Caricatures from "Der Stürmer" - translated in English and colourized - The Year 1942 – Part 8!

The Year 1942 – Part 8

  

 

Jewish Invention Myths: Monotheism

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-monotheism/

 

by Karl Radl

 

One of the most common ‘jewish invention’ claims is that ‘jews invented monotheism’ or the worship of one not many gods, which is exemplified by ‘Israel Hayom’s’ claim that:

 

‘Monotheism, the belief in a single God, has profoundly influenced religious thought throughout history. Judaism is credited with introducing this radical idea, which challenged the polytheistic beliefs prevalent in ancient cultures. This foundational concept has shaped the beliefs of billions today as over half the world’s population practices monotheistic religions.

 

Monotheism has encouraged moral frameworks that guide ethical behavior and community values. The implications of this belief system extend beyond religious practice, influencing art, culture, and philosophy.’ (1)

 

Claims like this are routinely repeated by jews (2) but typically it is ill-researched nonsense given that the first known form of monotheism emerged in ancient Egypt with the ‘Heretic Pharaoh’ Akhenaten circa 1,400 B.C.

 

To quote Redford:

 

‘Akhenaten was clearly a monotheist. All the well-known ingredients are present: the revelation-cum-teaching, the belligerent iconoclasm, the denial of the plurality of the Supernatural, the anathematization of other “gods,” the purging of forms of religious expression. He believed in a single, universal god, Aten, who had created the world and who continued to affect the world through His active presence.’ (3)

 

Indeed, it has been long-argued that the emergent religion of Zoroastrianism in Babylonia/Mesopotamia – modern day Iran and Iraq – was also monotheistic (4) although this is not without significant opposition. (5)

 

This would make a certain amount of sense given that most attempts to claim ‘jews invented monotheism’ are – to quote Smith – ‘evidently driven by post-Biblical concerns’. (6)

 

It is also noteworthy to point out that at the Greeks – notably the pre-Socratic philosophers Thales of Miletus and his student Anaximander of Miletus – created and adhered to as well as advocated a philosophic monotheism in the early-mid sixth century B.C. (7) several decades before we find the first expressions of monotheism in Biblical texts (i.e., Second Isaiah which dates from the mid-late sixth century B.C.).

 

Now given this we can clearly see that jews certainly didn’t invent monotheism and given the Exodus story and the Babylonian captivity right around the time they first begin to properly ‘develop’ monotheism in their religious faith: it is reasonable to suggest that only did the jews not invent monotheism but likely simply adapted the already extant monotheistic belief systems of those around them to form what we call Second Temple Judaism which subsequently became rabbinic Judaism.

 

Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.

---

References

 

(1) https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/08/01/did-you-know-these-inventions-were-made-by-jews/

 

(2) For example: https://boulderjewishnews.org/2009/an-informal-list-of-jewish-inventions-innovations-and-radical-ideas/

 

(3) Donald Redford, 1997, ‘The Monotheism of Akhenaten’, p. 26 in Hershel Shanks, Jack Meinhardt (Eds.), 1997, ‘Aspects of Monotheism: How God is One’, 1st Edition, Biblical Archaeology Society: Washington D.C.

 

(4) For example: Almut Hintze, 2014, ‘Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vo. 24, No. 2, pp. 225–249 and Mike Ferrero, 2021, ‘From Polytheism to Monotheism: Zoroaster and Some Economic Theory’, Homo Oeconomicus, Vol. 38, pp. 77-108

 

(5) For example: Mark Smith, 2001, ‘The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic texts’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 165-166

 

(6) Ibid., p. 103

 

(7) M. L. West, 1999, ‘Towards Monotheism’, pp. 32-3 in Polymnia Athanassiadi, Michael Frede (Eds.), 1999, ‘Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity’, 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford; Michael Frede, 1999, ‘Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy’, pp. 47-48 in Athanassiadi, Frede, Op. Cit.

 

via Karl Radl’s Substack

Jewish Invention Myths: The Principles of Journalism/Journalistic Ethics

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-the-principles-of-journalism-journalistic-ethics

 

By Karl Radl

 

One of the more unusual ‘jewish invention’ claims is that idea that jews invented the principles of modern journalism and/or objectivity/ethics in journalism.

 

‘MNews’ for example claims that:

 

‘Joseph Pulitzer – Journalism Principles, Pulitzer Prize

 

The most prestigious journalism award in the U.S. – the Pulitzer Prize – is named after Joseph Pulitzer.’ (1)

 

The problem with this is that it complete mistakes the history of journalism since as early as the seventeenth century in England editors of the periodic press century were already concerned with objectivity and journalistic ethics and often went to some lengths to collate different sources to try and arrive at the truth. (2)

 

One such example of an editor trying to achieve relative objectivity was Samuel Pecke of London who created a kind of English ‘New York Times’ in the form of ‘A Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament’ in the 1630-1640s.

