The Warsaw Ghetto “Uprising”

Jewish Insurrection or German Police Operation?

By Robert Faurisson

Published: 1994-03-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2498/

Each year, around April 19, the media and politicians commemorate what they call the Warsaw ghetto “uprising,” “revolt” or “insurrection.” [1] In journalistic accounts the affair has taken on increasingly epic and symbolic proportions. At a Holocaust ceremony in New York in April 1993, American Vice President Al Gore declared: “The story of the Warsaw ghetto is sacred text for our time.”[2] In fact, this “story” is a legend based only partially on historical reality.

“An insurrection never took place.”[3] This remark is by Marek Edelman, who was a leader of one of the armed Jewish groups in the ghetto. He added: “We didn’t even choose the day; the Germans set it by entering the ghetto to find the last Jews.” Edelman also stated that the number of Jews who took up arms never exceeded 220. (Other estimates of the number of Jewish ghetto fighters range from several hundred to as many as 2,000. In any case, no more than a minute portion of the ghetto population took part in the fighting.)[4]

Edelman’s view has been confirmed by Yitzhak Zuckerman, another leader of the main Jewish armed group in the ghetto. Zuckerman has defined the “war aims” of the Jewish fighters in these words: “For us it was a question of organizing a defense, not an uprising. In an uprising, the initiative is with the one rising up. We, we sought only to defend ourselves; the initiative was entirely on the side of the Germans.”[5]

This was no uprising of an entire community to gain its freedom or to resist deportation. It was, rather, the reaction of only a relative handful of young Jews who, seeing German troops penetrate their sanctuary, first fought back, then on the third day tried unsuccessfully to flee, and then, finally, surrounded, put up sustained armed resistance.[6]

The whole thing should more accurately be called a German police operation rather than an “uprising” or “insurrection” by the Jews of Warsaw. By contrast, a real uprising was staged in Warsaw, August-October 1944, by the Polish Home Army, commanded by General “Bor” Komorowski. However, the media scarcely notes this heroic insurrection, which the Soviets allowed the Germans to crush at their leisure. The Poles fought with such courage that the Germans permitted them to surrender with full military honors, treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention rather than as terrorist insurgents.

To understand what happened in the Warsaw ghetto in April-May 1943, it is important to know why the Germans decided to launch a police operation. In the city’s “Jewish quarter” or “ghetto” were 36,000 officially registered residents, as well as, in all probability, more than 20,000 clandestine inhabitants.[7] The ghetto was, in a sense, a city within a city, administered by a “Jewish Council” (Judenrat), and a Jewish police force, which collaborated with the German occupation authorities, even against Jewish “terrorists.” Many thousands of Jewish workers toiled in ghetto workshops and factories, supplying products vital to the German war effort.

Following the first Soviet air attack against central Warsaw on August 21, 1942, bomb shelters were built, on German orders, everywhere in the city, including the ghetto, for the protection of the residents. The Germans furnished the Jews with the cement and other necessary materials for these shelters, which legend has transformed into “blockhouses” and “bunkers.”[8] So extensive was this “network of subterranean refuges and hiding places” that, according to one prominent Holocaust historian, “in the end, every Jew in the ghetto had his own spot in one of the shelters set up in the central part of the ghetto.”[9]

Small armed Jewish groups, numbering no more than 220 persons, were active. The most important of these was the “Jewish Combat Organization” (JCO), whose members were mostly young men in their twenties. Its “general directives for combat” specified “acts of terror” against the Jewish police, the Jewish Council, and the Werkschutz (protection service for the factories and workshops). This JCO directive stated specifically: “The general staff works out the central plan of action — sabotage and terror — directed against the enemy.”[10]

Accordingly, these “fighters” or “terrorists” used “sabotage and terror” to shake down Jewish ghetto police, Jewish Council officials, and workshop guards.[11] The “terrorists” also profited from the ghetto’s intensive industrial and commercial life, shaking down merchants and other residents by threat and blackmail, even holding them prisoner in their homes for ransom. They were able to buy weapons from soldiers stationed in Warsaw, who, like troops stationed elsewhere well behind the front lines, often served in patchwork units, ill-trained and poorly motivated. The ghetto “terrorists” even carried out murderous attacks against German troops and Jewish collaborators.

