to venture before a more of less numerous audience, she has in most cases not dared to do so, unless after paying tribute to the desires of the Jews. Otherwise she would experience certain failure. It was despotic tyranny re-established, this time for the profit of the Jews and brutally exercised by them in all its plentitude.
Such as it is revealed by its results, the Viennese Press dominated by Judaism, has been absolutely disastrous. It is a work of death which it has accomplished. Around it and outside it all is void. In all the classes of the population are the germs of hatred, the seeds, of discord and of jealously, dissolution and decomposition.“ (F. Trocase, L’Autriche juive, 1898, A. Pierret, ed., Paris; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 175-176)
„When I first began to write on Revolution a well known London Publisher said to me; ‘Remember that if you take an anti-revolutionary line you will have the whole literary world against you.’ This appeared to me extraordinary. Why should the literary world sympathize with a movement which, from the French revolution onwards, has always been directed against literature, art, and science, and has openly proclaimed its aim to exalt the manual workers over the intelligentsia? ‘Writers must be proscribed as the most dangerous enemies of the people’ said Robespierre; his colleague Dumas said all clever men should be guillotined. The system of persecutions against men of talents was organized...they cried out in the Sections (of Paris) ‘Beware of that man for he has written a book.’ Precisely the same policy has been followed in Russia under moderate socialism in Germany the professors, not the ‘people,’ are starving in garrets. Yet the whole Press of our country is permeated with subversive influences. Not merely in partisan works, but in manuals of history or literature for use in schools, Burke is reproached for warning us against the French Revolution and Carlyle’s panegyric is applauded. And whilst every slip on the part of an anti-revolutionary writer is seized on by the critics and held up as an example of the whole, the most glaring errors not only of conclusions but of facts pass unchallenged if they happen to be committed by a partisan of the movement. The principle laid down by Collot d’Herbois still holds good: ‘Tout est permis pour quiconque agit dans le sens de la revolution.’
All this was unknown to me when I first embarked on my work. I knew that French writers of the past had distorted facts to suit their own political views, that conspiracy of history is still directed by certain influences in the Masonic lodges and the Sorbonne [The facilities of literature and science of the University of Paris]; I did not know that this conspiracy was being carried on in this country. Therefore, the publisher’s warning did not daunt me. If I was wrong either in my conclusions or facts I was prepared to be challenged. Should not years of laborious historical research meet either with recognition or with reasoned and scholarly refutation?
But although my book received a great many generous appreciative reviews in the Press, criticisms which were hostile took a form which I had never anticipated. Not a single honest attempt was made to refute either my French Revolution or World Revolution by the usual methods of controversy; Statements founded on documentary evidence were met with flat contradiction unsupported by a shred of counter evidence. In general the plan adopted was not to disprove, but to discredit by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views I had never expressed, or even by means of offensive personalities. It will surely be admitted that this method of attack is unparalleled in any other sphere of literary controversy.“ (N.H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, London, 1924, Preface; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 179-180)
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Israeli Terrorism Against America
by David Duke
Nothing can show the Zionist control over American media and politics more than the fact that Israel has committed cold-blooded, murderous terrorism and treachery against America without any reprisal. The fact that most Americans are not even aware of Israeli terrorist attacks against us speaks volumes as to the extent of media control that we are under.
This video exposes the only nation in Israel- Arab conflict that has committed terrorism against us. That nation is Israel. In the Lavon Affair terrorist attacks Israel was caught red-handed. In the attack on the USS Liberty was proven to be deliberate terrorism against us by people no less than the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Dean Rusk, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer. In the repeated spying against America by Israel, we see no „friend“ but an enemy of everyone but their own Zionist agenda. It is illustrated by the Pollard Spy Case which is considered the most damaging spying done to America in our nation’s history. Yet, still our government sends billions of our tax dollars to Israel. – David Duke.
Tuesday, August 22, 2023
Sunday, August 20, 2023
The Lesson of South Africa
by Dr. William L. Pierce
We’ve spoken several times about the situation in South Africa – in particular, about the systematic murder of White farmers there by Blacks and the failure of the new Black government to stop the murders.
The slaughter continues. Since I spoke with you about this in June, another 67 White farmers or members of White farm families have been murdered in South Africa. Many of the murders have been accompanied by torture, rape, and mutilation. Altogether nearly six hundred White farmers have been murdered by Blacks in South Africa since the Whites agreed in 1993 to let the Blacks run the country. That’s one per cent of South Africa’s 58,000 White farmers. Imagine the uproar in America if one percent of any occupational group – say, White school teachers or White policemen – were brutally murdered, with racial motivations, by Blacks in a four-year period. Of course, South Africa’s White farmers are in an uproar too, but they’re receiving virtually no help from South Africa’s Black government in dealing with the problem. The government says it has too many other problems to deal with.
