(Briefly explained:)

To become superhuman according to the fashion of Herr Professor Doktor Nietzsche - as an alternative to Weenie-hood or 'tardation - is to rise above hoi polloi/the goyim/the masses/the lower orders (however one might refer to common humanity) through education in, and adherence to, fundamental political and epistemological realities - rather than in and to ideologically and theologically-based delusions ("Real Worlds," as HPDN would have disparagingly referred to them after the manner of his dispute with Kantian and Platonic notions):

"Zarathustra, the first psychologist of the good, is — consequently — a friend of the evil. When a décadent type of man ascended to the rank of the highest type, this could only happen at the expense of its counter-type, the type of man that is strong and sure of life. When the herd animal is irradiated by the glory of the purest virtue, the exceptional man must have been devalued into evil. When mendaciousness at any price monopolizes the word 'truth' for its perspective, the really truthful man is bound to be branded with the worst names. Zarathustra leaves no doubt at this point: he says that it was his insight precisely into the good, the 'best,' that made him shudder at man in general; that it was from this aversion that he grew wings 'to soar off into distant futures,' — he does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good — that the good and the just would call his overman devil ...


You highest men whom my eyes have seen, this is my doubt about you and my secret laughter: I guess that you would call my overman — devil!

What is great is so alien to your souls that the overman would be terrifying to you in his goodness ...


"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it —, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness ..." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 5)

Sadly, if Professor Nietzsche were alive now to witness the riotous intellectual pre-school that is the Greater Judea of the modern day, his only realistic immediate hope for the juvenile pseudo-sophisticate Leftists and the puerile patriotarded Rightists, so much in evidence today, would be for their preliminary elevation to so little as mere imbecility, in displacement of their present philosophical idiocy.

(In terms of background:)

Overmen/Uebermenschen refers to the historic warrior nobility/aristocracy of all politically-advanced cultures, who, by virtue of their having predatorily conquered and stratified settled societies at the foundation of their regimes, formed the basis for "every elevation of the type 'man'," according to the account given by Nietzsche. These masters of violence, in a world whose lower, slavish orders were and are inescapably governed by none other than the lies of priests and the violence of nobles, need not resort to the theological and ideological illusions employed by the former and may thus adopt the clear-eyed grasp of the world that Nietzsche's "Bird of Prey" has with regard to the tremulous, "good" (tasting) "lamb" that reciprocates with a hysterical view of the hungering raptor as the blackest of "evil". Thus the master and his "master morality" are "Beyond Good and Evil" and so avoid the destructive, apocalyptic distortions of reality that are required of "slave morality" in all its forms (principally in the eschatological expectations of an escape to "freedom" and "liberation" from oppression and repression in an immanent (Christian) Kingdom of God or an egalitarian (Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist/Anarchist/Communist) Utopia of Man to come).

It was Nietzsche's hope to educationally cultivate a new master-class of "Gentilshomme," following the disastrous passing of the historic noble masters after two millennia of Jewish-inspired promotion of subversive (Christian and proto-Communist) slave morality, in the contest that Nietzsche styled as "Rome versus Judea":

"Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values 'good and bad,' 'good and evil' have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. And if it’s true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We could even say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and in the process to constantly greater depths and has become constantly more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a 'higher nature,' a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in that sense and is truly still a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called 'Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.' To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered 'guilty of hatred against the entire human race.' And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel —: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose). The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents — say, the Chinese or the Germans — with the Jews, in order to understand what is ranked first and what is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It is true that in the Renaissance there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “the church.” But Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of ressentiment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church — as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome. In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense than that, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which there was in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular ressentiment — never on earth has there been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It’s true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old mendacious slogan of ressentiment, 'supreme rights of the majority,' in opposition to the will for a low condition, for abasement, for equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan 'supreme rights of the few'! Like a last signpost to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh — we should consider well what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman. . . .

" — Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set aside for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the ancient fire not have to take place? More than that: wouldn’t this be exactly what we should hope for with all our strength? Even will it? Even demand it? Anyone who, like my readers, begins to reflect on these points, to think further, will have difficulty coming to a quick conclusion — reason enough for me to come to a conclusion myself, provided that it has been sufficiently clear for a long time what I want, precisely what I want with that dangerous slogan which is written on the body of my last book: 'Beyond Good and Evil' . . . At least this does not mean 'Beyond Good and Bad.' —" (Genealogy I 16,17)

His "readers," his "Gentlemen," his "Free Spirits," his "good Europeans," were to be the men who would "become who they are," who would "revive the ancient fire," and who were to be the paladins of a class of talented tyrants to eventually emerge from the European political scene, as the mass of the population became further debased by democratic modernity:

"Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called 'civilization' or 'humanization' or 'progress'; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus — the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body — that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth — the still-raging storm and stress of 'national feeling' belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging —: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of 'modern ideas,' would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a leveling and mediocritizing of man — a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man — are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labor with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before — thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants — in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

"I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans! —" (BGE, "Peoples and Fatherlands," 242-3)

These were to be the so-regarded "evil" men - rising above the contemptible, sanctimonious, inverted, liberationist perspectives of lesser persons. These were to be the men whom Nietzsche's fictional Zarathustra would want for the rectification of the historic Zarathustra's error in introducing the delusional moral dualism of slave morality: "Good and Evil":

"I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things, — the transposition of morality into the metaphysical, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. But this question itself is at bottom its own answer. Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he more experience in this matter, for a longer time, than any other thinker — after all, the whole of history is the refutation by experiment of the principle of the so-called 'moral world order' —: what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His doctrine and his alone posits truthfulness as the highest virtue — this means the opposite of the cowardice of 'idealists' who flee from reality, Zarathustra has more intestinal fortitude than all other thinkers taken together. To speak the truth and to shoot well with arrows, that is Persian virtue. — Am I understood? ... The self-overcoming of morality out of truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite — into me — that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 3)

Nietzsche's "Superman" was thus neither the cartoon character that stupid and ignorant Greater Judean goyim would imagine nor the proposed product of Darwinian eugenic measures. Superhumanity was to be the re-attainment of a manhood that had virtually disappeared with the passing of ancient Classical culture, wherein many men still combined the virtues of unsentimental, clear-eyed, ideology-free intellect with regard to politics and the courage and appetite for personally taking up arms for (moralistically) unrationalized imperial conquest, as was the resort and destiny of all healthy High Cultures. As Nietzsche presciently saw the prospects:

"[The strength to will is strongest] of all and most astonishing in that huge empire-in-between, where Europe as it were flows back into Asia, in Russia. There the strength to will has for long been stored up and kept in reserve, there the will is waiting menacingly — uncertain whether it is a will to deny or a will to affirm — in readiness to discharge itself, to borrow one of the physicists’ favorite words. It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead — so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth — the compulsion to grand politics." BGE, "We Scholars," 208)


  1. An oft-repeated allegation/evaluation heard these days is of the superiority of "our" civilization/culture, with its freedom and rights derived from the political philosophy of The Enlightenment.

    In evidence:

    1) Rousseauism – Liberalism – Girondism – Jacobinism – Anarchism – Marxism – Bolshevism – Stalinism – Maoism – Totalitarianism

    2) The Vendee – The Guillotine – The Terror – The Committee – The Cheka – The Liquidation – The Purges – The Show Trials – The Gulags – The Great Leap – The Cultural Revolution – The Perestroika Deception

    The troops who defended Stalingrad on behalf of Stalin's regime, the latter bloodied by its wartime murder of ten million Russians (following the peacetime murder of the same number), are alleged thus to have been fighting for the preservation of "Western civilization."

  2. And on the other side of the world, FDR, fronting for a pro-Communist Jewish regime in DC, maneuvered Imperial Japan into the "Back Door to War" with anti-Semitic and anti-Communist Germany (and immediately proceeded to devote the bulk of American war effort to the latter enterprise). Secretary Stimson, brought to D.C. by the "Old Bolshevik," Chief-Justice-cum-Shadow-President, Felix Frankfurter, stated in his diary, in no uncertain terms, that the regime sought to "maneuver Japan into making the first strike without doing too much damage to ourselves."

