Monday, May 30, 2016
Friday, May 27, 2016
Famous People about Jews
Part I
VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie
Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:
"Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable
result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the
whole human race..."
"The Jewish nation dares to display an
irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters;
always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others,
always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity."
(Essai sur le Moeurs)
"You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The
Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and
more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all
nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to
be punished, for this is your destiny." (From a
letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his 'anti-Semitism.'
Examen des Quelques Objections...dans L'Essai sur le Moeurs.)
CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer. In La Renovation, journal of
the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER: "Jews!
To the heights of your Sinai...I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out
to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation
has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades
accuse you: Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red
Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is
waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest
people, go there!!! ("Israel")
"We come now to the libel involving the gold, the Jewish gold. This
is obviously why the present case is being tried close to the Aurelian Steps.
It is because of this particular charge that you have sought out this location,
Laelius (the prosecutor), and that mob (referring to the noisy crowd of Jews
whom Laelius had assembled to create a commotion at the trial). You know how
large a group they (the Jews) are, and how influential they are in politics. I
will lower my voice and speak just loudly enough for the jury to hear me; for
there are plenty of individuals to stir up those Jews against me and against
every good Roman, and I don't intend to make it any easier for them to do this.
Since gold was regularly exported each year in the name of the Jews from Italy
and all our provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict forbidding its
exportation from Asia. Who is there, gentlemen of the jury, who cannot
sincerely commend this action? The exportation of gold had been forbidden by
the Seanate on many previous occasions, and most strictly of all during my
consulship. Further, that Flaccus was opposed to this barbarous Jewish
superstition was proof of his strong character that he defended the Republci by
frequently denying the aggressiveness of the Jewish mobs at political
gatherings was an evidence of his high sense of responsibility." (Speech
of Cicero, which is one of the few revelations of Jewish subversion which
survived the burning of libraries. The great consul of Rome, Cicero, had to
lower his voice to avoid stirring up the Jews. A Roman aristocrat, Flaccus, was
removed from office and dragged back to Rome to face a false charge. Why?
Because he had tried to enforce the Roman law banning the Jewish traffic in
gold. The outcome of this trial was that Flaccus ban on the shipping of gold
was removed. Thus the Jews won their objective, and Flaccus was lucky to escape
with his life after he had opposed them. (Harry
J. Leon of the University of Texas, p. 3, Jews of Ancient Rome).
"He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious
crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they
poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients,
and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on
the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the
preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he
would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the
roots." (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249).
"Judaism is a unique gift to this land that people of myriad faiths
and cultures call home ...The Talmudic teachings of mercy and justice, and
those who have sought to uphold these ideals, grace the pages of American
history. We can draw strength and inspiration fromt he enduring lessons of
Judaism, and it is entirely fitting that we honor the great traditions of its
followers." (April 20, 1005 President Clinton signed a
Jewish Heritage Week Proclamation).
This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a
"CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia
Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina: "I fully
agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an
insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.
"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers, they have
lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated
themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to
undermine the Christian Religion upon which that nation is founded by objecting
to its restrictions; have built up a state within a state; and when opposed
have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of
Spain and Portugal.
For over 1700 years the Jews have been bewailing their
sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, they call
Palestine. But, Gentlemen, should the world today give it to them in fee
simple, they would at once find some cogent reason for not returning. Why?
Because they are Vampires, and Vampires do not live on Vampires. They cannot
live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people
not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States,
in this Constitution in less than 200 years they will have swarmed in such
great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land, and change our form
of government [which they have done -- they have changed it from a Republic to
a Democracy], for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our
substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our
descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them sustenance, while
they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, Gentlemen,
if you do not exclude the Jews for all time, your children will curse you in
your graves. Jews, Gentlemen, are Asiatics; let them be born where they will,
or how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise.
Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live
among us ten generations. A Leopard cannot change its spots.
Jews are asiatics, they are a menace to this country
if permitted entrance and should be excluded by this Constitution." (by
Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the six founding fathers designated to draw
up The Declaration of Independence. He spoke before the Constitutional Congress
in May 1787, and asked that Jews be barred from immigrating to America. (The above are his exact words as quoted from the diary of General
Charles Pickney of Charleston, S.C.).
