Sunday, July 30, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
„Ardent propagandists lashed the British public into a fury at the work of German Zeppelin and aeroplane raiders raining death and destruction on defenseless women and children ...The carnage caused by allied airmen in German towns has been kept very quiet, but two instances will be enough to show its quality. In June, 1916, British and French pilots bombed Karlsruhe during the Corpus Christi procession, killing and wounding 26 women and 124 children. In a second raid in September they caused 103 casualties in the same city...Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however, well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic. This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any truth derogatory to the Jews, and in New York it has been made a crime)...It has been estimated that of the world Jewish population of approximately fifteen millions, no fewer than five millions are in the United States. Twenty-five percent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well...All over the world, and especially in the U.S.A. Jews will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross- currents in the tide of World Jewry, the identification of Russian Jews with Communism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which may come to roost! Which should warn us not to rely too much on having it entirely in our favor...I have said already that the Jew is a more energetic than a skillful propagandist, but he is undoubtedly energetic. At present we are with traditional readiness giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether permanent or in passage, did not harbor resentment against the countries which had expelled them, and it should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany...The U.S.A. will simply supply the world (with moving pictures, practically all owned by the Jews) Not only is she far and away the greatest producer, but, much more important still, she largely control the machinery of the world film distribution...they (the Americans) can perhaps be expected, inthe security of their own detached hemisphere, to see European affairs realistically. For one thing, the American is the great champion of the oppressed, and frequently of the oppressed which may explain why he is so frequently taken in by the ‘hard-luck’ story of London confidence tricksters! Secondly, the American peoples are still under the influence of much of the Great War propaganda. They are more susceptible than most people, to mass suggestion, they have been brought up on it, and since 1918 they have shut themselves off from reality. Thirdly, they are at this moment the battle-ground of an active propaganda of Labels.“ (Propaganda in the Next War, by Sidney Rogerson, pp. 86-148; War! War! War!, by Cincinnatus, pp. 191-193).
„The people who own and manage national impact media are Jewish and, with other influential Jews, helped create a disastrous U.S. Mideast policy. All you have to do is check the real policy makers and owners and you find a much higher concentration of Jewish people than you’re going to find in the population. By national impact media I am referring to the major news wire services, pollsters, Time and Newsweek Magazines, thye New York Times, Washington Post, and the International Herald Tribune. For example, CBS’ Mr. (William) Paley’s Jewish. Mr. Julian Goodman, who runs NBC, and there’s a Leonard Goldenson at ABC. Mrs. Katherine Graham owns the Washington Post and Mr. Sulzberger the New Yor Times. They are all Jews!
You go down the line in that fashion...not just with ownership but go down to the managing posts and discretionary posts... and you’ll find that through their aggressiveness and their inventiveness, they now dominate the news media. Not only in the media, but in academic communities, the financial communities, in the foundations, in all sorts of highly visible and influential services that involve the public, they now have a tremendous voice.
Our policy in the Middle East in my judgement is disastrous, because it’s not even handed. I see no reason why hearly half the foreign aid this nation has to give goes to Israel, except for the influence of this Zionist lobby. I think the power of the news media is in the hands of a few people...it’s not subject to control of the voters, it’s subject only to the whim of the board of directors.“ (Former Vice President Spiro Agnew)
„‘The Jewish Establishment“: ‘In the early 1930s, Wlater Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.
How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime’s persecution. Would that paper’s respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?
There you have an epitome of what is lamely called ‘media bias.’ The Western supporters of Stalin haven’t just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call ‘the McCarthy era,’ to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself.
Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as ‘anti-Semitism.’ But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.
It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.“ (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue).
„What of the big newspapers of all countries, controlled directly or influenced indirectly by the great Jewish capitalists, through intermediaries, editors, information agencies, or publicity! Try to advertise in the big Press, or even in so-called national journals of Paris, London, New York, Vienna or Rome, a publication which clearly shows the action of Israel and its imperialism, and you will see what kind of welcome it will receive.“ (Les Victoires d’IsraÇl, Roger Lambelin).