The ghetto became increasingly insecure. Because of this, the Polish population became more and more hostile to its existence, while the Germans, for their part, feared that it could become a threat to the city’s important role as a rail nexus in the war economy and as a hub for transport of troops to the Eastern front. Himmler therefore decided to relocate the Jewish population, along with the workshops and factories, to the Lublin region, and to raze the ghetto, replacing it with a park. At first the Germans tried to convince the Jews to voluntarily accept relocation. But the “terrorists” refused to accept this, aware that such a transfer would mean for them losing, simultaneously, their financial base as well as their freedom of movement. They devoted all their efforts to opposing this, until on April 19, 1943, a police operation to forcibly evacuate the remaining Jews was begun on Himmler’s order.

At 6:00 a.m. that morning, troops under the command of SS Colonel Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg entered the ghetto, supported by a single tracked vehicle (captured during the invasion of France) and two armored cars. Initially the “terrorists” or guerrillas offered stiff resistance, wounding 16 German SS men, six Ukrainians (so-called “Askaris”), and two Polish policemen. One Polish policeman was killed.[12]

Himmler, eager to minimize casualties, was angered. That same morning, he relieved von Sammern-Frankenegg of command and replaced him with SS General Jürgen Stroop. Stroop, ordered to carry out the operation slowly to minimize casualties, did so in the following manner: each morning, the troops would enter the ghetto, clear buildings of their residents and use smoke candles (not poison gas) to drive out the Jews hiding in the air-raid shelters; the buildings were destroyed as they were evacuated. Each evening the troops sealed the ghetto so that nobody could escape during the night.

Skirmishes lasted from April 19 to May 16, 1943, so that altogether the operation required 28 days. On the third day, many of the Jewish armed fighters tried to escape, most whom where shot or captured. Contrary to some reports, the German command never called for air support to destroy the ghetto, and the operation involved no aerial bombardment.

The number of Jewish dead is unknown.[13] An often-cited figure of 56,065 is, in fact, the number of Jews who were apprehended. The great majority of these were deported, many to the transit camp at Treblinka from where they were taken to Majdanek (Lublin).[14] German deaths in the operation totalled 16. (This included one Polish policeman.)

One should not doubt either the courage of the Jewish resistance in the ghetto or the tragic nature of the whole affair, with the civilian population trapped in the cross-fire between various heterogeneous German units and small groups of Jewish guerrillas scattered throughout the ghetto. Contrary to some grandiose propaganda claims, though, what took place was far from an “apocalyptic” revolt, as one writer has recently called it,[15] particularly when one is mindful of the tens of thousands of deaths, civilian and military, that occurred during those same 28 days, on battlefields around the globe and in the European cities bombarded by British and American air forces.[16]