"I believe that the active Jews of today have a tendency to think
that the Christians have organized and set up and run the world of injustice,
unfairness, cruelty, misery. I am not taking any part in this, but I have heard
it expressed, and I believe they feel it that way. Jews have lived for the past
2000 years and developed in a Christian World. They are a part of that
Christian World even when they suffer from it or be in opposition with it, and
they cannot dissociate themselves from this Christian World and from what it
has done. And I think that the Jews are bumptious enough to think that perhaps
some form of Jewish solution to the problems of the world could be found which
would be better, which would be an improvement. It is up to them to find a
Jewish answer to the problems of the world, the problems of today." (Baron
Guy de Rothschild, NBC-TV, The Remnant, August 18, 1974)
"From the days of Adam (Spartacus) Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx
to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman. This world-wide
conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstruction of
society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and
impossible equality, has been steadily growing...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,
atheistic 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." (Winston Churchill, Sunday
Illustrated Herald, London, England, February 8, 1920)
It seems to me that it is principally with Mr.
Neufville we have to do; and tho' I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in
Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of
Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would
have attempted to enforce his Demands (which I doubt not will be extravagant
enough) by a Proceeding so abominable." (The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 8, The MacMillian Co., p.
332).
"The Gulag Archipelago, 'he informed an incredulous world that the
blood-maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered sixty-six million victims in
Russia from 1918 to 1957! Solzhenitsyn cited Cheka Order No. 10, issued on
January 8, 1921: 'To intensify the repression of the bourgeoisie.'" (Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago)
"The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age." (Napoleon
Bonaparte)
"A Jew is anyone who says he is." (David
Ben Gurion)
"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 Jew continues to monopolize money, and he loosens or strangles
the throat of the state with the loosening or strengthening of his purse
strings...He has empowered himself with the engines of the press, which he uses
to batter at the foundations of society. He is at the bottom of...every
enterprise that will demolish first of all thrones, afterwards the altar,
afterwards civil law." (Hungarian composer Franz Liszt
(1811-1886) in Die Israeliten.)
"The Jews are the most hateful and the most shameful of the small
nations." (Voltaire, God and His Men)
"There had been observed in this country certain streams of
influence which are causing a marked deterioration in our literature,
amusements, and social conduct...a nasty Orientalism which had insidiously
affected every channel of expression...The fact that these influences are all
traceable to one racial source [Judaism] is something to be reckoned with...Our
opposition is only in ideas, false ideas, which are sapping the moral stamina
of the people."
(My Life and Work, by Henry Ford)
"You've seen every single race besmirched, but you never saw an
unfavorable image of a kike because the Jews are ever watchful for that. They
never allowed it to be shown on the screen!" (Marlon
Brando, Playboy, Jan. 1979)
"It is rather surprising is it not? That whichever
way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through
society, you come upon a group of Jews. In sports corruption, a group of Jews.
In exploiting finance, a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy, a group of
Jews. In liquor propaganda, a group of Jews. Absolutely dominating the wireless
communications of the world, a group of Jews. The menace of the movies, a group
of Jews. In control of the press through business and financial pressure, a
group of Jews. War profiteers, 80 percent of them, Jews. The mezmia of
so-called popular music, which combines weak mindedness, with every suggestion
of lewdness, Jews. Organizations of anti-Christian laws and customs, again
Jews. It is time to show that the cry of bigot is raised mostly by bigots. There
is a religious prejudice in this country; there is, indeed, a religious
persecution, there is a forcible shoving aside of the religious liberties of
the majority of the people. And this prejudice and persecution and use of
force, is Jewish and nothing but Jewish.
If it is anti-Semitism to say that Communism in the
United States is Jewish, so be it. But to the unprejudiced mind it will look
very much like Americanism. Communism all over the world and not only in Russia
is Jewish." (International Jew, by Henry Ford,
1922)
"The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here,
but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with
the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the
people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing
to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we
have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developed place and land in
general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying
also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general
community of your worships, that the deceitful race, such hateful enemies and
blasphemers of the name of Christ, be not allowed further to infect and trouble
this new colony, to the detraction of your worships and dissatisfaction of your
worships' most affectionate subjects." (Peter
Stuyvesant, in a letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India
Company, from New Amsterdam (New York), September 22, 1654).
"They {the Jews} work more effectively against us, than the enemy's
armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great
cause we are engaged in...It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago,
has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have
to the happiness of America." (George Washington, in Maxims of
George Washington by A.A. Appleton & Co.)