And indeed, it does. The per capita murder rate in South Africa is now more than ten times the rate in the United States. The HIV infection rate has continued to climb, and now one in every five Black women of child-bearing age in South Africa is infected with the AIDS-causing virus. Car-jackings are up sharply. Burglaries are up. Rapes have sky rocketed. It’s a mess.
And of course, the controlled mass media in America, the mass media which were beating the drums for an end to apartheid a few years ago, the news and entertainment media here which were pushing so hard for Black rule in South Africa and telling everyone that we must bring the injustice of White rule in South Africa to an end – these media which were telling us every day before 1993 how bad things in South Africa under White rule were – these controlled mass media in America are now strangely silent about South Africa. Now they have other fish to fry.
Last week I spoke at an international conference of nationalists in Thessaloniki, Greece. One of the other speakers at the conference was the foreign secretary of the most important White nationalist group in South Africa, the Herstigte National Party. I spoke with this man, Leon Strydom, about the killing of South African farmers, and the soaring crime rate in South Africa’s cities, and the many other problems which are overwhelming White South Africans. I asked him, “What do the White South Africans who voted in 1993 to turn their country over to Black rule think about their suicidal foolishness now?”
His reply was, “But we never voted for Black rule! We never even voted to permit the Blacks to participate in elections. We only voted to continue the process of reform in which the government of F W. DeKlerk already was engaged, the process of modernization and relaxation of some of the stricter apartheid practices. We believed that this would help our relations with the rest of the world and still allow us to remain masters in our own country.”
I responded to this explanation by asking him, “But surely the voters must have understood that if they gave DeKlerk the OK to continue along his path of appeasement of the Blacks and the New World Order crowd, that would lead very soon to Black rule. They understood that, didn’t they?” And he told me that most of the voters didn’t understand that. They had believed their politicians’ promise to maintain White rule. They had not expected DeKlerk and the others to betray them.
I was at first incredulous. How could White people be so foolish? But after I had thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that the average White person, whether in South Africa or the United States, is indeed that foolish. I believe that I tend to idealize White people in other countries, I tend to give them a little more credit for intelligence and moral rectitude than I give to Americans, and that’s a mistake. The fact is that the majority of White Americans are quite capable of unwittingly voting for their own destruction, and so I should not be surprised that the Whites of South Africa did exactly that. The majority of White Americans believe the lies of their politicians and preachers, and so it shouldn’t surprise us that the Whites of South Africa did the same thing.
In South Africa there were of course the nutcase liberals and the trendy airheads who were happy to see Black rule come and who now can’t quite figure out what went wrong when the earthly paradise of equality and interracial brotherhood didn’t arrive as promised. But we have exactly the same types in the United States. They’re the ones who applaud Clinton when he gives his speech about how it will be a good thing when there is no longer a White majority in the United States in another 30 years or so, and then we can have real “diversity” and real “brotherhood.” Our job, of course, is to do whatever it takes to ensure that our airheads never have to ask themselves what went wrong here. Our job is to disempower the trendies and the liberals before they have a chance to take us beyond the point of no return and say, “oops, we made a mistake.”
As for the great mass of the people here who are unwittingly headed in the direction of White minority status, the great mass of Americans who don’t really want America to become a non-White country but who trust their politicians and their preachers and therefore are headed toward extinction anyway – as for the great mass of our people, education is the only course for us at this time. Our task is to give our people knowledge, to give them truth, and help at least some of them gather their wits and understand what is happening.
And you know, there is no more illuminating example, no better lesson for White Americans than what has happened and is happening in South Africa. That, of course, is exactly why the controlled mass media here remain silent when White South African farmers are slaughtered, when White South African women are gang-raped, and when many other very educational things happen in South Africa. So today let’s briefly talk about some more of these South African things which it would be good for White Americans to know about, to think about, to ponder.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the South African tragedy is the betrayal of the people by those in whom they had placed their trust: principally their church leaders and their business/military/political establishment. Let’s talk about the church first.
For the Anglo element in South Africa, the church – that would be primarily the Episcopal Church – wasn’t of fundamental importance. Most of the English-speaking population didn’t take their church very seriously, and everyone already understood that the Episcopal Church establishment was thoroughly rotten, was completely sold out. But for the Boer element, the Dutch-speaking element of the population, it was different. They really believed in their church: that’s the Dutch Reformed Church. There was what might be called a compact, a covenant, between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Boer people, and the Boers took their religion very seriously. Like most other Protestant sects, it was based heavily on the Old Testament. The Boers saw many parallels between the Old Testament pseudo-history of the Jews and their own history. They saw themselves as a Chosen People in the Promised Land and the Dutch Reformed Church as their protector and guide. And the Church to a certain degree did fill that role. The Church gave the Boers a scriptural basis for their lives, for their institutions – including the institution of apartheid – at least, up until the early 1980s.