---

Notes

[1]	In the entry, “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: 1990), historian Israel Gutman writes: “The Warsaw ghetto uprising was the first instance in occupied Europe of an uprising by an urban population. Its unique feature was the fact that it was a general rebellion in which armed fighters took part together with masses of Jews hiding out in bunkers and refuges.” (Vol. 4, p. 1631).
[2]	S. Birnbaum, JTA dispatch, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California (San Francisco), April 23, 1993, p. 9.
[3]	Libération (Paris), April 18, 1988, p. 27.; In an interview published in the Austrian news magazine Profil, April 19, 1993, p. 86, Edelman likewise referred to “our 200 fighters.”
[4]	Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer contends that altogether there were 750 Jewish ghetto fighters, organized in two combat organizations. See: Y. Bauer, A History of the Holocaust (New York: 1982), p. 262. According to Jewish Holocaust specialist Israel Gutman, “the total Jewish fighting forces in the ghetto numbered 700 to 750.” See: Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York, 1990), Vol. 4, p. 1628. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg likewise puts the “total armed strength” of the Jewish ghetto fighters at “about 750.” See: R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (Holmes & Meier, 1985), p. 512. Richard Lukas, a specialist of Polish history, cites estimates of between 1,000 and 2,000 Jewish ghetto fighters, noting that the combatants were thus only about three to five percent of the ghetto’s population. See: Richard C. Lukas, The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939–1944 (Lexington, Ky.: 1986), pp. 172, 178, 267 (n. 106). Jewish historian Ber Mark contends that there were perhaps a thousand “organized” Jewish fighters, with many others helping in the struggle. See: Ber Mark, Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto (New York: Schocken, 1975) p. 15, and, Ber Mark, “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in: Yuri Suhl, ed., They Fought Back (1967), p. 93.
[5]	N. Weill, “L’Insurrection du ghetto de Varsovie,” Le Monde (Paris), April 18–19, 1993, p. 2.; Zuckerman (1915–1981), whose name is sometimes spelled “Cukierman,” was also known by his nom de guerre, “Antek.” His memoir was published in 1993 under the title A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Univ. of Calif. Press).
[6]	Forty survivors of the original group of 200 fighters, including Marek Edelman, succeeded in escaping from the ghetto, May 8–10, 1943. See: M. Edelman interview in Profil (Vienna), April 19, 1993, p. 86.
[7]	Even though it had a wall around it, the Warsaw ghetto was largely “open.” In this sense, it deserved to be designated as a “residential district” or “quarter” rather than a “ghetto.”
[8]	See: Leon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate (New York: 1979), p. 230.
[9]	Israel Gutman, “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (New York: 1990), p. 1628.
[10]	Cited by Adam Rutkowski in an article reprinted in a special issue of the French periodical, Le Monde Juif, April-August 1993, p. 162.; The “Jewish Combat Organization” (JCO) or “Jewish Fighting Organization,” was known in Polish as the “Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa” (ZOB).; Details about the methods employed by the JCO are provided by Yisrael Gutman in his book, The Jews of Warsaw, 1939–1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt (1982), pp. 344–349. These methods scarcely differed from those of the Mafia. The Germans knew that they faced strong opposition. They sought to convince the Jews to allow themselves to be transferred to the Lublin region, along with the factories and workshops that served the German war effort. In March 1943 a strange “poster war” took place between the Jewish Combat Organization (JCO) and Walter C. Többens, who was responsible for evacuating the Jews. The JCO’s notices called on the Jewish residents to refuse transfer to what it called the death camps. The Germans left these handbills in place, content to put up alongside them notices signed “Walter C. Többens,” in which the claims of the JCO were refuted point by point. Gutman acknowledges: “Többens told the truth about these transports; they weren’t to death camps, and it is a fact that there were buildings for integrating the factories [in the Lublin region]. But at the time the resistance and the suspicions of the Jews were so strong that even the most ingenious tactics weren’t able to overcome them.” (pp. 334–335) It was only after determining that methods of persuasion had been stymied that the Germans decided on their police operation.
[11]	On these points, as well as many others, see, notably: The Jews of Warsaw, 1939–1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt, by Yisrael Gutman, translated from the Hebrew by Ina Friedman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982, 487+xxii pages), and, Il y a 50 ans: le soulèvement du ghetto de Varsovie (“Fifty Years Ago: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”), special edition of Le Monde Juif, April-August 1993, 336 pages. The latter work includes a reprint of an article by Adam Rutkowski, published in 1969 under the title “Quelques documents sur la révolte du ghetto de Varsovie” (“Some Documents on the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt”), pp. 160–169. On page 162 appear the “general directives for combat of the Jewish Combat Organization.”
[12]	The “Stroop Report,” dated May 16, 1943, is entitled “Es gibt keinen jüdischen Wohnbezirk in Warschau mehr!” (“The Jewish Residential District in Warsaw Is No More!”). Text published as Nuremberg document PS-1061 (USA-275) in: International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (“blue series”), Vol. 26, pp. 628–694, followed by a selection of 18 photographs (of 52). A purported facsimile edition of the German original of this report, including Stroop’s telex reports, along with an English-language translation, has been published in the US as: The Stroop Report: The Jewish Quarter in Warsaw Is No More! (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979), Translated from the German and annotated by Sybil Milton, Introduction by Andrzej Wirth.
[13]	In his telex report of May 24, 1943, General Stroop stated: “Of the total 56,065 Jews apprehended, about 7,000 were annihilated directly in the course of the large-scale operation in the former Jewish quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed through transport to T II [an apparent reference to the Treblinka II camp], making a total of 13,929 annihilated Jews. In addition to this figure of 56,065, an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 Jews were annihilated in explosions or fires.” See: The Stroop Report (New York: 1979), [pages not numbered]. In the entry, “Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (p. 1630), Israel Gutman writes: “On May 16 Stroop announced that the fighting was over and that ‘we succeeded in capturing altogether 56,065 Jews, that is, definitely destroying them’.” The words ascribed here to Stroop are not accurate. What he actually wrote in his report of May 16 is this: “The total number of Jews apprehended or confirmed destroyed is 56,065.”
[14]	“After the people had been taken out of the Ghetto — they numbered between 50,000 and 60,000 — they were brought to the railway station. The Security Police [Sicherheits-polizei] had complete supervision of these people and were in charge of the transport of these people to Lublin.” From an affidavit of Jürgen Stroop, which was quoted as document 3841-PS (USA-804) by American prosecutor Col. Amen at the Nuremberg Tribunal on April 12, 1946. Text published in: International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (“blue series”), Vol. 11, pp. 354–355.
[15]	“The terrible, exemplary, and apocalyptic revolt of the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto is at once an act of despair and of heroism.” See: D. Desthomas, La Montagne, April 17, 1993, p. 12.
[16]	Exaggerations about “the Warsaw ghetto uprising” appear regularly in the media around the world. A comparison of exaggerations and inventions in the Brazilian press on this subject with the facts recently appeared in a revisionist periodical in Brazil. See: S.E. Castan, “Documento: A Verdadeira História do Levante do Gueto de Varsóvia,” Boletim-EP (Esclarcimento ao Pais), June 1993, pp. 7–14. Address: Boletim-EP, Caixa Postal 11.011, Ag. Menino Deus, 90880-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