"The Jews form a state, and, obeying their own laws, they evade
those of their host country. the Jews always considered an oath regarding a
Christian not binding. During the Campaign of 1812 the Jews were spies, they
were paid by both sides, they betrayed both sides. It is seldom that the police
investigate a robbery in which a Jew is not found either to be an accomplice or
a receiver." (Count Helmuth von Molthke, Prussian
General)
"The Jews are a class violating every regulation of trade
established by the Treasury Department, and also department orders and are
herein expelled from the department within 24 hours from receipt of this
order." (President Ulysses S. Grant)
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Israeli Terrorism Against America
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
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Friday, May 20, 2016
The Feminization of America
by Dr. William Pierce
I always have been very fond of women -- perhaps too
much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really
worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have
served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and
respected men who have served their purpose.
Having said this I must tell
you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our
society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or
two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.
This came to mind most
recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh's statement to
the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said
was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its
citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens
will not respect the law.
But the spectators almost
uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted
to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for
the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren't even interested
in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr.
McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual
victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual
feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine
attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.
Many other people besides me
have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come
right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political
Incorrectness, the height of "insensitivity." As far back as the
1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine
character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male
university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in
boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently
willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.
We have always had both soft,
dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were
comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in
our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s.
The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making
extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military
service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this
isn't enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.
Something written by the
American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my
attention. Adams wrote "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it
has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and
women." Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing
interest in such matters -- he was a lifelong student of these things and also
was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at
that university were expected to know what they were talking about -- so we
ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in
America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America's most
distinguished families. He was a great grandson of the founding father and
second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth
President, John Quincy Adams.
Henry's brother, Brooks Adams,
had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by
Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made
an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw
two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the
farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by
the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a
different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of
Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.
He saw spiritual man as having
the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men
coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the
civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are
those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their
spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds
and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their
spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an
economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run
strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And
Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even
considering the Jews or Chinese.
Most of us are a mixture of
the two types, and it's difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or
purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type
of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today -- Bill Clinton or
Newt Gingrich, say -- and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not
to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since
they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or
exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame.
So what does this have to do
with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men
at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely
interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of
Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our
feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity.
When I say "loss," I
am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine
elements, masculine characteristics; it's just that they are weaker now than
they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies
to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would
be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the
machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for
the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a
ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews
characterize our society in large part today -- they are symptoms of the
pathology afflicting our society -- but we must look deeper for the cause of
our decay.
Let me repeat Henry Adams'
observation. He wrote: "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it
has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and
women."
If he were writing today, he
might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given
way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western
tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of
Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th
century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession
of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th
century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be
found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and
lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken
seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business
of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians
of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of
superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.
Can we properly describe this
change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be
thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a
general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of
looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams' position now
and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing
materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic
values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?
Actually, a great deal. In a
very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic
values -- egalitarian values -- are feminine values. It is also true that, in a
very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is
a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible
things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as
honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a
limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant
frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature's majesty are unknown to the
materialist.
As spiritual man gives way to
economic man, when one historical era merges into another -- as idealism gives
way to materialism -- society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while
it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to
talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God's children are loved equally.
Pickaninnies are considered "cute" or even "adorable." The
role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly
and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or
as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her
children will be supplied with whatever they need.
It is not just society which
changes, not just government, not just public policy; individual attitudes and
behavior also change. The way in which children are raised changes. Girls no
longer are raised to be mothers and homemakers but rather to be self-indulgent
careerists. Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and
resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule
during the formative years. A disciplined environment gives way to a permissive
one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline. Spanking becomes a
criminal offense. The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given
the opportunity to fail and to learn from this the penalties that the real
world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up
to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is
an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification
they seek eludes them.
The move from masculine
idealism to feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism, egoism, and
eventually narcissism. Henry Adams also claimed that we have lost our taste for
wine and women. Well, certainly not in the sense that we have become less
interested in alcohol or sex. What he meant is that we have lost the keen edge
of our appreciation for civilization's refinements, for the finest and most
subtle things in life: that our appetites have become grosser as they have
become less disciplined. Our interest now is in alcohol for its ability to give
us a momentary buzz, not in fine wine for its inherent artistry.
