Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Feminism: The Great Destroyer

An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce

 

By Kevin Alfred Strom

 

KAS: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the “sexism” rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

 

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled – in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the “sexism” in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

 

WLP: Oh, it’s certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There’s a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

 

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill’s complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women’s welfare. But what were Anita Hill’s complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

 

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part – at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn’t talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office – but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas’s behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It’s a so-called “multicultural” society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

 

KAS: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn’t significant?

 

WLP: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate’s approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you’ll get a nasty glare; call one of them “my dear” or refer to her as a “girl” and you’ll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

 

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn’t want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I’ll go further and say that I really don’t approve of drunkenness under any circumstances – although I believe it’s only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn’t a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

 

KAS: That’s really irrational isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to ignore human nature like that.

 

WLP: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

 

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called “affirmative action” – isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

 

KAS: You just referred to feminism as “a destructive aberration” and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

 

WLP: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay – when the men lose their self-confidence – then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

 

KAS: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

 

WLP: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

 

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it’s a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It’s Politically Correct.

 

And while we’re at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

 

KAS: OK. So that’s what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America’s decline?

 

WLP: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

 

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

 

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

 

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

 

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

 

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

 

KAS: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women’s rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

 

WLP: Well, of course, I’m not in favor of taking anything away from women. I’d like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature’s way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn’t the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it’s no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

 

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what’s expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there’s no need to take away anybody’s rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society – a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people – so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn’t begin undermining the health of the whole society.

 

KAS: But what about the people who control the media now – what about the legislators – who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

 

WLP: We’ll do whatever is necessary. Now we’re helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

 

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who’ve jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, someday, for their irresponsibility.

 

KAS: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

 

WLP: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

The Real Auschwitz Chronicle: The History of the Auschwitz Camps

 

Source: https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=48

  

by Carlo Mattogno

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF AND EPUB FORMAT.

 

The most important historical-documentary source about Auschwitz published so far is Danuta Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle, first published in 1989 (German edition). However, the author, working from communist Poland, has given an extremely biased picture of the camp: It is limited to the alleged extermination of Jews and Gypsies, which is presented as virtually the sole purpose of Auschwitz. A separate study (volume 47 of the present series) has documented in detail that Czech’s work is a mendacious conglomeration of assumptions, distortions, inventions and omissions.

 

The opening of Eastern archives after the collapse of the Eastern bloc has provided access to vast collections of sources, opening up immense historical horizons that require a complete revision of the communist propaganda view of history prevalent during the Cold War, which is attempted herewith.

 

This present work focuses on sources that were unknown or inaccessible to Czech, or that she intentionally passed over. The purpose is to provide the reader and researcher with a more-comprehensive historical picture of Auschwitz Camp activities. In the first, chronological part of the present study, the focus is on documents concerning the sanitary and medical situation and the planning and construction of the camp. They show, for example, that there were always tens of thousands of prisoners at Auschwitz who were not fit for work: „inpatients“, „invalids“ and „juveniles“. Other documents show that a lot of effort was made to nurse sick prisoners back to health. These prisoners were therefore not killed, as Czech could falsely claim by hiding these documents from her readers, but they persistently appear in the documents as alive and kicking.

 

The only merit of Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle is the listing of deportation transports that arrived at Auschwitz. However, her approach is purely chronological, making it impossible to get an overall picture. Since compilations of overall figures are far more important than individual data, the statistical aspects of the history of Auschwitz have not been integrated here into the first, calendrical part, but are reproduced in tabular form in the second part. This also lists what Czech reprehensibly neglected: the occupancy rate of the camp as well as the verifiable mortality rates. This also finally provides a definitive answer to the question: How many prisoners demonstrably died in the Auschwitz camp? Moreover, the number of inmates transferred from Auschwitz to other camps in 1944/1945 is meticulously documented: about 280,500 witnesses to what happened at Auschwitz. The Germans had nothing to hide.