How and why Sweden became multicultural

Source: http://www.destroyzionism.com/2013/01/13/how-and-why-sweden-became-multicultural/

No one can deny that multiculturalism and mass immigration are a reality in Sweden today. However, it hasn’t always been so. As late as 1965, the social democratic Prime Minister of Sweden Tage Erlander said: “We Swedes live in an infinitely luckier situation. Our country’s population is homogeneous, not only in terms of race, but also in many other respects.” The demographic transformation of Sweden did not just happen to happen. It was a direct result of political decisions, which in turn could be undertaken because of some actor’s conscious agenda and very active advocacy in the 1960s and 1970s. Earlier, Sweden had an approach towards immigrants and ethnic minorities that was based either on expulsion or assimilation. Immigrants who were ethnically and culturally closely related would assimilate while non-European immigrants, Gypsies and Sami would be excluded from the community. Now, however, suddenly a new approach prevailed: Sweden would become a pluralistic multicultural society and the multicultural paradigm would become the overall goal of Swedish culture, politics and society.

In 1930, 1 percent of the population in Sweden was born in a foreign country and the vast majority of them came from other northern European countries. During the 1950’s and 1960’s there was a relatively large labor immigration from other European countries. Many of these immigrants returned home after service in Sweden and those who remained were mostly assimilated without major problems. In 2000, Sweden’s total population was slightly more than 8.8 million of which one million was foreign born. A fifth of the total population had at least one parent born outside of Sweden of which 547,907 people had at least one parent born outside of Europe and U.S. (Source: Statistics Sweden). In 2011, 93,134 people were granted residence and during the whole period 1980-2011 the figure was 1,529,666 (source: The Swedish Migration Board), of which approximately one million came from non-Western countries (see previous source and add to family reunification). Ethnic Swedes are expected to be a minority in Sweden before 2050 if immigration continues at the same rate.

According to Tomas Hammar’s (et al.) comparative study European Immigration Policy (Cambridge University Press, 1985) of Swedish and European immigration policy, organized interests have had great influence over political decisions in Sweden and elsewhere. Immigration policy is an example of interest groups’ (but also bureaucrats’) ability to influence decisions. Hammar writes that the political parties have upheld the decisions but they did not initiate them.