A similar consideration
applies to the way in which our taste for women has changed. And is this not to
be expected? It is the masculine spirit which appreciates woman, which
appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for
women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women
were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which
homosexuality is open, tolerated, and increasingly common; Madonna is a
celebrated symbol of American womanhood; and feminine beauty is a mere
commodity, like soybeans or crude oil: an age in which parents dump their
daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America's schools and cities have
become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and
feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it
otherwise -- to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example -- would be a blow
against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again
to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth
and nail by the feminists as a limitation on women's freedom.
This subject is a little
fuzzy, and I've been speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. For
almost everything I've said, an opponent could produce a counterexample. And
that's because I'm talking about very large-scale phenomena, involving many
people, many institutions, and many types of interactions. Even during periods
of history which I would characterize as masculine or as dominated by the
masculine spirit, one can find examples of feminine tendencies and of institutions
with a feminine spirit, just as one can find masculine tendencies in our
society today. For example, while I claim that our society is becoming more
effeminate today, someone can attempt to counter that by noting that
masculinized women are more prominent today -- female lawyers, female
executives, female military officers -- and one can attribute that to masculine
influences in our society. I would counter that by saying that when men become
less masculine, women become less feminine.
Likewise, when I relate
materialism and feminism, or when I say that the rise of the economic spirit is
associated with a decline in masculinity, someone else can find plenty of men
with no shortage of testosterone -- strong, aggressive capitalists -- who are
epitomes of what Brooks Adams called "economic man."
What it really amounts to is
that the masculine character, like the feminine character, has many components.
The component I have emphasized today is the spiritual component -- and there
are other components. It is a complex subject. But I still believe that we can
meaningfully describe what has happened to our society and our civilization
during the past couple of centuries as a decline in masculinity. I believe that
such a description sheds a useful light on one aspect of what has happened to
us. And I believe that Henry Adams' comment on our society's loss of its
artistic sense and of its sense of reverence, along with its warrior spirit, is
a generally true statement which has value in helping us to understand our
predicament. Adams, to be sure, was a scholar of considerable depth, and he
wrote a great deal of carefully reasoned material to support the one-sentence
summary which I quoted.
By the way, one subject with
which Henry Adams -- and his brother Brooks too -- were familiar in this regard
was the role of the Jew in undermining civilization. Henry made a number of
comments about the destructive role of the Jews in the economic and cultural
aspects of European civilization. His observations on this subject are perhaps
best summed up by something he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1896: "The
Jew," he wrote, "has got into the soul . . . and wherever he . . .
[that is, the Jew] goes, there must remain a taint in the blood forever."
How much worse that taint has become during the century since Henry Adams made
that observation!
I apologize for being so
abstract in my own comments today. But I believe that it's useful to back off
every now and then and try to see the big picture, to try to develop an intuitive
sort of understanding of our situation, even if it means talking about things
which are by their nature somewhat fuzzy.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Saturday, May 14, 2016
"Masonry was founded by Jews as a cosmopolitical institution"
Last week I posted on the claim from 1855
that "Masonry is a Jewish institution" by "the founder
of American Judaism", but I had to rely on a secondary source albeit a scholarly and
Jewish one. Now thanks to Henry, I have the original source. Henry's an
frequent commenter on my blog, and his knowledgeable insights are usually far
more informative than my posts that he's
commenting on. So a public thank you to Henry for his success in obtaining and
sending me the two 157-year-old newspaper pages below.
Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise
(1819 — 1900), 32nd Degree Freemason.
In August 1855, when Wise
wrote the articles below, he would have been 36 years old, and was both the
editor, founder and proprietor of the Cincinnati Jewish newspaper in which they
appear, The Israelite, since 1874, known as The American Israelite.
With with the full articles, we are able to learn in what context he made his
assertions (turns out he did it repeatedly) that Masonry was a Jewish
institution.
Wise had clearly been incensed by a letter which had been published in The Boston Morning Times from an anonymous Mason from Massachusetts, in which he had claimed:
"... here in
Massachusetts Masonry is a Christian, or rather Protestant institution ;
Christian, as it merely TOLERATES Jews ; Protestant, as it abhors
Catholics,"
Wise reprinted the letter from
the Massachusetts Mason in the August 3, 1855 edition of The Israelite,
and penned a response, in which he stated:
"We characterize the
above principles as anti Masonic, because we know that not only Catholics but
Israelites in this country and in Europe are prominent and bright Masons. We
know still more, viz. that Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history,
degrees, charges, passwords and explenations (sic) are Jewish from
the beginning to the end, with the exception of one by-degree and a
few words in the obligation, which true to their origin in the middle ages, are
Roman Catholic. (...) it is impossible to be well posted in Masonry
without having a Jewish teacher,"
A fortnight later, in the
August 17, 1855 edition of The Israelite, Wise published a letter
from "A Young Mason" from Boston, Massachusetts, responding to Wise's
original article. Once again, Wise followed it with a response. This time he
wrote:
"Masonry never was
especially Jewish, nor is it now especially Christian, it always sustained, and
according to its nature must sustain cosmopolitical character."