Monday, February 12, 2024

Call Them by Their Name: Part II – Realizations About Jews

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/call-them-by-their-name-part-ii-realizations-about-jews/

 

At first, it does seem ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that any certain group, especially one making up less than 1% of the population, could be responsible for so much. At the same time, tell me which other group of people has been expelled from thousands of places for “no reason?” Was it because of an undeserved distrust of the Jews or was it because of the characteristics of their religion and people?

 

It is undeniable the role that Jews play in this world now after thousands of years of their trial and error to gain power over it. (Further reading onward). And with a lot of power comes a lot of influence with due judgment, both negative and positive. As it turns out, much of the judgment they have gotten has in fact been widely positive and accepting, and all negative judgment has been simple reactions to their bad behavior. Just the opposite of what they want you to believe.

 

Many believers of the Jew may say “if the Jews are so bad, how is it that they are so powerful and intelligent as to supposedly rule the world?” To that I say, that is exactly how they are able to rule it. Have you ever seen people with such power who had not been crookedly omnipotent in whichever ways?

 

The rest of the world cannot rightfully be blamed for unknowingly submitting to such evil skill that is possessed by the Jews.

 

After being attacked in ways you never could’ve seen were the fault of a specific group and not of society itself, could you really be blamed? Could the average man or woman really be responsible for not being able to predict the actions of cloaked and unfathomable evil? No. Especially not in a world with so much other evil to veil our eyes over select events. This is not natural and supposing a lack of natural intelligence to be at fault is incompatible with the truth.

 

The only way to get the slightest advantage over such evil is to intentionally learn its ways, and such is not even possible by common human intuition. The only person who isn’t involved in evil itself who can learn is the outsider who views the world from a separate perspective. And still then, it’s only after long enough can he ever visualize the all encompassing patterns. Patterns which much often occur in patterns better symbolized by randomized numbers than any formal model.

 

Just within fairly recent history, the past 80 years, the Jews have displayed the undeniable power they have over the world. They have used their supposed “undeserved genocide” by the Nazis as a means to get assistance by Britain, an allied force in WWII, in creating a state on land which they stole from Palestinians.

 

They felt that because of what they went through, they deserved their own country, and the British, being indoctrinated and largely possessed by the Jews, felt that they had to help their “ally.”

 

If you so desire to even speak of the genocide of the Palestinians in various western nations, it is punishable by fines or even jail time.

 

In the US, antisemitism is hate speech, and hate speech is a crime punishable with prison time. The U.S. House of Representatives has now passed a resolution equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

 

– 412 yes

 

– 1 no (R-KY Thomas Massie)

 

– 1 present (D-MI Rashida Tlaib)

 

In Berlin, Germany, state authorities have banned the wearing of Palestinian keffiyeh scarves in schools.

 

Pro-Palestine protests are being banned all across Europe.

 

If even the majority of the public has woken up to the true horrors being committed by Israel, how can it be that almost every western government still supports the state of Israel? The answer is fairly straightforward. The few officials who aren’t Jews themselves, have been forced into the ideology of Zionism. Zionists are able to excuse the fact that they have stolen the land of Palestine, trapped its peoples within their new borders, and went on the commit genocide against them all in the name of forming a religious homeland. In such a religion as Judaism, they truly do believe that a religious land can be formed on top of the graves of thousands of innocents.

 

Now, while it is important to mention it, this series is not about Zionism. Zionism is only one part of this puzzle, and the full puzzle reveals only the Jew himself.

 

The Gentile provides a serious threat against the desires of Judaism and Jewish culture, and this is why the Jew is so easily able to dehumanize him. Jews possess an inherent desire to take and never provide. The Talmud itself has many quotes proving just that. (The following is not an exhaustive list):

 

Sanhedrin 57a:16

 

With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt.

 

Sanhedrin 57a:17

 

With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile.

 

Sanhedrin 57a:22

 

It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted.