Lars-Erik Hansen’s dissertation Equality and freedom to choose. A study in the emergence of Swedish Immigration Policy (Stockholm University, Department of History, 2001) lists the actors who were a driving force in the debate to introduce the new multicultural policy. Regarding the actors, the study confirms previous academic research on how multiculturalism arose, such as Henry Román’s study En invandrarpolitisk oppositionell : debattören David Schwarz syn på svensk invandrarpolitik åren 1964-1993 [An immigration policy opponent: commentator David Schwarz’s view of Swedish immigration policy 1964-1993] who attributes Schwarz “a crucial role” in the game behind the introduction of the new policy.

Thus, the ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and “Holocaust” survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books. Hansen (2001) writes in his thesis (p. 115):

The leading debaters who were the first to claim minority rights and conditions were especially David Schwarz, Inga Gottfarb, Amadeo Cottio, Voldemer Kiviaed, Géza Thinsz and Lukasz Winiarki – all of which had an immigrant background.

Besides Schwarz, Gottfarb had Jewish descent. Kiviaed was Estonian, Géza Thinsz immigrated from Hungary in 1956 (the same year as the massive persecution of Jews started which would have the effect that within a few decades half of Hungary’s Jews had fled the country) and Lukasz Winiarki immigrated from Poland. Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. Hansen writes (pp. 114, 126-128, 217):

An increasing number of commentators and publishers made similar criticisms against what they saw as the majority’s lack of understanding of minorities’ conditions, particularly in the non-clearly stated, yet what many saw as a real policy of assimilation, which they feared would lead to an erasure of the different minority cultures and life patterns to amount to the rectifying or conformist national majority’s established pattern. Strongest in this criticism was David Schwarz and Voldemar Kiviaed – they claimed that the assimilation zealots appeared in the spirit of the Russians in the Baltic states and that their approach could also be compared with Eichmann’s ‘final solution’, although in more humane shape. Increased government action was required to avoid assimilation, partly by direct financial support to minorities, partly by an official policy for a pluralistic society. […]

The policy toward Jewish immigration to Sweden, especially during World War II, was put forward as a blot in the Swedish political history. Bruno Kaplan, head of the teaching of the Jewish community in Stockholm and represented in the World Jewish Congress, lined up a number of examples of this regulatory policy (exclusion model), partly student protest against importation of some Jewish doctors in 1938, partly a number of leading newspapers which warned of this immigration. Leif Zern [who, like Kaplan, is Jewish, blogger’s note] emphasized Kaplan’s view that it was clear from the then existing policy that there was anti-Semitism, and stressed: “Of course there are no statistics on how many Jews the feature (the regulation of Jewish immigration) led to the gas chambers.” […]

Bruno Kaplan was convinced that the survival of a small Jewish minority depended on how the state and municipalities acted – a policy that advocated tolerance and respect for minority distinctiveness was necessary. In this spirit should the Jewish minority, in their efforts to preserve their identity, get the full support from Swedish society. […]

David Schwarz was the most active debater in the immigrant issue, his views and values ​​had a major impact. David Schwarz became the first and foremost spokesman of the pluralistic state intervention model […]

In the official immigrant debate, some players played a big role in the policy process, especially adherents of multiculturalism. […] They encouraged the political parties to address the issue of ethnic equality on the agenda. Then, a veritable race began to see who was the biggest and best in the immigrant issue.

The debate gave rise to government investigations such as Invandrarutredningen (The Immigrant Investigation) 1968 which formed the basis for the government’s bill (1975:26) on guidelines for immigrant and minority policy which was adopted by a totally unanimous Swedish Parliament in 1975. David Schwarz got what he wanted, which was to be a fateful decision whose consequences we see the results of today. The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. The integration goal would be a reciprocal process in which both parties meet on the road (which in practice means increasing rootlessness). Moreover, increased internationalization of Swedish society was seen as an overall objective in the whole community planning.

The established academic research done in this area thus confirm the presented facts in Hur Sverige blev en mångkultur (How Sweden became Multicultural), a classic book in Swedish nationalist circles, written by pseudonym M. Eckehart. It also repeats a pattern that is reflected throughout the West about the power interests and ethnic motives which was behind the transformation of formerly homogeneous Western countries into ethnically heterogeneous societies. Professor Kevin MacDonald writes about the shaping of U.S. immigration policy in his classic work The Culture of Critique and provides evidence that organized Jewish minority interests played a crucial role in the policy change. MacDonald’s conclusion is supported by scholars like Hugh Davis Graham (Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America. Oxford University Press, 2002).