 

Indeed, as Ward writes:

 

‘Journalism and journalism ethics trace their histories back to cautious entrepreneurs such as Archer, Butter, and Bourne and to more audacious political partisans such as Nedham. Some publishers, such as Pecke, were both business-like and partisan. The first journalists were a grab bag of unlikely ethical pioneers – tailors, army captains, doctors, Oxford graduates, clerics, and unrestrained propagandists. Some editors were talented, knowledgeable writers; others, dullards with a pen. Some were reasonable men; others, fanatics. Not a few were opportunistic, changing their tune with the winds of politics. Ideological passion drove others. Some made a tidy profit; others ended their lives in poverty.’ (4)

 

This mishmash and struggle for both the most accurate news as well as the best-selling news then began to create what we think of today as modern journalism and the idea of journalistic ethics as Ward further explains:

 

‘The newsbooks’ legacy for journalism ethics is three-fold. First, it created a number of journalistic practices that would become the “standards” of journalism ethics in the centuries ahead. Second, it established an ethical lexicon for news journalism, including notions that anticipated journalistic objectivity. Third, it was a major player in the first public sphere, and therefore its ethical rhetoric anticipated a public ethic for journalism.

 

The newsbooks pioneered journalistic practices such as “headlines” on the title page, the sensational human-interest story, the leading article (editorial), the publishing of advertisements, and the use of correspondents in the field, especially during war. The weekly newsbooks began to separate news and commentary and initiated practices that sought to make reports more factual, balanced, and reliable. Editors questioned their sources for bias, tried to balance reports, preferred reputable correspondents and eyewitnesses, and gave the date, time, and place of story. Today, such practices are still the building blocks of an objective news report.’ (5)

 

Indeed a ‘public philosophy of journalism arose in eighteenth-century England as the daily newspaper emerged’ (6) and by the nineteenth century much of what we’d call ‘objective journalism’ had already largely emerged. (7)

 

As Ward explains:

 

‘Joseph Milando, after analysing 12 journalism textbooks and manuals from 1867 to 1899, concluded that education in the field had already “embraced” objectivity as a central tenet, although it did not use the term. In 1867, New York publisher Jesse Haney published a Guide to Authorship, which said that the editor should “chronicle the facts,” giving his personal views in another portion of the paper. Hints to Young Editors justified objectivity: “There is no reason why the news of a Republican paper should not be read by a Democrat with as much confidence as that of a paper of his own party, and vice versa. It is only by presenting clear, unbiased records of fact that any benefit can be derived from the accompanying comments.” In 1884, George Gaskell’s How to Write for the Press stressed that reporters must cultivate “impersonality” and avoid words that “arouse the passions.” The Blue Pencil and How to Avoid It by Alexander Nevins supported the division of news and opinion. “The facts, when concisely written, speak for themselves,” argued Nevins.

 

In 1894, Edwin Shuman, the Chicago Tribune’s literary editor, published the first comprehensive journalism textbook, Steps into Journalism. It was reprinted several times and was still in use when journalism schools started after 1900. Steps stressed authoritative sources and news agency standards. The book contained the basics of traditional, objective journalism: the inverted pyramid, non-partisanship, detachment, reliance on observable facts, and balance. “It is the mission of the reporter to reproduce facts and the opinions of others, not to express his own.”’ (8)

 

Put another way there were already systemized and widely known principles of journalism long before Pulitzer even owned a newspaper and that what jews and their apologists are exploiting to make the claim that he invented such principles/ethics is the general ignorance of the history of journalism and the fame of the journalism award that bears his name: the Pulitzer.

 

Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.

---

References

 

(1) https://mnews.world/en/news/the-great-jews-and-their-inventions

 

(2) Stephen Ward, 2015, ‘The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond’, 2nd Edition, McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, pp. 127-128; 132-133

 

(3) Ibid., pp. 135-137

 

(4) Ibid., p. 139

 

(5) Ibid., p. 140

 

(6) Ibid., p. 153

 

(7) Ibid., pp. 213-216

 

(8) Ibid., pp. 231-232

 

via Karl Radl’s Substack

Defend Your Race!

Napoleon Bonaparte on the Jews

 

- „The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age.“

 

- „They are the carrion birds of humanity... [ speaking of the Jews] are a state within a state. They are certainly not real citizens...The evils of Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of these people.“ (Napoleon Bonaparte, Stated in Reflections and Speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806)

 

- „The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes...“

 

„Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity... „They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens.“

 

- „The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it... The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.“ (From Napoleon's Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)

 

- (1) Every big and small Jew is the peddling trade must renew his license every year.

 

(2) Checks and other obligations are only redeemable if the Jew can prove that he has obtained the money without cheating. (Ordinance of March 17, 1808. Napoleonic Code.)