 

Bava Kamma 113b:8

 

Hurry and precede the gentile so that you can bring my share of the wood from the trunk of the tree, which is thicker than the upper part of the tree, as the gentile knows only the number of logs that he is due to receive and will not realize that you are taking thicker pieces.

 

Regardless, the actions of certain peoples are still not to be blamed upon the religion itself. For who made the religion itself if not these peoples? The only blame for actions is to be placed upon those who commit those actions.

 

For example, pedophilia: “An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored.” (Ketubot 11b, The William Davidson Talmud)

 

In Jewish tradition, when a baby is circumcised, the people who do the ritual circumcisions, called mohelim, use their mouth to suck blood away from the baby’s wound as part of the ritual. This practice is called Metzitzah B’peh. It serves no medical purpose and can even be harmful if certain oral bacteria is transferred into the wound. Who is to blame besides the Jew who is doing such things?

 

Further reading on Metzitzah B’peh: https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/safe-bris.page#:~:text=When%20a%20baby%20is%20circumcised,part%20of%20the%20circumcision%20ritual.

 

I find it important to mention that the only relationship the Talmud prohibits any Jew to pursue is a relationship with goyim. Whilst the hostility of the Jews against non-Jews has already been brought up, I want to make note of this requirement for purity in particular. Keeping racial stock is important to any race as it prevents ‘mutts’ from being brought about. The Jews know this better than anyone else, which is why they promote immigration and race mixing among everyone besides themselves. They use this to claim superiority over white men, whilst knowing that many of the “white men” they have crossbred are far from the superior “whites” their ancestors once were. The Jews know they must weaken their competitors, and when it comes to doing so, one must admit their skill in being so self-sufficient when it comes to playing God.

 

Furthermore, a significant thing to mention in regard to their attempt to play God is just how far from Godly it truly is. To bring about suffering in the name of greed, degeneracy, filth, and destruction is the furthest from holy you can get. The Jew seems only to live to prove this point.

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Jews: The First Terrorists

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jews-the-first-terrorists/

 

By Karl Radl

 

It is a dusty, bustling marketplace in the Middle East: you can taste the sand in your mouth and smell the thick scent of spices in the air. You can hear the siren calls of stall vendors drumming business and the high-pitched exclamations of merchant and customer haggling over the price of a sack of spice.

 

Then the serenity is broken by a commotion, a loud crash and screams. Immediately the market erupts into chaos as people alternatively flee for safety or run to see what has happened. A chaotic scene has occurred near the centre of the market with the town magistrate lying dead in the sand and several bystanders on the floor bleeding profusely or crying for a healer.

 

You can hear the cry of ‘Help! Help!’ in the air and the sound of heavily shod feet with metallic clanking announces that the forces of law and order on their way. However, the culprits have made their getaway: they look just like everyone else.

 

How are the forces of law and order to catch them now?

 

The answer is that they can’t. But yet everybody knows who did this: religious fanatics who want to destroy the state and kill anyone who doesn’t comply with their vision of a theocracy run on their interpretation of the will of the One True God.

 

The above scene is one that I am sure many readers will associate with the modern Middle East and the Islamist insurgency against their rulers. You might think of the murders in Tunisia, Yemen, Lebanon or Pakistan.

 

Yet what I am describing above occurred centuries before the birth of Mohammed and just after the death of Jesus. This was the original war on terror, and it wasn’t the West fighting Islamic fundamentalists, but rather the Roman Empire fighting jewish fundamentalists. It was these jews who invented our modern conception of terrorism to a significant extent, and it is these jews – as one recent authority rightly observes – (1) who clearly demonstrate that if Islam is a terrorist religion: then it only became one because it is heavily-based (to the point of outright plagiarism) on Judaism.