As mentioned above, the political unity was total at the time of the Parliament’s decision in 1975 that Sweden would radically be transformed into a multicultural society. Unlike what one might think, it was the conservative Rightist Party which first embraced the idea of ​​cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent. In the beginning, the Social Democrats and unions saw ethnic equality as a threat to social and economic equality, and therefore advocated assimilation of immigrants. Hansen (2001) quotes a motion from the Rightist Party to the Parliament in 1968 (p. 149):

The disappearance of a culture is always a loss, no matter how small or large the group is which supports the culture in question. Therefore, it seems important to us that Sweden, besides the application of a proper immigration policy for the country, also feel responsibility for the organized minorities and offer their cultures opportunity for continued existence and further development on Swedish ground.

The following year, the Rightist Party changed its name to the Moderate Party and put another motion to the Parliament which propagated even more for ethnic minorities. They demanded that the government seriously need to take responsibility for preserving immigrants’ original identity (p. 162):

Society should as far as possible meet the minority community’s expectations and immigration and minority policy should therefore be designed so that individuals in minority groups have freedom to choose concerning the convergence with the native population, mainly in terms of such cultural activities as the maintenance and further development of language skills, religion, special arts and other special knowledge, and that society guarantees freedom through active material and personnel support to various minorities’ cultural and other activities.

The answer to the question why Jews seem to have a predilection for multiculturalism in the host countries they reside in, is that they as a seemingly invisible minority among lots of other more visible and apparently problematic minorities no more appear as a social category, and thus they can undisturbed continue to exercise their power by promoting their ethnic group interests at the expense of the indigenous peoples. The aim is to destroy the traditional Western culture and weaken its civilization; to divide and weaken the northern European-derived populations, break down their ethnic consciousness and national cohesion, so that they never again will have the opportunity to organize an ethnically conscious and collectivist movement like the German National Socialism of the 1930s.

Thus, reduced solidarity and cohesion in society favors the ethnic interest of the Jewish minority group. Multiculturalism is a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to minimize the presence of potential anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish majority population in each country where the policy has been introduced. The Jewish minority is safer in ethnically heterogeneous countries because they don’t stand out from the crowd there. Consequently, persecution of Jews has historically occurred mainly in homogeneous countries. For example, Swedish-Jewish journalist Göran Rosenberg acknowledged this on December 18th 2008 at a panel discussion on The Future for Jews in Multicultural Europe, organized by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and The Centre for the Study of European Politics & Society at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

Göran Rosenberg recalled that historically, Jews had always thrived in nations and empires with multicultural, pluralistic and tolerant environments, while they fared badly in strong ethnic or nationalistic societies. European Jews have always been the emblematic stranger or ‘other’. Therefore, by definition, a society where the stranger is welcome is good for the Jews, although they have not always appreciated this link.[…]The future of European Jewry is dependant on our ability to shape a multicultural, pluralistic and diverse society.

Just as it is not a coincidence that Europe’s organized Jews consistently dissociate themselves from politically organized critics of Islam, because every negative generalization towards a minority group ultimately can hit the Jews.

Note that very wealthy democratic countries in East Asia such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, are almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, due to the lack of Jewish influence and multicultural policies over there. One must not forget the traditional Jewish animosity towards Christianity and the West as a reason why Jews are at the forefront of the socially destructive immigration policy. Jews tend to see anti-Semitism as a basic feature of Christianity and many even claim that the Christian religion was the cause of the “Holocaust”. For example, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin wrote in The Jewish Week on September 5th 2012 that the Christian church would not have changed so drastically during the 20th century if it had not been for “the miraculous establishment of the State of Israel and the realization by honest and authoritative Church leaders that the Holocaust could not have taken place had it not been for the seeds of anti-Semitism sown by Christian teachings over the last two millennia.”

The multicultural policy has also been made possible because of Jewish influence in anthropology during the 20th century. For example, Jewish anthropologist Gelya Frank writes in her article Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology in American Anthropologist that egalitarian anthropology was so Jewish that it should be classed as “part of Jewish history”. Ironically, Jewish anti-racist anthropologists are often proud of their own special racial purity.