I, of course, always have been very leery of churches in general, and I could see, as an outsider, some things in the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church in particular which worried me: their tendency to identify with the Jews, for example. But whenever I would try to talk about my worries with South African visitors, I would be told that their church was absolutely solid. They had complete faith in their church. And of course, I didn’t want to attack their faith, so I would drop the subject.
Well of course, when the crucial time came the Dutch Reformed Church did betray the Boers. Their church sold them out. Their church held them back from putting up any real resistance to the theft of their country. Why was that?
I don’t believe that the Dutch Reformed Church in its earlier days was anything but what it pretended to be, and that was a Boer institution. I don’t believe there was any long-running conspiracy in the Church to betray the Boers. But as the Boers prospered, so did the Church. The Church’s leaders became prominent men, wealthy men. Many of the Boers’ political leaders were ordained ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church. They were comfortable men, soft around the waist. They ate well and dressed well and lived well. And when the time came to make a hard choice: a choice between their people or their own comfortable positions . . . well, they made the kind of choice that comfortable people tend to make.
The situation in South Africa at the beginning of this decade was one in which White South Africans were still quite well off, despite the efforts of the New World Order crowd everywhere else to starve them into submission with a trade embargo. The country was big enough and rich enough and with a strong enough farming and industrial base so that it was able to take care of its own needs fairly well. There was no danger at all of the African National Congress or any other Black terrorist group causing any really major problems. Dealing with Black terrorists was hardly more than an ongoing training exercise for the South African military and counter-terrorist forces. What the White South Africans should have done at that time was simply expel all Blacks, terrorists or not, from South Africa – or otherwise get rid of them – reorganize themselves as an all-White country, and tell the New World Order crowd in the United States to go to hell.
They didn’t do that, for several reasons. One reason was that South Africans had let themselves become dependent on Black labor. Urban Whites couldn’t imagine life without their Black gardeners and cooks and housemaids and their Black garbage collectors and so on. They weren’t willing to do their own dirty work. On top of that, White businessmen weren’t willing to give up their cheap Black laborers and pay White wages to White workers instead. In many cases it would have meant shutting down mines or factories, at least temporarily.
And the Dutch Reformed Church had sapped the moral strength of the Boers to the point that they just couldn’t bring themselves to do what needed to be done. For at least 11 years before 1993 the Church had been back-pedaling on its racial doctrine. The Church would have made the Boers feel guilty if they had taken the hard measures against the Blacks that were called for to ensure the future of their own people. It was easy for the Blacks to contemplate massacring the Whites – the African National Congress had the slogan “one settler, one bullet” – but the Whites could no longer contemplate massacring the Blacks without feeling guilty.
The Jews, of course, were pumping their own spiritual poison into the White population through the mass media, urging them in a thousand subtle ways to surrender rather than fight. But it was betrayal by the Boer establishment – the Boer politicians and Church leaders and big businessmen – which sealed the fate of South Africa. The comfortable people wanted to stay comfortable. They didn’t want to remain cut off from the rest of the world. They didn’t want to have to tighten their belts and give up their profits and face a prolonged lean period as the New World Order tightened its sanctions on South Africa even more.
Many of them believed the lies of the Jews that things actually would get better in South Africa if the Blacks ruled and the sanctions were lifted. And so they lied to their own people and told them that if they would just go along with DeKlerk’s plan of moderating apartheid, of reforming apartheid, then White rule would be maintained in South Africa. The Boer establishment – including the Boers’ church – put its own short-term interests above the welfare, even the survival, of the Boer people. Greed prevailed over racial loyalty and racial responsibility.
In this regard it’s interesting to note what the Dutch Reformed Church has been up to since 1993. If the Church’s leaders expected South Africa’s new Black rulers to be grateful to them for pushing their Boer constituents toward surrender, they badly miscalculated. So the Church has continued to try to accommodate itself to its new situation and somehow hold onto whatever it can. Actually, even before 1993 the Church had reversed its former doctrine and had told Boers that apartheid was a sin. The Boers at least had the gumption in 1994 to shoot the preacher, to shoot the former leader of their church, who was responsible for that change, but shooting just one traitor wasn’t enough, and the Church kept back-pedaling anyway. Last month, the Dutch Reformed Church tried to merge with a Black and mixed-race church in South Africa and open its membership to all races. The opposition of one of its provincial branches stopped the merger temporarily, but next month, or next year it will happen. And then the Dutch Reformed Church will have Black deacons and Black elders, just the way the Episcopal Church has Black bishops today.