NS Guidelines for Anti-Jewish Press Work

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/ns-guidelines-for-anti-jewish-press-work/

 

We should constantly show that jewry has always attempted to subvert our people from both within and without, and would have succeeded had we not put a stop to it, and that its final attempt was to try to destroy us through the war it unleashed.

 

Background: The Zeitschriften-Dienst was a weekly newsletter for magazine editors during the Third Reich, first published in 1939. What follows comes from its supplement, the Deutscher Wochendienst, which went into more detail on some matters. It is the first of a late 1944 series of guidelines for magazine editors in handling the “Jewish Question.”

 

The source: “Hinweise für die antijüdische Pressearbeit,” Deutscher Wochendienst, 25 August 1944, pp. 14-15.

 

Guidelines for Anti-Jewish Press Work

 

As before, anti-jewish work in the press is in the forefront of our political efforts. It is therefore all the more important that language guidelines in this area be followed strictly and that all tastelessness and platitudes be avoided, as they can only weaken the necessary concentrated impact and harm our efforts.

 

Thus the term “anti-Semitism” constantly shows up when opposition to the jews is meant. One must remember that using this term can harm our relations with non-jewish Semites in the Arab world who are particularly important for us. In the future, avoid the words “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Semitic,” replacing them with expressions like “opposition to the jews,” “enmity against the jews,” “anti-judaism,” “hostile to the jews,” or “anti-jewish.”

 

It is also entirely false to use the term “pogrom” to refer to the fully justified defensive measures that the peoples betrayed by the jews are using to defend themselves against jewish demands and insolence. Jewish agitation has understood how to use “pogrom horror stories” to arouse the world’s pity for the “innocent, persecuted” jews, and to call all the justifiable and moderate measures against jewish parasitism “pogroms” (devastation), particularly with regards to National Socialist Germany. Since the jewish problem in Germany has been solved not through blind racial hatred, but rather through consistently carried out legal measures, the term “pogrom” is entirely inappropriate.

 

In this regard, we advise that it is also inappropriate to speak of “jewish revenge.” That might lead those circles without a firm worldview to conclude that, as the enemy maintains, we have earned or deserved this “revenge” because of our cruel treatment of the jewry, since in general revenge presumes a previous injustice. We should therefore speak only of jewish plans for destruction.

 

We should demonstrate that regardless of whether jewry was treated well or ill by its host peoples, it was always a dangerous element, ever on the attack, and that our measures were necessary self-defence. We should constantly show that jewry has always attempted to subvert our people from both within and without, and would have succeeded had we not put a stop to it, and that its final attempt was to try to destroy us through the war it unleashed.

 

Our propaganda can also suffer through using jewish sources without putting them into a form suitable for our propaganda. Using (jewish) citations from the enemy can be especially dangerous when long passages are used, or when an essay from a jewish newspaper is carried without the necessary commentary. A brief introduction or a few sentences are hardly sufficient commentary. 

 

Enemy citations are very important in attacking the jewish nature and their methods, but we must always remember that they are only a means to an end, which is supporting our arguments, which must always come to expression in an elevated and clear manner. – It is tasteless to occasionally find enemy citations attributed to “prominent jewish personalities,” since positive references to jews are entirely uncalled for. Avoid contradictory phrases like “French jew” (instead, a jew in or from France) or a “blood Romanian” (instead, Romanian; there are no jewish Romanians).

 

As important as it is to focus on the essential elements of the jewish question, it remains essential to provide a change from the standard jewish topics, using new or unfamiliar materials to keep reader interest. This not only maintains the persuasive force of our magazines, but increases it. Platitudes and cliches (for example, “the notorious jew XY”) not only weary and confuse the reader, they raise doubts in his mind about the quality of his magazine. With regards to reviews of anti-jewish books, we refer to our advice in A 415.

 

The Zeitschriften-Dienst and the Deutscher Wochendienst will publish additional advice and suggestions alongside our regular material, and ask for lively cooperation from editors.

Caricatures from "Der Stürmer" - translated in English and colourized - The Year 1942 – Part 7!

The Year 1942 – Part 7

Race Suicide

Source: Free Speech - January 2001 - Volume VII, Number 1

 

by Dr. William L. Pierce

 

With the end of the year at hand this seems like a good time to sum things up. Before we sum up the past year, though, let’s look at the past century. The salient feature of the 20th century was the collective suicide of the White race. In 1900 we ruled the world. We ruled politically, militarily, culturally, economically, scientifically, and in every other way. No other race even came close. We ruled India and Africa directly, and China was for all practical purposes an economic colony of Europe and America. The Chinese Emperor remained on his throne only so long as he let White men have their way in China. Japan was the only non-White nation of any significance that even had pretensions of autonomy.

 

We had superior weapons, superior armed forces, superior communications, superior transportation, superior agriculture and industry, superior standards of health, superior organization, superiority in every facet of science and technology. We had the best universities – really, the only universities worthy of the name – the best engineers. We built things that other races couldn’t even imagine. We explored, we conquered, we ruled.