But that was in direct
response to an assertion by "A Young Mason", that a Rev. Brother
Randall (presumably, a Protestant clergyman and Mason in the Massachusetts),
insists that Masonry "was once mainly Jewish but now it is mainly
Christian."
A clearly enraged, and at
times sarcastic Rabbi Wise, went on to clarify his position that Masonry was a
Jewish institution. He also insisted that Jews gave the world Christianity
to gradually convert the heathens to the teachings of Israel's prophets. And
then mocks the Rev. Brother Randall, by stating that the Jews did not do
him personally a favour, although he is a privileged position, being a preacher
in a faith which the Jews created (as Henry pointed out: Jewish scholar Samuel
Oppenheim declined to quote these passages from Wise, even though he quotes
from this article in his 1910 book on Jews and Masonry):
"It is a great favour,
the Rev. R. believes that the Jews are admitted in the lodges etc. of which
they must be sensible and grateful. Why does he not consider it a favor, that
we have the privilege of living in our houses. Masonry was founded by Jews
as a cosmopolitical institution, hence it is a favor for the Jew to be
admitted in the lodges, viz. in our own house. How sapient!
We Jews have given birth to
the masonic fraternity as a cosmopolitical institution; but we consider it no favor
to admit you in the lodge, provided, however, you leave your secterianism
outside of the consecrated walls. We have given you Christianity to convert
the heathens gradually to the pure deism and ethics of Moses and the Prophets;
still, we consider it no special favor bestowed on you from our side, that you
have the privilege of being a preacher in one of the churches."
The Israelite, August 3, 1855 (enlarged
version)
The Israelite, August
17, 1855 (enlarged version)
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials
Published: 1996-01-01
"It is
the victors who write the history."
—Patrick J. Buchanan
—Patrick J. Buchanan
- "[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience."
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes,
Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148\.
- "Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, 'The winner is always right'."
Lieutenant General Fahri
Belen, Turkish Army
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17\.
- "It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority... The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority...the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration."
Admiral of the Fleet, Lord
Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7\.
- "I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria."
Vice Admiral, Richard H.
Cruzen, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39\.
- "No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.
- "I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein."
Edgar N. Eisenhower, American
Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168\.
- "I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials."
T.S. Eliot, English poet and
author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51\.
- "I shall always have doubts about the whole 'War Crimes Trials,' both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria."
George B. Fowler, Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111\.
- "My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy's leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug."
Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43\.
- "This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it."
Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V.
Gallery
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII\.
- "I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations."
Dr. George Peabody Gooch,
C.H., British historian and author.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87\.
- "It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people's sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier's death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me."
Reichsmarschall Herman Göring
David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506\.
David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506\.
- "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future."
Honorable Justice Learned Hand
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.
- "I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since."
The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey,
P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50\.
- "The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: "Nullum Crimen Sine Lege" - a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: "It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations."
In my opinion, there was no
legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called
"war criminals" by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad
precedent. It should not be followed in the future\.
William L. Hart, Justice of
the Supreme Court of Ohio
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx\.
- "The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy."
U.S. President, John F.
Kennedy
John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190\.
John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190\.
- "The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel,
U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42\.
- "I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure."
Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3\.
- "About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret."
U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191\.
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191\.
- "I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges."
Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47\.
- "To me the Nuremberg trials have always been
totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially
true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services
who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing
more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life.
In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried
out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the
head of their government\.
If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government's orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence - the waging of successful war in the interests of their country."
Rear Admiral Robert A.
Theobald, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39\.
- "My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority... The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral\.
One of the most shameful
incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the
investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of
trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official
investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and
to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy
aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal,
unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to
secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the
Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions
and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the
defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was
secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and
threats."
Honorable Edward Leroy Van
Roden, President Judge
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67\.
- "The Tribunal claimed in theory the right — it certainly had the power --to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence, any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal."
F.J.P. Veale, English jurist
and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146\.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146\.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)