 

These jewish terrorists (a designation that is not even contested) (2) were known as Sicarii (literally ‘Daggermen’) and they were jewish fundamentalists fighting a three-fold religious war, which had three objectives. The first was to force the Roman Empire to leave Judea. The second was to purge all those jews who collaborated with Rome or oppressed fellow jews. The third was to purify jewish society and religious observance along the lines of their own ideas about how a pure Judaism should look and act.

 

The Sicarii – often confused with the Zealots from whom they originated as a splinter group in circa 50 A.D. – were the ancient equivalent of suicide bombers (before suicide bombers could well… blow themselves up) and the famous Islamic sect of the Assassins. They were fighting for a state based on strict religious observance – which wouldn’t be looked unfavourably on by even the most flea-bitten of jihadis – to the precepts of Judaism (in their interpretation of it) and were the (essentially) militant arm of a broader insurgency that was centred on the Zealot party. (3)

 

The Sicarii – like the Islamists of today – were the archetypal terrorists who primarily attacked soft targets such as civilians who opposed them or collaborators with the Roman Empire. Josephus – himself associated with radical anti-Roman jewish religious groups before he surrendered to the future Emperor Vespasian – narrates one such incident as follows:

 

‘When the countryside had been cleared of them, [religious fundamentalist guerillas – K.R.] another type of bandit sprang up in Jerusalem, known as ‘Sicarii’. These men committed numerous murders in broad daylight and in the middle of the city. Their favourite trick was to mingle with festival crowds, concealing under their garments small daggers with which they stabbed their opponents. When their victims fell, the assassins melted into the indignant crowd, and through their plausibility entirely defied detection. The first to have his throat cut by them was Jonathan the high priest, and after him many were murdered every day. More terrible than the crimes themselves was the fear they aroused, every man hourly expected death, as in war. They watched at a distance for their enemies, and not even when their friends came near did, they trust them; yet in spite of their suspicions and precautions they were done to death; such was the suddenness of the conspirators’ attack and their skill in avoiding detection.’ (4)

 

If you think about the above describes a very similar modus operandi to modern day Islamist terrorists with the only significant difference that the Sicarii didn’t have high explosives to kill their opponents in large numbers in one go and spread terror. So instead of blowing themselves up: they did what Islamists today still do a significant amount of the time. That is make use of targeted killings of well-known figures in public places: demonstrating their capability to get to any individual or group and thus spreading the fear of God (pun intended) into their opponents.) (5)

 

The Sicarii didn’t attack the Roman legions as to do so was suicide: as their own experience during Felix’s (the Roman procurator) reprisals against them demonstrated (the Sicarii gathered together their followers in the desert and fought a small Roman force in a pitched battle losing miserably). (6) However, because the token Roman force in Judea was at Caeserea (Syria proper in the north was the main garrison for the area) and the Romans relied on locally-raised militia to act as policemen: it was possible to avoid a head-on confrontation with the regular Roman soldiery. (7)

 

To create a situation where jews might be more amenable to their politics the Sicarii – like the Islamists of today – engaging in acts of propaganda such as demonstrating their pledge to alleviate the sufferings of the jewish poor by burning the debt registers at the Temple in Jerusalem (8) as well as their burning down the palatial homes of the jewish priests. (9)

 

When this object of rousing sufficient religious fervour – or just simple socio-economic factors rationalized by religious fanaticism – (10) among the jews had been achieved: the Sicarii (lead by a jew named Menahem who – it is generally agreed based on Josephus’ account – was an egotistical religious tyrant who dressed in finery and considered himself the future ruler of the world) (11) managed to sneak into the Herodian fortress at Masada and murder the Roman garrison as they slept. (12)

 

An act which is not at all an uncommon attempt in areas where jihadi attacks are common: such examples can frequently be seen in the attacks on bases and outposts of the Pakistani military near the tribal areas and also in the attempts to infiltrate NATO bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. The missions themselves if successful seize a powerful piece of territory and if not will spread fear and terror at the audacity of attacking a far more powerful opponent so openly (with all the attendant risks).