Standard histories of American anthropology have downplayed the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of later anthropologists. Jewish histories, however, foreground the roles and deeds of Jews. This essay brings together these various discourses for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially those concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism. Although Boas’s anthropology was apolitical in terms of theory, in message and purpose it was an antiracist science.

Read more in chapter 2 of professor Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique on how ethnocentric Jews such as Franz Boas, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould and Claude Lévi-Strauss with unscientific methods influenced the genetics and anthropological sciences and thus managed to get Westerners to believe that there are no human races or average differences between them. Just as influential Jews played a decisive role in the shaping of immigration policy through lobbying in the countries they immigrated to, they have also played a central role for the intellectual movements that opposed the former prevailing evolutionary perspective in the social sciences and biological explanations regarding human behavior. The basically erroneous dogma that all races are identical in genetic conditions and characteristics has been the premise of the multicultural and multiethnic political paradigm.

This article is translated from Swedish and was originally published on the blog Obekväma sanningar (“Uncomfortable Truths”) September 8, 2012.

Israel the Main Buyer of ISIS Oil - Report

Multiple reports claim that Israel is the top purchaser of smuggled ISIS oil

Source: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-main-buyer-isis-oil-report/ri11633

Citing multiple sources, the Israeli business presses are now reporting that Israel is the main recipient of ISIS oil: 

Kurdish and Turkish smugglers are transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and selling it to Israel, according to several reports in the Arab and Russian media. An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit for the terrorist organization.

The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.

In August, the “Financial Times” reported that Israel obtained 75% of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan, which the FT describes as a “potential gateway for ISIS-smuggled crude.”

It's been well-established that Turkey is a major transportation hub for ISIS oil smuggling operations. But where is the oil sent? Someone has to buy it. The answer, apparently, is: Israel. 

Al-Araby published an extensive investigation which lays out in detail how oil is transported from ISIS-controlled wells to Israel via Turkey. 

Caricatures from "Der Stürmer" - translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 7

David Irving - ‘Saturation Bombing in World War II – who is to blame?’

London Forum, Saturday 25th July 2015

Captain Sir Basil Liddle Hart, described the saturation bombing of civilian areas by the allies during WWII as ‘’The most uncivilised means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions.’’

But, just who is to blame? Just who started the saturation bombing of civilian areas programme that has come to equal the worst excesses of World War Two? It killed over two million Germans, French, Poles, Belgians, and Dutch civilians alike, and Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg have become by-words for war time atrocities beyond compare. Although saturation bombing of civilian areas is now acknowledged as a War Crime, and a Geneva Convention prohibits the targeting of civilians under the guise of military bombardment, it was NEVER condemned in any post-war tribunal. David Irving is the world’s MOST respected historian, he’s the world’s TOP expert on World War II, and he’s the historian whose works are MOST used by other historians, but VERY RARELY cited or quoted by them. He will tell us just WHO initiated this war crime and why, unless there is a profound shift in political power in the world, they will NEVER be labelled as the criminals they so truly were.

Another Jew admits to Jewish ritual murder

Source: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.fr/2011/12/another-jews-admits-to-jewish-ritual.html

The following pages are from the 1836 book A Resident in Constantinople, and are about a book written by an Hasidic rabbi who converted to Christianity and became a Greek Orthodox monk, and revealed how Hasidic Jews ritually murder Christians.

The following I found in an 1828 American magazine, and is about the same rabbi-turned-monk's book. The article's author had read a copy of the book in Constantinople, and says the first chapter concludes:

“When I was thirteen years old, my father revealed to me the mystery of the blood, and cursed me by all the elements of heaven and earth, if ever I should devulge the secret, even to my brethren ; and when I was married, and should even have ten sons, I should not discover it to all, but only to one, who should be the most prudent and learned, and at the same time firm and unmoved in the faith ; but to a female I should never disclose it on any account. May the earth, he said, never receive thee, if thou revealest these secrets. So said my father ; but I, since I have taken as my father the Lord Jesus Christ, will proclaim the truth in every place, and, as the wise Sirac says, even unto death strive for the truth." pp. 13—15.

READ MORE…