 

More important than anything else was our moral superiority – and please don’t misunderstand my use of that term. I don’t mean that we were meek and inoffensive and turned the other cheek. I mean that we were proud and self-confident. We knew who we were, and we knew that we were far, far better than anyone else, and we weren’t at all embarrassed by the fact that we were better. We recognized racial differences in the same way we recognized that the sun rises in the east, and we felt not the slightest need to apologize to anyone for that. Egalitarianism was a moral and mental disease that afflicted only a few of our people, despite the murderous outburst of egalitarian insanity that was the French Revolution a century earlier. Any sort of racial mixing was abhorrent to us. We looked on miscegenation with the same disgust and disapproval as on bestiality or necrophilia. We didn’t tolerate it. And we didn’t accept or trust Jews. That was our situation a century ago.

 

We did have some faults, however: some very serious faults. We were not vigilant. We were so confident in our superiority that we failed to heed the warnings of the few among us who were vigilant. We didn’t pay attention when a few warned us, “Hey, we’d better do something about the race problem. We have nine million non-Whites in the United States, according to the 1900 census, and in the future they could become a real problem for us. Let’s start getting rid of them now.”

 

We thought, “Well, as long as they stay on their side of town and stay out of sight, how can they be a problem for us? Besides, they’re useful for picking cotton and as cleaning women and cooks and gardeners.”

 

And when a few warned us about the Jews we also didn’t pay attention. A few warned us about the damage the Jews had done to us in the past, about their malevolence, about their growing wealth, but most of us didn’t take the warnings seriously. We saw the Jews as obnoxious and unpleasant people, and we didn’t let them into our private clubs and our better hotels, but we didn’t consider them really dangerous. We didn’t even become alarmed when they began buying up our newspapers and elbowing their way into other propaganda media.

 

And lack of vigilance wasn’t our only fault. We were too ready to quarrel with one another. No other race was seen as a threat to ours, so we felt no need to suppress our internal rivalries and jealousies and hatreds and form a solid front against the non-White world. We let fester old rivalries between the English and the Germans and between the Germans and the French and between the English and the Boers in South Africa and between those of us who spoke Germanic languages and those of us who spoke Slavic or Romance languages. We didn’t notice our faults, our weaknesses – but others did.

 

The latter half of the 19th century saw not only the beginning of the acquisition of our mass media by the Jews, but also the nearly simultaneous hatching of two long-term, murderous conspiracies designed to exploit our weaknesses and turn them against us. These two conspiracies were Zionism and Marxism. Some Jews went with one, some with the other, but both were deadly for us.

 

The Marxists issued their Communist Manifesto as far back as the middle of the 19th century, but it was another 50 years before they were able to have much of an impact on the Gentile world. As for the Zionists, they also began propagandizing and organizing about the middle of the 19th century and only became noticeable at the beginning of the 20th century, when they began having international Zionist congresses and more or less openly laying their plans to foment wars and revolutions, of which they could take advantage to promote Jewish interests.

 

For example, at the Zionist Congress in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl told his fellow Jews that they were having trouble persuading the Turks, who at that time controlled Palestine, to turn the country over to them, but that the Jewish leaders had plans for getting around the Turks. And I should mention that Herzl’s address to the 1897 Zionist Congress has been published in a number of places, and any diligent researcher can dig up a copy. Herzl said:

 

“It may be that Turkey will refuse us or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. . . . The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.”

 

Remember, Herzl was talking about the Jews’ plans 17 years before the outbreak of the First World War. But the Jews were ready when the time came. In 1916, with the war more or less stalemated, they approached Britain’s political leaders and made a deal to bring the United States into the war on the side of Britain in return for a British promise to take Palestine away from Turkey and turn it over to the Jews after the war. The British side of the deal was made public in the so-called Balfour Declaration. And the Zionists kept their end of the bargain by working through Jews close to the Democratic President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had won the election to his second term in the White House in 1916 by promising America’s voters that he would keep the United States out of the European war. But as soon as he took office in 1917 he began scheming to get the country into the war on the side of Britain, which, of course, he did two months later. That cost a couple of million additional Gentile lives, but it got Palestine for the Jews – and it also prolonged the war enough for the Jews in Russia to topple the czar and get their communist revolution off the ground.

 

When I said that some Jews took the Marxist route and some the Zionist route, I didn’t mean that all Jews became active workers in one or the other of those movements. Most Jews remained full-time money-grubbers and provided propaganda and financial support for their conspiratorial brethren, continuing to buy up mass media and to dispense capital to the Zionists or the communists as needed. And they didn’t wait for the First World War for that. The first big Gentile bloodletting of the last century in which they had a hand was the Boer War in South Africa, between the British and the Boers. This cruel and murderous war, in which Jewish capitalists were allied with British capitalists against South Africa’s Dutch and German and French farmers – the Boers – laid the foundations for Jewish control of much of Africa’s mineral wealth.