 

The Sicarii then proceeded to install their own garrison at Masada, which numbered several hundred fighters and their families. (13) This – as Goodman records – (14) was the majority of their members and had been predicated by their failed coup against the Zealots and Galileans in Jerusalem (who were themselves splinters from original jewish fundamentalist radicals). (15) This may have been conceived of by the Sicarii in the same way that the Taliban used the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in the wake of the NATO invasion of Afghanistan: as a way of using terrain and fortification to level the military playing field against a foe with superior equipment and/or numbers.

 

Given Masada’s reputation and the fact that it was a purpose-built super-fortress (meant to be a Herodian hiding place in case of revolt): the Sicarii probably felt that they (with Yahweh’s blessing of course as they were after religious fanatics) (16) were invincible and could thus engage the Romans and other jewish factions with impunity. However naturally enough the (first) jewish revolt was squelched by the Roman forces with – in spite of common Zionist odes to it – the amount of time it took being simply accounted for by the time it took to dispatch fresh forces to the area (as those in Syria proper were needed to keep an eye on the Parthian Empire) and the fact that it wasn’t just one group revolting, but rather a whole series of them (one of which was the Sicarii). (17)

 

Indeed, the siege of the Sicarii in Masada often overlooks the simple fact that the Romans didn’t actually besiege it for most of the siege, but rather left some troops to surround it and bottle up the Sicarii (and begin the construction of the massive siege rampart), while they went around and crushed all the local jewish settlements supporting the rebellion. Only in the last 2-3 months did the Romans return and – in a phrase – get serious about Masada, which they reduced in a matter of days – if not with a single attack by second rate troops (their Auxilia not the famous Legionaries) which the archaeology suggests contrary to Josephus’ account – in spite of frenetic (although utterly ineffectual) Sicarii resistance. (18)

 

Although this wasn’t the last of the Sicarii (a large sect of them operated in Alexandria in Egypt as well and they promptly lead their followers out into the desert) (19): the defeat at Masada more or less broke their backbone as an organized terrorist force, because it had helpfully concentrated most of their fighters together in one place where they could be bottled up and exterminated at leisure.

 

This is again much like modern Islamists who when they have stopped to fight conventional wars tend to not only lose but lose horrifically. Instead, we can see this behaviour of the Sicarii as more of a strategic mistake (and a not uncommon one historically). (20) Thus, in the long term it was strategically beneficial to engage in terrorism as after all when you are a terrorist and attack soft targets (as the Sicarii did and Islamists tend to do). Then you have the advantage that your targets frequently don’t have any inkling you are coming and more importantly: don’t shoot back (as a bullet in the chest can seriously crimp even a religious zealot’s style).

 

Goodman’s rather amusing attempt to trying and ascribe to Judaism a status as ‘not causing terrorism’ (21) on the basis of a ‘multiplicity of opinions’ (22) is frankly ludicrous. His argument is rather like stating – if you will – that a follower of Marxism does not want to eliminate the existence of the bourgeoisie, because there was a (and still are) ‘multiplicity of opinions’ inside of Marxism on the subject of who and what the bourgeoisie are (and how precisely they are to be dealt with). In essence Goodman is making an argument that Judaism is not responsible for the production of jewish religious fanatics, because there are opinions in Judaism other than those of religious fanatics.

 

That as such is true, but it is disingenuous in so far as it is asserting that a religion that regards its followers as a national unit (cf. Ezra and Nehemiah for example let alone the Mishnah), regards those who are not its followers as effectively sub-human (hardly controversial if one but reads the Mishnah, Gemara and then looks at even modern rabbinic opinion such as that of the late Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel) and believes that it has a destiny (and will) rule the world (the basic assumption required to believe in Judaism) is ipso facto not going to produce numerous religious fanatics bent on doing just that.

 

Thus, we can see that the Muslim bent on jihad that we hear so much about today is merely a modern version of the original religious terrorist: the jewish Sicarii.