    Thus, given threats concerning Japan's remote Asian exploits and with the delivery of the infamous withdrawal "ultimatum" (atop a crytographic deceit specifying, for Japanese ears, a preemptive American attack on Japanese forces), the Imperial Japanese Navy determined to take out as much of the threatening Pearl Harbor fleet as possible, reckoning that a success would afford them an even chance of repelling the consequent American assault - a secretly-threatened assault that would have been irresistible if not substantially diminished by a preemptive strike.

    Further, having eventually displaced the Nationalist forces of Chiang as the rational, non-revolutionary authority on the Chinese mainland, Japanese forces became the remaining durable obstacle to the secret desire of Judeo-Communist DC for the Maoization of China. So, with the defeat of Japan, "losing" China involved just a little more home-grown IPR Communist propaganda and the secret throttling of Chiang's forces.

    [Weenies and Morons of various denominations tend still to believe in the bald and knowing lie told by FDR in his "Iowa" speech of '43, regarding supposed Japanese and German ambitions to shake hands in Iowa — failing to realize, as is easily determined, that neither nation remotely had the pre-war desire, material interest, or capability at any time to perform such a feat (as was the case regarding FDR's mendacious "map" of South America, fabricated by British Intelligence, depicting a ludicrous, imaginary German plan for conquest of the continent).]

  3. The attitude of the Milner Group toward the specific problem of Zionism was expressed in explicit terms by Lord Milner himself in a speech in the House of Lords on 27 June 1923. After expressing his wholehearted agreement with the policy of the British government as revealed in its actions and in its statements, like the Balfour Declaration and the White Paper of 1922, he added:

    {quote} I am not speaking of the policy which is advocated by the extreme Zionists, which is a totally different thing.... I believe that we have only to go on steadily with the policy of the Balfour Declaration as we have ourselves interpeted it in order to see great material progress in Palestine and a gradual subsistence of the present [Arab] agitation the force of which it would be foolish to deny, but which I believe to be largely due to artificial stimulus and, to a very great extent, to be excited from without. The symptoms of any real and general dissatisfaction among the mass of the Arab population with the conditions under which they live, I think it would be very difficult to discover.... There is plenty of room in that country for a considerable immigrant population without injuring in any way the resident Arab population, and, indeed, in many ways it would tend to their extreme benefit. ... There are about 700,000 people in Palestine, and there is room for several millions. ... I am and always have been a strong supporter of the pro-Arab policy which was first advocated in this country in the course of the war. I believe in the independence of the Arab countries, which they owe to us and which they can only maintain with our help. I look forward to an Arab Federation. ... I am convinced that the Arab will make a great mistake ... in claiming Palestine as a part of the Arab Federation in the same sense as are the other countries of the Near East which are mainly inhabited by Arabs. {end quote}

    He then went on to say that he felt that Palestine would require a permanent mandate and under that condition could become a National Home for the Jews, could take as many Jewish immigrants as the country could economically support, but "must never become a Jewish state."