„In my opinion, according to the law of defamation prevalent in this country (U.S.A.), you cannot in any way participate in the publication of the ‘Forces Secrätes de la RÇvolution’ by de Poncins, without incurring grave legal responsibility with risk of damages...The personalities and associations criticized are so powerful in this country that very costly lawsuits would certainly result from the publication of the book.“ (Forces Secrätes de la RÇvolution’, LÇon de Poncins).
„Will posterity believe that, while the Press has swarmed with inflammatory productions that tend to prove the blessing of theoretical confusion and speculative licentiousness, not one writer of talent has been employed to refute and confound the fashionable doctrines, nor the least care taken to disseminate works of another complexion.“ (June 29, 1789, Arthur Young, Travels in France and Italy).
„We are interested in stifling the sale of this book. We believe that this can be best accomplished by refusing to be stampeded into giving it publicity...The less discussion there is concerning it the more sales resistance will be created. We therefore appeal to you to refrain from comment on this book...It is our conviction that a general compliance with this request will sound the warning to other publishing houses against engaging in this type of venture. (Signed) Richard E. Gutstadt, Director.“ (Anti-Defamation League, Chicago, December 13, 1933, wrote to publishers of Anglo-Jewish periodicals, concerning a book antagonistic to Jewish interests; The Conquest of a Continent, Madison Grant).
„The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American public opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, owned respectively by the Sulzbergers, Meyers, and the Pulitzers, (all Jewish families).“ (Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II, (1978), pp. 218-219).
„Our task is not to tell the truth; we are opinion molders.“ (Walter Cronkite).
The Jewish owned Social Democratic Herald, on September 14, 1901, characterized Negroes as „inferior...depraved elements’ who went around ‘raping women and children.”
„We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence on our press, radio, and motion pictures. It may become very serious. (Fulton) Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual System if a certain feature was permitted to go on the air. The threat was powerful enough to have the feature removed.“ (Charles A. Lindberg, Wartime Journals, May 1, 1941).
„Arrangements have been completed with the National Council of Churches whereby the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League will jointly...aid in the preparation of lesson materials, study guides and visual aides... sponsored by Protestant organizations.“ (American Jewish Yearbook, 1952)
Monday, July 24, 2017
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
by Dr. William Pierce
You know, I think that the word „patriotism“ has a different meaning today than it did when I was growing up. It used to mean a love of one's native land and one's people: one's fatherland, according to the etymology of the word. The fatherland was the land where one's ancestors had been born and where a large extended family -- everyone descended from those ancestors who originally had settled the land -- now lived. Patriotism really had a tribal or racial meaning. It was a feeling based on blood. And although our ancestors had come to America from all parts of Europe, they were enough alike that they still could feel the bond of blood. They still felt themselves members of a large family, a family with European roots, and they could stand together as brothers against those who were not part of the nation. Whether they came from Scotland or Ireland or England or Sweden or Germany or Poland they could fight together against Indians or Mexicans. They felt their kinship, and that was the basis of their patriotism.
Well, that racial meaning of patriotism is one that the people who control our mass media obviously don't like. They've multiculturalized patriotism along with everything else. Their propaganda for a new brand of patriotism is pretty blatant stuff. I'm sure you've seen the television ads a hundred times where a very diverse bunch indeed -- Blacks and Browns and Yellows, with a few Whites thrown in -- proclaim sequentially, „I-am-an-American.“
These days, to be „patriotic“ means to wave the flag and shout slogans whenever the mass media deem it appropriate. It means to cheer the government whenever the government decides to use its cruise missiles or its smart bombs to kill a bunch of people in some other country, regardless of the reason. Instead of blood-based patriotism, today we have government-based patriotism. If you wave the flag and support the government, you're a patriot. If you don't like what the government is doing and you say so, then all of the flag-waving, slogan-shouting yahoos look at you as if you are the enemy.