 

In 1904 the Jewish Wall Street speculator Jacob Schiff, planning ahead for a communist takeover of Russia, helped to finance the Japanese side in the Russian-Japanese war and used his influence to block loans to the Czar’s government from America. This was the same Jacob Schiff who a little more than a decade later provided the Jewish-Bolshevik movement with an infusion of $25 million to finish the job in Russia: that’s $25 million from capitalist Wall Street to finance the communist butchery of Gentile Russians. In 1917 $25 million was a lot of money; in any case it bought enough bombs and bullets and communist propaganda leaflets to get the job done.

 

Now, none of this Jewish activity was really secret. The lemmings didn’t know about it, because it wasn’t in the funny papers or the movies. But Jews weren’t even trying to keep their sympathies or their activities secret, and observant Gentiles continued to issue warnings to anyone who would listen. But, as I said a moment ago, we weren’t vigilant. White Americans didn’t believe that they were in any danger. Things such as the deal to bring America into the First World War in return for the turning of Palestine over to the Jews were too subtle for the American mind.

 

After the war the mass murder of Ukrainians and Russians by Jewish-Bolshevik commissars might possibly have registered with White Americans, except that the average White American didn’t think of Russians and Ukrainians as real people: they spoke a different language and dressed differently from us. And besides, by that time the Jews had gotten a pretty good grip on Hollywood and the broadcasting industry, and so the only side of the story that most Americans were allowed to see or hear was the Jewish side.

 

Europeans were more vigilant than Americans. For one thing Europeans had longer memories: they were more aware of the long history of Jewish scheming and predation than Americans were. For another thing, in Europe the danger was quite a bit closer. Communist parties in a number of European countries besides Russia had taken advantage of the chaos in the wake of the war to make grabs for power, and in a few countries – Hungary, for example – they succeeded temporarily. People noticed the ethnicity of the commissars and were horrified by their behavior toward the Gentile populations. Even in insular Britain no less a public figure than Winston Churchill spoke out clearly about the danger of Jewish communism. In a full-page feature article in the February 8, 1920, issue of London’s Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote:

 

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weisshaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, and Emma Goldman in the United States, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing. It played . . . a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

 

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or of Zinovieff . . . or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.”

 

Actually, Churchill said quite a bit more in this article about the dangers of allowing Jewish communism to go unchecked, and if you really want to make a study of the background of our present mess you should read the entire article yourself. That’s the February 8, 1920, issue of the Illustrated Sunday Herald. If you can’t find it yourself in a large research library, the entire article is photographically reproduced in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, which is available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. And when you do find the article from which I just read – a major article written by one of the most prominent personalities of the last century and published in a major British newspaper – you might ask yourself why you had never heard of it before I called it to your attention.

 

As I said, we lacked vigilance. A few people paid attention – America’s pioneer automaker Henry Ford, for example – but most White Americans were too busy with their ball games and funny papers. And we didn’t really care about what the Jews were doing to White people overseas, since they weren’t Americans. About the only people who really paid attention were the Germans, who resolved not to let the Jews do to them what they had done to the Russians and had tried to do to the Hungarians. So they proceeded to get Rosa Luxembourg and her pals off their backs and out of Germany. And when the Germans did that, the Jews in America began screaming bloody murder and calling for another world war to save them from the Germans. And by this time the Jews had almost a monopoly on getting their side of the story to the American public.

 

Well, our people had one other fault in addition to an inadequate sense of racial solidarity with other Whites around the world and a lack of vigilance: we also lacked responsible leadership. We lacked even a system for giving us responsible leadership. What we had were politicians: skilled liars – actors, lawyers – who never asked themselves, “What policy is good for our people?” but only, “How can I get elected? What must I promise the people in order to get their votes? What policy will make me popular?” And as the grip of the Jews on the mass media, on Hollywood and Madison Avenue – and therefore on the minds of the public – became more and more nearly complete throughout the last century, the question the politicians asked themselves became, more and more: “What must I do to please the Jews and gain their support?”

 

And so in 1933, in the same year that a German government took office with a policy of freeing the German people from the grip of the Jews, in America a government took office with a policy of doing whatever the Jews wanted done. Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself with more Jews than any previous American President. In this regard he was the Bill Clinton of his day.

 

Using Roosevelt as their willing tool, the Jews pulled the same sort of bait-and-switch trick on the American people to get us into the Second World War that they had pulled using Woodrow Wilson to get us into the First World War. Just as Wilson had done 24 years earlier, Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940 on a campaign promise to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, and while he was making that promise to the American people he was actively scheming with his Jewish advisors and supporters to get the United States into the war as soon as he could, and meanwhile to keep the war in Europe going by making promises of support to those countries opposed to Germany.