  4. First, one asserts that, based on their general behaviour, the Germans would be likely to commit mass-murder. It seems to me, on the basis of provable historical facts, that the English would be far more likely to commit mass murder. After all, the English have a far more criminal record than the Germans - with or without Adolf Hitler. English imperialism has been extremely ruthless throughout the centuries. The English have raped Ireland for centuries. They then blame the Irish, rather like the Zionists blame the Palestinians. Oliver Cromwell, on every count, was more ruthless than Hitler. His massacre at Drogheda and the subsequent expulsion of the native Irish Catholics from their estates to starve on the bare rocks far exceeded the humane conditions for well-fed, interned Jews during WW2. British rule in India consisted of robbing the Indians blind while filling the coffers of England. Millions of Indians were probably starved to death in the process. The Dutch in South Africa were treated to the tender mercies of Herbert Lord Kitchener, who threw Boer women and children into bestial camps to die of disease and starvation (25,000 of them did). Two criminal wars against China in the 1840’s and 1860’s hooked millions of Chinese on opium before drug-running became a crime. Innumerable Spanish galleons were raided on the high seas by English pirates and their crews routinely executed. The British were responsible for the mass starvation of civilians during WW1 through their naval blockade. In WW2 the British initiated the bombing of civilians as a deliberate policy of terror. They were responsible for burning over a million civilians to death with phosphorous and incendiary bombs with temperatures reaching as high as 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. That makes fake “gassing” by Zyklon B look merciful by comparison. (And please do not tell me that the Germans started the bombing of civilians. They did not. The British government itself admitted it in a little book called “Science and Government” published back in 1960. Siege operations of cities, whether by air or artillery, such as Antwerp, do not constitute deliberate attacks on civilians. They are ancillary to the military assault on a defended target. The deliberate targeting of civilians as such to terrorize the enemy was started by the British. That is a firmly established fact.)

    The Germans look rather mild when compared to the English. The French prospered under the German occupation. The Irish did not prosper under the English. When the potato crop failed in the mid-nineteenth century, a quarter of the population of Ireland perished as English absentee land-lords looked on with indifference. (The English are such a humane, genteel people.) Many of the rest fled to America to escape the blessings of English rule. The English have a record of tyrany and oppression all over the globe dating back centuries which dwarfs any actual or alleged brutality attributable to the Germans. You might read “The Vampire of the Continent” by Count Ernst zu Reventlow for a purely factual description of the crimes of the British Empire cleansed of the usual limey apologetic polish and varnish.

    Now to the claim that “Holocaust Denial” rests on a paranoid base of conspiracy theory. One finds it impossible to believe that the British and American governments would go along with the Jews in such a conspiracy. I find this reasoning ultra-naive. It is a little bit like Hollywood. It is well-known that actresses have long had to get down on their knees and perform a little service for Jewish producers to get their parts. It does not get reported because the unwritten rule in Hollywood is that if you blab about the price of fame and fortune, you do not work - ever again. It is that simple. Representatives of governments which are deeply in debt to Jewish international banking firms which can destroy them by cutting off the money flow have a big incentive to “go along”, don’t they? Besides, it was very expedient for the English, who concocted all those fairy tales about handless Belgian babies, to go along with a hoax which would cover up their own crimes by pointing the finger at the Germans. I have already mentioned that the English started the terror-bombing of civilians. Both the English and the Americans were deeply implicated in Operation Keelhaul, under which over a million Russian and Cossack refugees were repatriated back to Joseph Stalin to be murdered. Dwight Eisenhower personally murdered over a million German soldiers, after they had surrendered, by deliberately starving them in his camps for “Disarmed Enemy Forces”. Under the circumstances playing ball with the Yids by going along with a hoax of a murdered “six million” might look attractive.

    Of course, the hoax did allow the Zionists to transfer a great many very-much-alive, non-exterminated Jews from behind the Jewish communist Iron Curtain countries to invade Arab Palestine - and drive both the British and Arabs out. And there we have another problem with your naivete. If the Germans actually did kill “six million”, where did all of these very-much-alive Jews come from? Why, one-half to two-thirds of them had been evacuated by the Red Army ahead of the German advance into the interior of the Soviet Union where they hid out the war.

    One obviously does not like conspiracy theories. Neither do I. So many of them are nonsense. But the hard truth is that if the “six million” fable is a hoax, then one conspiracy theory happens to be true.

  5. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prizewinner and author of *The Gulag Archipelago*, in a speech in Washington in 1975, had this to say of the Soviet system which was deemed worthy of recognition as one of ‘our’ Allies fighting ‘for Democracy’ against the ‘Dictators’ in WW2:

    “This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing SIX MILLION PERSONS to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe. And Europe didn’t even notice it. The world didn’t even notice it. SIX MILLION PERSONS!”