Back in the 19th century American patriots -- real patriots -- were winning land for us from mestizos and pushing them back across the Rio Grande. „Remember the Alamo!“ was a patriotic slogan then. Today it's something the media and the government want us to forget or to feel embarrassed about, as the mestizos come flooding back in this direction again in a great wave of re-conquest: the reconquista. And the government in Washington is helping them. They're flooding not just into Texas and the other parts of the Southwest, but wherever greedy employers want cheap labor. And if you raise your hand against this government-sponsored invasion, if you try to push a few mestizos back across the border, you're not considered a patriot; you're a terrorist or a „hate criminal.“
Two years ago, in July 2000, a group of White men chased some Mexicans out of a park in Billings, Montana. Just chased them out, told them the park was for Whites, didn't hurt anyone. Last week a Federal judge in Billings sentenced one of the White men to 15 years in prison and two other White men to 10 years each. For chasing some Mexicans out of a park. The media thought those sentences were just about right. So did the Bush government, which had one of its Justice Department Jews, a Mark Blumberg, acting as prosecutor. Fifteen years in a Federal prison for chasing some Mexicans out of a traditionally White park, without actually hurting anyone. If you looked carefully you could have seen that in an Associated Press report from Billings last Saturday.
Imagine the Billings situation reversed: Mexicans chasing Whites out of a barrio park in some Browned-out area of Texas or California. Do you think the Federal government would rush a Jewish prosecutor to the area to make sure that the Mexicans were locked up for 15 years? Let me tell you, the Bush government would pretend that nothing had happened. There wouldn't even be a prosecution. Patriotism, government style, these days means not fighting back against what is being done to the country that our ancestors fought and bled to win for us.
At least, that's one side of government-style patriotism. The other side, as I said a moment ago, is to wave your flag and cheer mindlessly whenever the government, on orders from Israel, kicks the bejesus out of some little country without an adequate air-defense system. The government-style patriots never ask why we're beating up somebody or pounding some other country back into the Stone Age. They don't really care. They're as mindless as baseball fans. To them all that matters is that our team is pounding the other team, and so they cheer.
It used to be that, in order to have the patriotic support of the people, the government had to have a good reason for starting a war. It used to be that our people had to feel that they were defending themselves -- or at least, defending some legitimate American interest -- before they could feel patriotic about killing people in other countries. Making it easier for Israel to hang on to stolen Arab land in the Middle East is not a legitimate American interest. But the government-style patriots, with the little flags tied to their car antennas, don't need a reason. It makes them feel good that their government is able to kick sand in the face of just about anybody else on the beach and get away with it. They like cheering for the biggest bully in the block, as long as the bully is successful. They cheer the government in the same way the Roman mob used to cheer for their favorite gladiator in the Colosseum.
I spend half an hour every day scanning through the TV news channels -- not primarily to find out what has happened in the world, but rather to find out what the party line is on what's happened in the world. In this regard, Fox News is probably the most revealing. Nearly every day Fox interviews one or more Defense Department consultants or retired generals or other government officials as „experts“ on the current U.S. war in the Middle East. Without an exception these „experts“ are enthusiastic supporters of the current war. Was our blasting of Afghanistan and the ousting of the government there a good thing? They are absolutely certain that it was. Should we start another war with Iraq next? They are unanimous in their opinion that we should. What about Iran? Hell, yes, we can lick them too. But never a reason. Never an explanation of why it is good for us to tear up all of these countries, beyond the fact that we're bigger than they are and can get away with it: no explanation of how it serves our interests, of how it makes the world a better place for America.
With „experts“ like that to set the tone, it is no wonder that the yahoos are going around with their chests stuck out now because we beat up Afghanistan and will go around with their chests stuck out even further after we beat up Iraq or Iran.
You know, I just said that no one ever asks why we have to whip all of these other countries. Of course, the stock answer, if you raise the question to one of the Fox News „experts,“ is that we're „fighting terrorism.“ What we're doing in the Middle East now is waging a „war against terrorism,“ they'll tell us. Well, that's an explanation that doesn't bear close examination. If our war aim is to protect ourselves from terrorism, why do we need to wage war against Iraq? Iraq has never inflicted any terrorism on us or even threatened to do so. Every Fox News „expert“ takes it for granted that it would be a good thing to kill Saddam Hussein. Why is that? Saddam Hussein is not a fanatical Muslim fundamentalist who is likely to do anything wild and crazy against America that would provoke retaliation.