And what about the other traitors? Well, F.W. DeKlerk was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize and joined the illustrious ranks of such Peace Prize winners as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Yitzhak Rabin. Other Boer politicians also received their 30 pieces of silver and are holding down sinecures in the new government.
For the big businessmen things haven’t gone so well. The horrific crime rate, together with the government’s increasingly obvious corruption and growing inefficiency, has taken a toll. White urban professionals, no longer confident that they can protect their families, have been leaving the country in droves. This brain drain has created a critical shortage of management and other key personnel in many businesses and persuaded business owners to look for opportunities elsewhere. South Africa’s Jews, in particular, after playing a key role in scuttling the country, are clearing out. Not all of them, of course. There still are some business opportunities in South Africa. Jewish organized crime groups from the former Soviet Union have been moving part of their White slave trade to South Africa. They first bring their White slaves from eastern Europe to South Africa, and then ship them off to brothels in other countries. The new South African government looks the other way.
But in general, businessmen are leaving, and last month the largest business in South Africa, the Anglo-American Corporation, announced its plans to move from Johannesburg to London early next year. The Anglo-American Corporation, which used to be run by Harry Oppenheimer and is still very much under the influence of the Oppenheimer family and other wealthy Jews, was the company which more than any other pushed South Africa toward Black rule. Even the Boer businessmen in the Anglo-American Corporation were in favor of Black rule. All they could think about was getting the trade sanctions against South Africa lifted so they could improve their profits. They pushed other businesses into working to dismantle apartheid also. The bosses of the Anglo-American Corporation told the Boer people that apartheid was old-fashioned and unprofitable and that it had to go, that everything would be much better for the Boer people without apartheid.
And now that it hasn’t worked out that way, the Anglo-American Corporation is pulling out, moving to London, where the big businessmen can remain comfortable and safe, where there is no danger of their suffering the fate of the Boer farmers whom they betrayed.
So that’s what has happened in South Africa. In America the rich and the comfortable, those who are part of the religious establishment or the business establishment or the political establishment, also have shown their false colors. The politicians in America, of course, always have been the rottenest of the rotten – at least, they have been that way since the mass media fell into the hands of the Jews.
And the Christian churches here, which even 60 or 70 years ago were still bulwarks of White American society, have fallen over each other since the Second World War in their scramble to adapt their doctrines and their practices to the Jewish party line. In the 1970s and the 1980s the churches in America were at the forefront of the institutions here pushing for Black rule in South Africa.
And, although they were a little slower than the rest to come around, America’s big businessmen – and I’m talking about White businessmen, not Jews – clearly have decided that it will be more profitable for them – at least in the short run – to join the Jews instead of fighting them. There is hardly a major corporation in America which has not decided to base its business plans on a future non-White majority in America and to adjust all of its policies accordingly. The corporate bosses may vote Republican, and they may not personally relish the idea of their grandchildren living in a non-White America – but when it comes to choosing between profits now by going with the flow, or fighting for principles in the long run, the principles come second.
So what’s the lesson for White Americans in all of this? Well, the lesson is that those who prosper from treason, or who believe that they will prosper from treason, will be traitors. There will be occasional exceptions to this rule, rare exceptions, but we’d better keep the rule itself in mind and not place our hope on the rare exceptions. If we want to survive as a people, as a race, then we must make treason unprofitable. We must make the preachers and the politicians and the corporate bosses believe that there will be no profit for them in treason. There is no other way.
Well, I’ll not carry that thought any further at this time, but you think about it – and thanks for being with me again today.
* * *
Source: Free Speech magazine, November 1998, Volume IV, Number 11
Thursday, August 17, 2023
Sonderkommando Auschwitz I - Nine Eyewitness Testimonies Analyzed
Source: https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=44
by Carlo Mattogno
DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF AND EPUB FORMAT.
To this day, the 1979 book Auschwitz Inferno: The Testimony of a Sonderkommando by former Auschwitz inmate and putative Sonderkommando member Filip Müller, who claims to have worked in the gas chambers of Auschwitz for three years, has a great influence both on the popular perception of Auschwitz and on historians probing or purporting to probe this camp’s history. The late Raul Hilberg, for instance, one of the most-influential mainstream Holocaust scholars, called Müller „a remarkable, accurate, reliable person.“
The first half of the present book critically analyzes Müller’s various post-war writings and testimonies, starting with a brief essay he wrote just after the war, then his testimony during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1964, the interviews he gave Claude Lanzmann for his epic 1985 documentary Shoah, and of course his 1979 book, which was to an unknown degree ghostwritten by one Helmut Freitag. A thorough analysis and comparison of these texts reveals that Müller’s memory seems to have improved with the decades rather than faded. His later stories have him involved everywhere in Auschwitz where the mainstream narrative reported there was some dramatic action. But a closer look at what Müller (or Freitag) wrote reveals that they pilfered it from other writers, complete with historical mistakes and physical nonsense. One of Müller’s main sources of such plagiarism was a book by Hungarian physician and proven impostor Miklós Nyiszli, but he also stole from the tales of the well-known false witnesses Kurt Gerstein and Rudolf Höss.