 

It was fighting on the wrong side of that war, more than anything else, that laid us low. It also destroyed the British Empire and laid Britain low. Throughout the non-White world Whites began abdicating their rule, withdrawing, apologizing. The disease of egalitarianism spread like wildfire. There was a moral collapse throughout the White world. It wasn’t just the German people who lost the Second World War; it was all Europeans, all White people, including European-Americans.

 

The Jews were the only real winners. The First World War resulted in opening up Palestine for their Zionist faction and delivering Russia to their communist faction. The Second World War not only saved them from getting booted out of Europe by Hitler, it delivered all of eastern and much of central Europe to their communist faction and finished delivering Palestine to their Zionist faction. The war cost them a million or so of the less-nimble Jews in Europe, but it gave them the basis for their enormously profitable “Holocaust” story, with which they have beaten the White world over the head ever since.

 

And so today we have George Bush trying to outdo Bill Clinton in multiculturalizing the government of the United States. Conservative Americans, patriotic Americans, put their hope in Bush to pull America back from the insanity of the Clinton era, and the first thing Bush does is try to ingratiate himself with the Clintonistas, with the Jews, by appointing non-Whites to the most important posts in his administration.

 

Read the man’s lips. What he’s saying is: “Hey, I’m really not such a bad guy. See, I’m appointing Blacks, I’m appointing Jews, I’m appointing Mexicans. And the Blacks and Mexicans I’m appointing are just as pro-Jewish as I am. My tough-talking Black secretary of state speaks Yiddish and will support Jewish interests around the world just as strongly as Bill Clinton’s Jewish secretary of state has done. You can trust me. I’ll do whatever you tell me. I’ll support Israel. I’ll support ‘speech crime’ laws. I’m your man.” And he’s not saying that, he’s not making these appointments, because that’s what Republicans want or even what Americans want. It’s what the Jews want. George Bush is a hollow man, an empty man.

 

And George Bush is a splendid symbol of the state of our race today: a splendid symbol of our moral collapse during the past century. It is entirely fitting that such a man should be our figurehead leader as we continue on the course of racial suicide that we have been on for the past century. It is entirely appropriate that he became our figurehead leader through the comic-opera sort of process we have witnessed during the last two months of the first year of this century – which certainly will be our last century if we do not make a radical change of course soon and begin regaining our lost moral strength.

 

* * *

Summer, 1945 – Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT

 

by Thomas Goodrich

 

Sometimes a book comes along that changes the way we think. Sometimes a book comes along that changes the way we act. Sometimes a book comes along that changes the way we think and the way we act. Such a book was Hellstorm – The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947. That masterpiece by Thomas Goodrich changed forever not only how we would view World War Two, but it changed how we would view the world itself. For the first time since it happened, because of one bold and breath-taking book, the scales fell from our eyes and we were finally able to see free and unfettered what the abomination called World War Two was really all about. Swept forever into a dark, dirty corner was the filth and disease of seventy years of Jewish propaganda, seventy years of Jewish lies about the so-called “Good War” and the so-called “Greatest Generation,” seventy years of Jewish mendacity about who was bad and who was good. Suddenly, overnight, replacing those lies was an honest, impartial, unbiased, but driving, relentless, and utterly merciless account of the fate that befell Germany in 1945.

 

As incredible as Hellstorm was, is, and will always remain, we now know it was only half the story. While the bloody obscenity that was World War Two was being acted out against a largely helpless German population by as evil a cast of creatures as ever haunted any hell anywhere, a similar horror show was taking place on the far side of the globe. And what is revealed in Tom Goodrich’s latest book, Summer, 1945 – Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate, is a story so savage and sadistic as to numb the senses.

 

While some of the events described in Summer, 1945 will be familiar to readers of Hellstorm, many will not. Clearly, the author did a vast amount of new research for this new book since much material is previously unknown, especially regarding the contributions of the “Greatest Generation” to its already ghastly list of war crimes against Germany. In fact, what was previously revealed about the Americans in Hellstorm, horrific as it was at the time, was only the faintest foretaste of what was to come in Summer, 1945. For example…

 