References

 

(1)  Max Boot, 2013, ‘Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present’, 1st Edition, Liveright: New York, pp. 208-209

 

(2) Cf. Richard Horsley, 1979, ‘The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish Terrorists’, Journal of Religion, Vol. 59, pp. 435-458

 

(3) Peter Schaefer, 1995, ‘The History of the Jews in Antiquity’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, p. 73

 

(4) Joseph. Bel. Jud. 2:264

 

(5) Martin Goodman, 2008, ‘Rome & Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations’, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 407

 

(6) W. Oesterley, 1932, ‘A History of Israel’, Vol. 2, 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 434

 

(7) Ibid., p. 435; Martin Goodman, 1997, ‘The Roman World 44 BC – AD 180’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, pp. 255-256

 

(8) Sean Freyne, 2002, ‘The Revolt from a Regional Perspective’, p. 51 in Andrea Berlin, J. Andrew Overman (Eds.), 2002, ‘The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York

 

(9)  Joseph. Bel. Jud. 2:427

 

(10) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 104

 

(11) Tessa Rajek, 2002, ‘Jewish Millenarian Expectations’, p.180 in Berlin, Overman, Op. Cit.

 

(12) Joseph. Bel. Jud. 2:408

 

(13) Danny Syon, 2002, ‘Gamla: City of Refuge’, p. 150 in Berlin, Overman, Op. Cit.

 

(14) Goodman, ‘Rome & Jerusalem’, Op. Cit., p. 426

 

(15) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 112

 

(16) Ibid., pp. 109-112

 

(17) Goodman, ‘The Roman World’, Op. Cit., pp. 256-257

 

(18) Goodman, ‘Rome & Jerusalem’, Op. Cit., pp. 456-457; see my article for more detail: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-masada

 

(19) Goodman, ‘Rome & Jerusalem’, Op. Cit., p. 461

 

(20) Cf. Boot, Op. Cit.

 

(21) Goodman, ‘The Roman World’, Op. Cit., p. 251

 

(22) Ibid., pp. 302-314

 

via Karl Radl’s Substack

Saturday, February 3, 2024

Call Them by Their Name: Part I – Introduction

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/call-them-by-their-name-part-i-introduction/

 

Some things seem too far fetched at first glance to even be considered worthy of further investigation, and that is just what I had thought about “antisemitic conspiracies” for most of my life.

 

Then, many realizations struck me too hard and my conscience was forced to take the blows. Screws rattled loose and fell from the narrow line I was driving on. I could only helplessly listen as they clanged against the ceaseless walls of the void. The beliefs that these screws once held together stood no chance against the chaotic mechanics of my altered mind. Structures of my previous interpretations began to weaken and bend until they swayed so far they broke away.

 

“Is it so wrong to feel the way I do?” I asked myself this question over and over again until I was able to answer it.

 

For the longest time it seems like you’re digging into a bottomless pit trying to figure out the reason why.. you switch back and forth, feeling like you are losing bits of yourself as you do so.

 

You collect new pieces that look like they don’t belong, pieces that make you think maybe there’s something you’ve misunderstood.

 

…Until the day the pieces begin to fall into place and the ideas you thought were nonsensical suddenly pop out to you as tangible pieces of the same puzzle.

 

It certainly takes a long time to go from despising an idea to deciding to interrogate its roots and choosing to bring forth its intentions and reserves, discovering that the idea is far more than just an idea.

 

One cannot understand the trees of life without starting from the story of the first seed, watching the beginnings of its roots, observing how the soil allows it to summon branches, then leaves, and eventually seeds of its own.

 

It is this conclusion of understanding that takes so long to arrive at. You must have an understanding of history to even begin to fathom the present state. It all starts at the beginning and only grows from the roots up.

 

It is only after experiencing a prolonged torment within yourself that you can become aware of not just the history and scale of it all, but of this history’s plans for becoming the future.