The second part of the present book analyzes the accounts of eight more witnesses who claim to have been members of the Auschwitz Sonderkommando: Dov Paisikovic, Stanisław Jankowski, Henryk Mandelbaum, Ludwik Nagraba, Joshuah Rosenblum, Aaron Pilo, David Fliamenbaum and Samij Karolinskij. The first three among them made substantial depositions which are often cited in Holocaust literature on Auschwitz, whereas the other five are less-well-known. A common feature of all of their accounts is that they follow a narrative developed after the war by the Soviet propaganda units which occupied Auschwitz after the German retreat. Large parts of that narrative are today considered wrong or at least exaggerated even by mainstream scholars. So how come these witnesses told the same overarching ideological lies in impressive concert, while they diverged on many concrete specifics on which they should have agreed, if their tales concerned actual events or conditions they all experienced in the same places and times? Find the answers in this revealing study!
Monday, August 14, 2023
Saturday, August 12, 2023
A Brief History of Jews Pushing for Non-White Immigration in America
Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/a-brief-history-of-jews-pushing-for-non-white-immigration-in-america/
The idea of America being a “melting pot” is entirely a jewish one. The term itself was coined by Israel Zangwill in his 1908 play “The Melting Pot,” which focused on a family of jewish immigrants from Russia.
Here are a few lines from the play:
DAVID: There she lies, the great Melting Pot – listen! Can’t you hear the roaring and the bubbling? There gapes her mouth [He points east] – the harbor where a thousand mammoth feeders come from the ends of the world to pour in their human freight. Ah, what a stirring and a seething! Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, – black and yellow –
VERA: Jew and Gentile –
DAVID: Yes, East and West, and North and South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent and the cross – how the great Alchemist melts and fuses them with his purging flame! Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God. Ah, Vera, what is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labor and look forward![1]
The Statue of Liberty features the famous 1883 “The New Collosus” poem by jewish activist Emma Lazarus, who gives words to Lady Liberty, the French Freemasonic gift to America.
“Keep,
ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
This was something of a protest against the Chinese Exclusion Act, but also as a call for America to accept jews facing pogroms. This poem is still being used as a justification for flooding America with non-Whites. Nancy Pelosi in 2017 said, “You know the rest. It’s a statement of values of our country. It’s a recognition that the strength of our country is in its diversity, that the revitalization … of America comes from our immigrant population.”
There was also Max Kohler, a well-connected jewish lawyer who pioneered the field of immigrations law. He worked for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), going to Ellis Island to ensure that all of the wretched masses received due process. Kohler stated, “the idea that America is not about your ancestors. It is not about who you descended from. It is about the idea that America is open to everyone who can believe the ideals that undergird it.” He continued, “Becoming American has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with believing those ideals.”
1965 Hart-Cellar Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, changed the face of America forever. Jewish people played a large part in shaping this legislation. Emanuel Cellar was a long-serving jewish Congressman from New York City, representing Brooklyn and beyond. Herbert Lehman, the Jewish governor of New York State, is credited as the reason for the 1965 legislation. Dr. Rebecca Kobrin, a professor of American Jewish history at Columbia, states, “Lehman pushed and bankrolled the legislation. He did not get to see it passed – but he got it passed.” He was so adamant in getting this passed, “because the quota system passed in 1924 did not reflect American values.”
America was almost 90% White at the time the Act was signed into law. President Johnson said during the signing ceremony, “The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill.” He continued, “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.” Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the bill’s floor manager, said: “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.” That was a massive lie. This action by the federal government opened up the borders of America so that we could be flooded by non-Whites from around the world, which would occur both legally and illegally. By 2019, White children became a minority in America’s schools. Considering how census data is collected, and how Hispanics and MENA (Middle East and North Africa) demographics are often counted as White, the percentage of White people in this country is likely far less than official numbers.
Jews still continue being at the forefront of flooding America with non-Whites to this very day.
At a jewish “rally for refugees,” a HIAS representative boasted about how jews from all across judaism agree that the United States should be flooded with immigrants.
“Last week HIAS organized a letter signed by over 1,200 rabbis. Can you imagine getting 1,200 rabbis to agree on one thing? But agree they did. And what they agreed was to ask our elected officials not to halt or even to limit the United States refugee admissions program. And it’s not just HIAS, it’s jewish organizations of all kinds, across the spectrum of judaism, are issuing statements in support of refugees. These have included the Orthodox Union of Rabbis, the US holocaust memorial museum, and so many jewish organizations that you heard are co-sponsors of this event.”