Massive, monstrous, staggering as was the scale of Red Army rape in Germany, it now seems clear that the Americans were not far behind, if behind they were at all. Simply put: No one in control cared. Far from trying to halt the nonstop sexual attacks that their men committed against helpless German females, US officers, like Soviet officers, either ignored them, laughed at them, or actively encouraged them. Upon entering their communities, American officers forced Germans to write the age and sex of all occupants in their homes, then ordered the lists nailed to doors. “The results are not difficult to imagine,” said one horrified priest from a village where women and children were soon staggering to the local hospital after the predictable sexual assaults commenced. Some US generals even blamed the victims themselves for their own gang rape when they dared leave their homes to beg for food. Lt. General Edwin Clarke went further when he announced that the thousands of rape reports in his area were nothing more than a conspiracy by die-hard Nazis to belittle and embarrass his well-behaved and totally innocent troops. Clarke apparently believed that the hundreds of thousands of beaten, bruised and bleeding women and children were all liars with self-inflicted sex wounds. Also, to drive home German defeat, it was noted that GIs were being ordered by their “political officers” to make the gang rapes as public as possible. Although such brutal attacks were already common on streets and sidewalks, in schools and shops, an audience of family members was the preferred crowd for gang rape. Forcing German men to watch was also favored by the Americans, just as it was by their communist comrades. Another hideous American war crime, a despicable act of hate and savagery, was the cold-blooded murder of SS and Wehrmacht soldiers the moment they surrendered their weapons. “You will not accept the surrender of any German SS,” announced one American general, demonstrating his commitment to barbarity and a criminal contempt for the Geneva Convention. By the tens of thousands these German soldiers, some of the best fighters the world had ever seen, were shown no mercy by the cowardly US murderers. In one massacre alone over seven hundred SS men were murdered in a matter of minutes; in another massacre, five hundred died, and so on.

 

“The Americans forced the Germans to walk in front of them with raised hands,” said an eyewitness regarding one group of fifty. “Then they shot the prisoners in their heads from behind.”

 

Additionally, the unbelievably sick and sadistic torture camps operated by the US Army and European Jews in Germany and Poland was on a psychopathic scale beyond belief. Well over a hundred thousand German men, women and even children suffered brutal deaths in these nightmarish torture pens. One might have imagined, and one would have certainly hoped, that after Hellstorm nothing more could have possibly been added to this perfectly hellish script of torture – victims buried alive, women forced to lay with and kiss rotting corpses–but one would have imagined wrong. Those few who survived these demonic camps. where dying was a thing to be postponed, not hurried, could no longer be called human. Of virtually all German men and boys who somehow survived to reach home, it was noticed all had their reproductive organs destroyed beyond repair.

 

But horrific as the so-called “peace” in Germany was, perhaps the greatest revelations for readers of Summer, 1945 come in the war chapters devoted to Japan. From the first page forward we readers, especially we American readers raised on the mythology of the “Dirty Jap,” will find our world of make believe turned upside down and inside out. Winners do write the history. And never was this more apt and terribly illustrated than in the case of America’s victory over Japan.

 

One of the greatest lies to emerge from WWII and survive for over seventy years intact, is the one we have been told over and over ever since December 7, 1941, viz., that the Japanese soldier was a mindless, murderous automaton, that he would never surrender, that he would always fight to the death, that he “lived to die” for the Emperor, that suicide was his second nature, and so on. There is no truth to any of these fairy-tales. Such a revelation as I have just stated here should not have come as any great surprise to anyone when they think about it, but it did come as a great shock to me and it will to everyone else, I am sure. When one has been told a “truth” such as this about the “robotic” Japanese soldier, a truth told for so many years from so many sources, one simply believes it as totally, completely and mindlessly as that night follows day. After reading a few pages of Summer, 1945, however, it will be very clear to everyone that never was there a greater falsehood.

 

While reading what the opposing sides thought, in their own words, it is quickly clear that emotionally there was no appreciable difference between what a Japanese eighteen-year-old wanted and what an American eighteen-year-old wanted. First and foremost, both wanted to live. Both wanted to survive the war so that each might return home and marry that girl they loved so much, to have kids, to get a good job, to buy a car, to raise a small garden, to play in the backyard with pets. The problem for the Japanese was that Americans were taking no prisoners. From the very first battle on Guadalcanal when frightened young Japanese began walking forward with their hands held high to surrender muttering the only English word they knew, “Mercy, mercy,” US Marines began mowing them down… all of them, not just an isolated few here and there . . . all of them. In countless testimonies, it is readily apparent that Japanese soldiers in hopeless situations would have gladly surrendered, by the thousands, if only they could. The hatred was so great, however, and the propaganda so virulent following President Franklin Roosevelt’s orchestrated attack at Pearl Harbor that American soldiers, sailors and airmen were simply taking no prisoners, nor did the folks back home or their commanders want them to.

 

“You will take no prisoners, you will kill every yellow son-of-a-bitch, and that’s it,” yelled a marine colonel as he and his men were about to land on one island.

 

Thus, the manufactured belief after Pearl Harbor that the Japanese always fought to the death and never surrendered worked perfectly into the deep desire of Americans to kill the “sneaky Japs,” kill them all. And so, with no option now but to fight fanatically to the death, the Japanese did. And thus, it was a case where propaganda became a self-fulfilling truth.

 

Added to the merciless murder of helpless enemy soldiers was the torture and mutilation the Americans inflicted on those who were merely wounded. Ears, noses, fingers, toes, and other body parts were cut off the dead and dying for souvenirs; heads were hacked off and their “cured” skulls then sold to sailors or sent home to friends and family members; even Roosevelt received a letter opener carved from a Japanese arm bone.