I'll tell you what Saddam Hussein is. He is a strong leader of his nation. He may be a mean and ruthless SOB -- he may be the kind of fellow you wouldn't want your sister to marry -- but he is a strong leader who refuses to take orders from Jews or from the U.S. government. He does not threaten America and has no reason to do so unless he is pushed into a corner, but the Jews are worried that he might provide help to the Palestinians. They are worried that he will be a threat to further Israeli expansion in the Middle East because he refuses to be bullied or bought. That is the reason that all of the Fox News „experts“ agree that it would be a good thing to assassinate him -- although they won't come right out and state that reason. Instead they give us the standard, mealymouthed party line about Iraq and Saddam Hussein being a potential terrorist threat that we need to neutralize.
Of course, if we do wage war against Iraq or against Iran, then we will have to worry about terrorist reprisals. When they have nothing else to lose, then they will strike at us with whatever means they have. But if we mind our own business and look out for our own interests, neither Iran nor Iraq has any reason for provoking us. If we had been looking out for our own interests before September 11 instead of for Israel's interests, 3,000 Americans who lost their lives on that day would still be alive.
Sometimes the Fox News „experts“ use a more abstract justification for killing people in other countries who haven't done anything to us: they might do something to us in the future, so we'd better kill them now. The notion that they put forward in a roundabout fashion is that the only way for America to be safe is to kill off everyone who has the potential for hurting us in the future: which is to say, everyone who has the resources for developing weapons of mass destruction and who also refuses to take orders from us. That's a rather interesting way of looking at things, and some rather extreme conclusions can be drawn from it. But if our government actually did believe that is the best way to protect America, then we should launch an all-out nuclear attack on Israel immediately. Israel not only already has developed a very dangerous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction but also is a psychotic nest of murderous thugs posing a danger to the whole world. More than that, Israel has repeatedly shown itself willing to use terrorist tactics against anyone, including America, anytime it thinks it can get away with it.
A memorable example of that is Israel's murderous attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American servicemen. The Israelis attacked our ship without warning, using jet aircraft (supplied by the United States) and torpedo boats. Their plan was to sink the Liberty, kill all the survivors in the water by strafing, and then blame it on the Egyptians, in order to cause hostility between the United States and Egypt. That was not the first time Israel had tried such a trick, but it was the most murderous. It failed only because the radio operator aboard the Liberty was able to get off a message identifying the attackers as Israelis before the attack had knocked out all of the Liberty's communications.
But of course, the Fox News „experts“ who advocate going to war against Iraq and Iran, sending in occupation troops, and then placing them under puppet governments, because otherwise they might someday develop weapons of mass destruction and use them against America, would faint dead away if it were suggested to them that the same reasoning should be applied to Israel, but even more so. These same „experts“ also pretend that the reason for the September 11 attack was that Osama bin Laden „hates our freedom“ and had nothing at all to do with the U.S. government's support for Israel.
One might forgive this sort of behavior on the part of the yahoos. In a sense they don't know any better. They've been raised with the new patriotism -- the government-patriotism -- and they really don't see anything wrong with cheering a government that attacks other countries that haven't attacked us. All that matters to the yahoos is that their team beats the other team: Yea! We're the greatest! Don't mess with us!
But people don't get to be generals by being so shallow in their sensibilities and understanding. The Fox News „experts“ understand all the subtleties of the issues involved, but they're too crooked to speak the truth.
I'm sure that it didn't used to be so bad. I'm sure that the „experts“ have become more crooked than they used to be, and the truth has become a scarcer commodity. This was brought to mind last week by the media uproar when a Baptist preacher's remarks to President Richard Nixon, made 30 years ago, came to light. Billy Graham, the high-profile celebrity preacher, media star, and adviser to presidents, was about as oily as other Baptist preachers most of the time, but occasionally he spoke frankly on sensitive subjects, as the Oval Office tapes from the first half of 1972, released to the public last week by the National Archives, reveal.
During a meeting with Nixon and others in the Oval Office on February 1, 1972, Graham complained about the total domination of the mass media of news and entertainment in America by Jews. This Jewish control of the media certainly was no secret. I had published the first edition of my exposé of Jewish media control, complete with names and mug shots, which I titled „Who Rules America?,“ in 1968. Every politician and other leading figure in Washington knew about the Jewish domination of the media; they were just afraid to talk about it for fear of reprisals from the Jews. The result of this timidity was that Sally Soccermom and Joe Sixpack didn't have a clue. The big shots all knew what the Jews were up to, but they were afraid to tell the public. Most of the big shots were even afraid to discuss the Jews among themselves.