Jewish Family Services is a group that works with HIAS to ensure refugees get access to a better life as citizens in America.
JFS works with HIAS, formerly the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, to resettle refugees assigned by the U.S. Department of State. We provide a required set of services from pre-arrival through the first 90 days of the resettlement period. But, our work with our new neighbors extends far beyond that initial three-month period, from Day 91 through citizenship. JFS provides holistic case management and education services to helps refugees, immigrants and asylees to become economically, socially and civically integrated in our community.
We often hear them use the Biblical “welcome the stranger line” as justification. For example, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism states:
Welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is a core part of Jewish tradition, mentioned at least 36 times in the Hebrew Bible. Leviticus commands, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (19:33-34). Our own people’s history as “strangers” reminds us of the many struggles faced by immigrants today, and we affirm our commitment to create the same opportunities for today’s immigrants that were so valuable to our own community not so many years ago.
Steve Gutow, the head of the JCPA (Jewish Council for Public Affairs), stated that it was a top priority “to make sure that immigrants from around the world, particularly those from south of the border, have a chance here…”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is another jewish group that pushes for America to be flooded. Their website states:
“ADL fights tirelessly for immigrants and refugees seeking safety and a better life in the U.S. Through legislative advocacy, amicus briefs, and public awareness efforts, we have promoted just and humane immigration and refugee protection policies throughout the decades.”
“We monitor and expose the virulent anti-immigrant and hate-fueled rhetoric promoted by extremists, politicians and media influencers. We analyze information and trends regarding anti-immigrant activity and bias on a national and local level and publish this research through blog posts, articles and reports. We also track how once-fringe white supremacist ideologies, now more and more part of the mainstream, have demonized immigration into the U.S. as a preeminent threat to white dominance.”
Hypocritically, the ADL also states that Israel should not have to accept an influx of non-jewish immigrants:
“With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protection.”
“In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable. It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.”
This brief review has only covered what jewish groups have been doing to America, but if you take a look around the world, you will find the same thing happening. You will see IsraAid ensuring immigrants make it safely to the shores of Europe. You will hear Barbara Lerner Spectre talking about how jews will be blamed for their leading role in this whole mess, and you will find Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the head of the European Council of Rabbis and chief rabbi of Moscow, stating that Muslims are “brothers” are “allies” with the jews in their attack on old Europe.
Jews are waging a genocidal war against the White race and they have been at it for quite some time. It’s imperative White people wake up to this existential threat!
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
Sunday, August 6, 2023
Solving the Jewish Question
Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/solving-the-jewish-question/
Scattering the jew to the four winds does not solve the jewish question, but rather makes it worse. A systematic program of settlement, therefore, is the best solution.
Background: This page provides two May 1933 articles about how to solve the “Jewish Question,” taken from the NSDAP’s theoretical journal. Both propose a “zionist” solution to the “Jewish Question,” though von Leers explicitly rejects a jewish state in Palestine.
Achim Gercke had been a National Socialist official before 1933. As a student, he had attempted to develop a card index listing all jews in Germany. In April 1933, he was appointed to the Ministry of the Interior, where he served as an expert on racial matters. His article outlined NS public thinking on what to do about the jew at the beginning of the Third Reich, which includes expelling them all from Germany. It notes that the just-issued National Socialist laws restricting jewish laws were provisional measures that indicated the direction future measures would take.
Johann von Leers was one of the most prolific NS anti-Semites. His article proposes the appropriate removal of all jews from Europe. His article is indicative of the early stages of National Socialist rule when they were still trying to decide what to do about the jew.
The source: Dr. Achim Gercke, “Die Lösung der Judenfrage,” Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, Heft 38 (May 1933), pp. 195-197, and, in the same issue, Dr. Johann von Leers, “Das Ende der jüdischen Wanderung,” pp. 229-231.
Solving the Jewish Question
by Dr. Achim Gercke
As a result of the victory of the National Socialist revolution, the jewish question has become a problem for those who never before thought about solving the jewish question, who never fought to solve it. Everyone has seen that the current situation is intolerable. Allowing free development and equality for the jew has led to an “unfree” situation of exploited competition, and to a handing over of important positions within the German people to those of a foreign race.
The result is that anyone who thinks about this question looks for a solution. Everyone has a proposal on his desk, which gets a more or less favorable reaction in discussions. That was to be expected.
But the solution to so important a problem is not as easy as is often supposed.
The legal measures that have just been issued by the government are cleansing actions that adroitly respond to judah’s declaration of war. Primarily, the laws provide a direction in which to move. One should not underestimate the significance of these laws. The entire people will be educated about the jewish question and will come to understand that a people’s community is a community of blood. For the first time, they will be reached by racial thinking and will be focused not on theoretical solutions to the jewish question, but rather on a real solution.