 

“This is the sort of gift I like to get,” beamed the US president proudly.

 

The few Japanese who were in fact saved for interrogation were kept alive only as long as their information was useful, then they too were shot, bayoneted or pushed from flying aircraft.

 

Another falsehood that has existed as fact for the past seventy years is that the US military conducted itself properly during the occupation of Japan and helped the defeated nation gently back to its feet during peace. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. From the day they arrived, the Americans took ruthless control of what little remained of the destroyed nation. Women, children and the elderly were thrown into the streets and forced to shift among the ruins as best they could. At every available opportunity, Japanese men suffered humiliation and degradation and many were slapped, kicked and beaten in public “for fun.” All Japanese were treated like third-class citizens for years. Starvation stalked the land even before the conquerors arrived but though the Americans had a surplus to draw from food was denied to the people, just as it was in Germany. As a result, it is likely that millions perished during the first years of occupation. It was noticed that starving children were smaller in 1946 than they were in 1936.

 

Additionally, just as in Germany, rape reared its filthy head in “peace.” From the moment American troops came ashore on Saipan and Okinawa – two Japanese islands with large civilian populations–rape of females, and sometimes rape of males, began. And just as in Germany following its surrender, the violent sexual assaults in Japan continued unabated for years. No one in power, from General Douglas MacArthur down, was concerned in the least about the despicable, plague-like crime. Indeed, MacArthur was much more concerned with censoring the news of rape from the outside world than stopping rape in Japan itself. Goodrich estimates that over a million Japanese women and children were raped after the war.

 

There are many other shocking revelations that might be lifted from this blistering book but then, after all, this is only a review of the book and not the book itself. Readers will have to discover the rest of this startling, riveting read for themselves. Truly, Summer, 1945 is aptly subtitled, “the harvest of hate.”

 

In closing, a few final thoughts on the author himself. Anyone who has read anything by Tom Goodrich knows that he is a passionate man who writes with great power, strength and scope. It is a trademark that sets him apart from others. But his books also reveal the inner writer; a writer within who displays a large heart and soul. One senses early in a book that Goodrich actually cares about his subjects. There is, of course, the larger focus of each book, the “big picture,” but Goodrich never loses touch with the small, the fragile, the seeming insignificant, the all-but-forgotten. A touching example is offered in Summer, 1945 when a Japanese adolescent, whose face has been melted beyond recognition by the atomic blast at Hiroshima, makes plans to kill herself rather than be chained for the remainder of her life to the face of a monster. Just as the child is about to commit the final act, she overhears in the next room her anguished father quietly discussing his daughter with her mother. Sadly, agreeing that the child’s face is indeed hideous beyond belief, the man then states with both pain and love in each word that he loves his girl so much that her life, not her looks, is all that matters to him. Stunned, never imagining that anyone could ever love her again with such a terrifying face, the words of love were startling to the child, so startling that she suddenly realized that although death would indeed release her from a life of pain and shame, such a selfish act would only add to the heartbreak of her father. The girl matures to womanhood when she decides then and there to accept her fate, deal with her problems herself, and simply be thankful for the love that still blesses her life when so many others are now bereft of all.

 

Generally, to reach an honest and accurate understanding of an event such as World War II, one must be so dedicated to the truth that they are prepared to plow through days, weeks, months, and years of dry, sterile material filled with tedious facts, figures and stats. Few of us have the time, patience or stamina for such research. Thankfully, there are those like Tom Goodrich who do have what it takes for the long haul. Ultimately, it is the “long haul” that delivers the details of history from which comes what we know as truth. Without our history, without our truth, we are nothing as a people. That’s why our enemy is so determined to hide or distort our history; it is also why people like Tom Goodrich are so determined to retrieve our history. Discovering the truth of our history, even after decades of propaganda and lies, is what will ultimately set us free. These two books – Summer, 1945 and Hellstorm – have gone a very long way toward setting us free. And this is what makes Thomas Goodrich’s writing style so special. Almost in spite of ourselves, we sense the truth in his words. We, the readers, are drawn into a Goodrich book before we hardly know it. Truth is like that, like a strong magnet. A day or two later, when one emerges from the book–one “emerges” from a Tom Goodrich book, they never “finish” something that stays with them forever – they feel like they are different people; they have been to places that they never knew existed; they have gone to worlds that they were not supposed to go; they have gained knowledge and understanding that they were never meant to gain. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an uncanny writing ability. We call it genius.

 

Summer, 1945 – Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate has already taken its place with Hellstorm as one of the all-time most memorable and important books ever written, not just on World War II, but on history in general. If that sounds biased, that’s because it is. We White Nationalists are extremely fortunate to have one of the world’s finest and most dedicated historians fighting on our side. People like Thomas Goodrich are why we are winning and why our victory is just a matter of time.