In 1972, however, Billy Graham not only complained to Nixon and others in the Oval Office about the Jewish stranglehold on the media, he understood what this Jewish media control was doing to America, and he told those in the Oval Office, and I quote, „This stranglehold has got to be broken, or the country's going down the drain.“ -- end of quote -- President Nixon agreed with Billy Graham, but he was too cowardly to do anything about it. Nixon said, and again I quote from the Oval Office tape, „I can't ever say that, but I believe it.“
That's a poor commentary on the quality of leadership we have in America. The President understands what Jewish media control is doing to the country, but he is afraid to take any action to protect the country. He prefers to stand aside and let the country go down the drain. And you know, he could have stopped it then. There were enough top military leaders then who still had some old-fashioned patriotism. With a little planning, every Jewish media figure from Hollywood to Madison Avenue could have been arrested and eliminated in a single day. The same thing could have been done with the courts, the Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. A clean sweep could have been made. The country could have been pulled back from the brink and put on an entirely different course.
Think what an enormous difference that would have made during the past 30 years. We could have cut off all immigration from the Third World and from Asia. The whole hip-hop, rap, MTV culture being pushed by the Jewish entertainment media could have been nipped in the bud. All of the Jewish filth and poison and brainwashing that America has been saturated with during the past 30 years could have been flushed down the drain in 1972, and the country could have been put on an upward course again.
The flow of weapons and money from the United States to Israel could have been halted in 1972, and Israel would have ceased to exist the following year, during the 1973 war. There would be no belligerent Israel in the Middle East today with a nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal threatening to spark the Third World War and providing the impetus behind the efforts of every other country in the region, Iraq and Iran included, to develop their own weapons of mass destruction in order to counter Israel. But the man with the power to change everything, the man who understood that it needed to be done, the President of the United States, was afraid to act, afraid even to talk about it except among his associates in the White House.
Things clearly are worse today. When Billy Graham's 1972 conversation with Richard Nixon was made public last week, Graham was afraid to acknowledge it. He said that he didn't remember the conversation, but he groveled and apologized anyway. And I cannot imagine anyone in the Bush government today having the courage or the honesty even to have a conversation in the White House about what the Jews are doing to America and to the world and what needs to be done to counter them. Richard Nixon was a crook and a coward, but George Bush is far worse. And the top military leaders today are far less patriotic than the ones of 30 years ago were. The top military leaders today are like the retired generals that one sees being interviewed on Fox News: a sorry lot indeed, who will not even acknowledge the reason for the September 11 attack on America. The are not patriots; they are prostitutes.
The men who control America's mass media are the men who really rule America today. They understand that, and the prostitutes do too. It is essential to both the rulers and the prostitutes that no real patriots gain the power to upset their applecart. The military system over the past 30 years has evolved in a way that weeds patriots out early and keeps them from reaching the top. Actually the military leadership system has been evolving that way over the past 50 years, with an Affirmative Action promotion policy that favors non-Whites and looks with suspicion on White males who still have old-fashioned ideas about patriotism. But 30 years ago there were still a few patriots willing to speak out. General William Westmoreland was the last of these really to say much.
The political system is even worse. It ensures that only men like Bill Clinton and George Bush can reach the highest levels: totally corrupt men, with absolutely no sense of honor or responsibility or real patriotism. We are in real trouble, and it will take real patriots to get us out, but real patriots are in short supply these days. What we have today masquerading as patriots are crooks at the top and flag-waving yahoos at the bottom.
Nevertheless, there still are a few real patriots, a few old-fashioned patriots, here and there, and as America continues down the drain I will not be surprised to see one or two of these begin to take action of some sort, but it is unlikely that they will act through the conventional channels of electoral politics or the armed forces.
Thanks for being with me again today.
Monday, July 17, 2017
National Geographic aired a new show, “Genius” focusing on the life of Einstein, claiming he solved the mysteries of the universe despite being hated by Germans for being Jewish. In reality, Einstein was a plagiarist, communist, Zionist and a fraud. He is a constructed myth.