Nevertheless, these temporary measures cannot be a final solution to the jewish question since the time is not yet ripe, although the laws point out the direction and leave room for any future developments.
It would, however, be too early to work out plans for public discussion which propose to do more than can currently be done. Nonetheless, a few principles must be laid out so that the plans one makes can mature and mistakes can be avoided.
Fundamentally, one must decide whether or not to bring the jew in Germany (as well as those of jewish descent) together organizationally. Many plans announced so far propose to bring the jew together in a federation so that they can be kept under watch and influenced. All of these proposals are fundamentally in error.
Were one to establish a federation of the jews, whether under some kind of jewish overseer or in some sort of federation or other innocent-looking structure, the jews would have an eternal legal anchor in Germany, a way to present their wishes, a tool for their goals, a legal way to secure secret links. And one would give at least the impression that one was dealing with a national minority that could seek, and would find, support outside Germany.
One may not give even the superficial appearance of supporting such an attitude toward the jewish question, as it would be politically insane to confound domestic German measures on the jewish question with foreign policy questions.
All proposals that include a permanent presence, a permanent regulation of the jew in Germany, do not solve the jewish question, for they do not eliminate the jew from Germany (denn sie lösen die Juden nicht von Deutschland). And that is what we want to do.
If the jew is able to exploit their host peoples forever, they will remain a constant source of the open, destructive flame of Bolshevism, making it easy to repeatedly kindle it again, not to mention the political uncertainties resulting from disunity within the people and the danger to racial unity. Let us swear off such thinking forever, whether it results from poor thinking or evil intentions. To summarize, the state can and must focus on systematical elimination, on emigration.
If we destroy any organizational cooperation of the jew and expel the dangerous, subversive jewish agitators who show any signs of conspiratorial activities, the jew will still have the synagogue, the rabbi, to shield them. If we support zionist plans and attempt an international solution by establishing a homeland for the jew, we will be able to solve the jewish question not only in Germany, but in Europe and the entire world. The entire world has an interest in such a solution, on eliminating this source of disorder, which constantly proceeds from bolshevism. We must establish that clearly.
Perhaps the jew will be able to become a nation, a people. That would require that jewish workers, craftsmen, and settlers would develop from the jewish population. If we regulate this plan, they we will create new foundations for such a settlement.
Scattering the jew to the four winds does not solve the jewish question, but rather makes it worse. A systematic program of settlement, therefore, is the best solution.
Plans and programs must have a goal pointing to the future. They may not be focused only on a temporarily unpleasant situation. A better future demands the systematic solution of the jewish question, not the organization of the jews.
We must build our state without the jew. They can be only stateless foreigners among us, with no legal permanent standing. Only so will Ahasver [the legendary wandering jew] be forced to take up his walking stick again, and then turn it into axes and spades.
The End of Jewish Migration
by Dr. Johann von Leers
The jewish problem is a migrating problem that has moved over the centuries from one European region to another. One can speak of a certain degree of saturation with the jewish population in individual regions. If this degree of saturation is reached or exceeded, the affected Gentile peoples always take the same defensive measures. They attempt to reduce jewish influence, to hinder jewish corruption of their cultural and business life, or to reverse it if it has already occurred.
Often, the first step is a clear realization that the jew is a foreign element. Those countries not simultaneously affected by the problem tend to misunderstand these defensive measures, and as far as it is in their political interests, or to the extent that they are under jewish influence, speak of “barbarism.” When the emigrating jewish masses show up by them, the whole course of events often repeats itself. Similar defensive measures appear in the second country, while in the first country the fighting spirit against the jew has calmed down — and thus the misunderstandings continue.
No one who understands the situation will be able to deny that the cause of these defensive measures lies primarily in the jewish people itself. Even with the greatest degree of impartiality, one will conclude that one is dealing with a group of people that is on average highly unpleasant. That may not stop one from looking at the question clearly.
It is questionable to even speak of a “jewish people,” since there is only a limited and widely varied sense of real consciousness of being a people. There is a continuum ranging from the most convinced zionists down to assimilated jews, so that it is better to speak of jewry as a group of humans in which there is a strong drive to establish a genuine people.
Given the extent of jewish migration, there are two things one must keep in mind. First, it is wrong to see jewry as an already existing people, and thus treat them as one would treat an ethnic minority. Second, if one is to seriously solve the problem, one must take into account jewry’s inner drive to build its own people.
Based on these reasons, mature reflection shows that it is a mistake to take those jews in a given country and bring them all together in a special federation, regardless of whether they are orthodox, assimilated, or of mixed race, not with the possibility and goal of building a people, but rather to establish a legal minority with rights within a state of a Gentile people. The goal is always for jews to build their own people, and to separate them from Gentile people. Therefore, one must not promote individual jews as minority citizens, or some such status, within a Gentile people, but rather move jews out to build their own people.