 

Given ample time and no reason to stunt, both the flaws and near perfections that have occurred before will all reoccur.

 

When you become aware of this, it’s not often even within your sleeping hours that you can be broken away from this realization.

 

It is possible that on a dreamless night, I can forget it for a moment, but when I awaken, I still reappear in this reality. The reality being that what has happened once may very well be given time to happen again, but that it is without any promises of when it will repeat or which things will do so sooner and more often. 

 

I’m informed that if the wrong things repeat more often or with certain timing, it can mean the end of the chances for more repetitions of anything at all.

 

This conclusion is how you come to discover the reason behind the anger, the disgust, the “idea” you once couldn’t even begin to fathom. The reason for the widely misinterpreted “twisted” ideal for longevity and prevention of the most harmful chances of them all.

 

People who have not yet stopped to question the quality standard of their perceived reality are unknowingly held back from excellence by distancing their ideas from those that they have been indoctrinated into despising. The majority of humanity has done so to the point they’ve all begun to indulge in self destruction.

 

You must choose now not to be average or else forever hold the burden of being another cog in the machine of devastation.

 

Although the current chance is ever so slight, it is growing every day, for the repetitions are behaving just as intended by fate. There is a strong possibility for a revolutionary return to lightness from out of darkness, even when we are so far along the path which leads into the dark.

 

I know because I have seen the flame lit inside of myself and within thousands of others, and I have faith it can be lit in many more to come. This isn’t to say it will be easy. Nor will it be simple or fast.

 

I’ve recognized that shooting for the goal of understanding is only able to seem so simple when I can visualize the target. But the fact that all I needed to do was open my eyes is even more simple.

 

I want to inform others of this simplicity, but I know that whether I call out to them or not, I’ll almost definitely see them for the last time.

 

For simplicity doesn’t always mean commonality.

 

Much work will be required to make such a change within the minds of people so set upon believing what they are made to believe. It may take great effort to undo the brainwashing at first, but once our message is clear it will be simple to tell them that our people deserve the right to exist amongst ourselves.

 

The success of this work will depend on vigor and motive, and upon timing, which is never to be underestimated. If our time runs out, darkness will prevail, for the minds of the people have been wired to switch back and forth between solely pointless ideas at a regular rate. This is set upon the public by the international clique(s) to dictate entropy and therefore prevent true excellence. Changing this will require timing within a period of distress and confusion, and the completion of our goal must lie within times of peace and not of war. For the attempt of completion in defeating this clique during times of war is the reason why true prosperity has never been reached before.

 

Flipping the switch within public minds during war (however unofficial the war may be), and using that war as the means to success, then meeting desired ends under times of peace is going to be a fight against the universe itself.

 

Some may say it is impossible, but I say that the only thing that is truly impossible is for humanity to rot in the gaze of those with true determination.

 

The previous battles of divine excellence versus true evil have only been lost before because the watching eyes of those with true determination had eventually faded into the eyes of those possessing doubt.

 

A winner has never won with the idea that his struggles will prove futile.

 

A war will only be won when someone comes along with the mindset of a winner and the wisdom of a champion.

 

I must work on the mindsets of any potential champion and rebuild, reconstruct, and reevaluate yet another failure up from the ground and back onto the playing field, where it will win once and for all.

 

I must also work to inspire others to follow my lead and spread the word which can result in a final, total victory. Even if I’m just one soldier in an army of thousands, I want to spread my word as far as possible, however large the scale of observation.

 

I need to have a part in protecting my people and the future of their children.

 

Therefore, I must make the necessary information accessible in whichever ways I can.

 

My words and my ideals are based upon nothing but my own conclusions. These conclusions though, have been partially inspired by the words of past martyrs which I strive to avenge. And I will bring their testaments into the discussion in order to build on them and form the introductions into many of my own ideas. I will also provide direct evidence of world events, political discrepancies, and distasteful groups for which I will then go on to discuss in further detail.