From century to century, Europe has always had outbursts of anti-semitism, and from good and justified desires to defend Gentile peoples against an indigestible jewry. We cannot, therefore, be satisfied with a solution that simply moves the jews from one country to another over the centuries. This can only strengthen the dangerous jewish ability to carry on its policies within states, building transnational power. Furthermore, there always remain strong jewish groups, the result of race mixing and assimilation within the respective peoples, which increase racial decline.
Instead, one must find an affirmative solution that frees Europe of wandering jewish masses. This is not a matter of small numbers, as statistics demonstrate. According to the Zeitschrift für Demokratie (sic) und Statistik der Juden (Berlin), there were around 15 million jews in the world at the end of 1931. There were 9.8 million in Europe, of whom 3.1 million were in Poland, 3.0 million in Rumania, 0.6 million in Germany, 0.5 million in Hungary, and 0.4 million in Czechoslovakia. Since these figures include only jews by religious confession, these figures are probably low.
Even those numbers, however, include millions of so-called “bums” (Luftmenschen), impoverished peddlers and Eastern European tradesmen, population groups that are ready whenever the borders open to leave their Polish and Lithuanian ghettos and flood into Europe. As long as the pressure from these jewish millions exists the jewish question in Europe will not be resolved, but rather will necessarily continue.
Even if a political movement and a people have had the worst experiences with jewry, it could contradict the German Nordic sense of history to see a negative solution as the way to defend against the jewish masses. Instead, the entirety of our historical mission demands a grand and comprehensive approach that will also appeal to the opponent.
What gives some justification to zionism’s goals is not that they are often either excessively romantic or a peculiar kind of advertising for its thinking (as the old jewish joke has it: “What is a zionist? A jew who wants money from a second jew so that a third jew can go to Palestine.”), but rather its claim that there is a question with regards to a jewish people, and that it must be resolved. Zionism assumes that it can build a new jewish people from the many jewish individuals. It has, however, some justice in demanding a territorial foundation for its development.
Palestine is unable to absorb the coming jewish masses since it cannot support them, nor is it the right location. Furthermore, England has to consider both the native Arabic population and the world-wide Islamic community, which makes it impossible to settle even a reasonably significant part of the jewish masses there.
Only a barbarian standing outside of the last great divine manifestation of world history would propose a general anti-semitic battle aimed at the extermination of this people. The goal of the highly developed peoples is not to promote hatred where there is a decent way to solve the problem.
The only imaginable, positive solution that will finally resolve the jewish problem in Europe and at the same time provide the real possibility of becoming a people, of becoming rooted to land, and even perhaps allowing its less valuable elements to be influenced by the more valuable elements, is a healthy region outside Europe.
The Dutchman von Dinghene, in his book Vollzionismus, has proposed the island of Madagascar, but one could also imagine certain other suitable African or South American regions. On the one hand, such a settlement area must give the jewish people a space where they can work productively, within the framework of providing space for peoples who now lack space. On the other hand, in those countries where the jews are being separated from the Gentile population, the jews will lose a large number of jobs. They must today be trained in work groups, receiving education in practical skills and agriculture so that they will be prepared to settle in this area.
Those major Western European colonial powers, who are always worked up about the jewish question and its effects in Eastern and Central Europe, without however really seeing the connections, would perform a work not only of humanity, but also statesmanlike wisdom that would bring peace to the world and the solution of one of its most serious problems were they to make such a settlement area available. That would not only relieve Europe of the jewish problem, but also enable jewry to become a people.
Of course, there is a danger that such a jewish settlement area would become a world-famous El Dorado of criminality, given the deep moral decay of a large part of jewry. There will have to be a force to provide just and honest supervision. This would also be possible and details could be worked out. The danger may not hinder a broad solution of the jewish question by resettling jewry to an appropriate settlement area outside of Europe.
We propose this to the world: Give Ahasver a homeland as far as possible from us, but sufficient and attractive. If he makes of it a garden, he may keep it and will be protected. If, however, he makes of it a den of thieves, then one will keep him there. However, we must attempt a decent solution to this question. Those jews who for centuries have recognized the battle of the jewish question are called to contribute to a real solution, those jews who recognize that the dream of jewish world domination has failed, and who are therefore ready to become a people among peoples.
Those peoples among whom the question burns the hottest because of the jewish masses among them are also called, particularly the major Western European colonial powers with vast possessions, for it cannot be permitted that a decent solution be prevented by cheap humanitarian slogans. With a single blow the jewish question, which has always surfaced, can be resolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)