    (*Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West* (1978) p.16)

    Who were these people, and why was and is their fate unknown to the ordinary man in the street in western countries?

    Franklin Roosevelt’s ally and associate Joseph Stalin was the supreme dictator of Russia for almost a quarter of a century, from 1929 until his death in 1953. Born as Iosif Djugashvili, he adopted the very indicative name ‘Stalin’, ‘man of steel’. He lived up to this name in every respect. Soviet Russia under Stalin was a despotic police state that relied on espionage and terror, with a profound gulf in manner of living between the rulers and the ruled.

    Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) sought to bring about the ‘collectivization of agriculture’ in accordance with the ‘abolition of property in land’ put forward in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. But back in 1861 Czar Alexander II had liberated 23 million serfs, four years before slavery was abolished in the United States. In the period before the Revolution, millions of these peasants had been enabled to get title to their own individual plots, boosting Russian agricultural productivity. These independent peasant farmers became known as kulaks. When Communism was imposed on Russia, the kulaks as private property owners now stood in the way of the idea of Communism. In 1929 Stalin called for ‘the liquidation of the kulaks’, and their small family farms, animals, implements and crops were declared to belong to the state. “(The Jews) Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had always argued that the peasant would never surrender enough food voluntarily, and must be coerced and, if need be, crushed” (*Paul Johnson, *A History of the Modern World* (1983) p.268). The Red Army and the GPU secret police were used to implement the policy. All peasants who resisted were treated with violence. A very large number were killed or sent in cattle or freight trains to exile in remote areas in the frozen north or the desert steppes. Rather than give up their animals to the collective farms, many peasants killed and ate them. As a result, the number of farm animals in the Soviet Union was catastrophically reduced:

    1928 versus 1933:

    30,7 million
    19,6 million

    Sheep and goats
    146,7 million
    50,2 million

    26 million
    12,1 million

    33,5 million
    16,6 million

    (*Quigley, *Tragedy and Hope*, p.398).

    The peasants stopped farming on ground that suddenly, officially, no longer belonged to them. As a result, food production decreased drastically. After a while, the cities started running out of food. Orders were given for grain to be confiscated from the peasants, whether they had sufficient for themselves and their families or not. Those caught trying to reserve food for their families were ‘severely dealt with’. By the winter of 1932-3, virtually no food was left in the countryside. By early March 1933, ‘death on a mass scale really began’ (Robert Conquest, *The Harvest of Sorrow* (1986) p.243). The main farming areas of Russia, in the regions of the Ukraine and North Caucasus, were utterly devastated. Millions of people were forced to eat anything that was available, mice, rats, birds, grass, nettles, bark and even cats and dogs, but even then did not survive. It was a time of great and terrible hunger, a catastrophic man-made famine.

    The American journalist Eugene Lyons was sent to Russia in 1928 as chief correspondent for the United Press agency. Arriving as an enthusiastic Communist, he was able to experience the Soviet experiment at first hand. He became extremely disillusioned. He described the famine in his book *Assignment in Utopia* (published in 1937) in the following terms:

    “Hell broke loose in seventy thousand Russian villages...A population as large as all of Switzerland’s or Denmark’s was stripped clean of all their belongings...They were herded with bayonets at railroad stations, packed indiscriminately into cattle cars and freight cars and dumped weeks later in the lumber regions of the frozen North, the deserts of central Asia, wherever labor was needed, there to live or die...”. The number of people that died is unknown, but the famine alone is estimated conservatively to have been responsible for 6 million deaths, almost half of them children (*Conquest, p.303-4). Other millions died from the killings and sickness as a result of the deportations (*p.304-7). At the famous Yalta conference in 1945, Winston Churchill was able to question his friend and fellow ally Stalin about the process. Stalin said ‘ten million’ had been ‘dealt with’, but that it had been ‘absolutely necessary’. Churchill records that he ’sustained the strong impression of millions of men and women being blotted out or displaced forever’ (*Churchill, *The Second World War*, vol. IV, p.448). However Churchill – thank God for Winston Churchill - had no further comment to make on the matter. Controlling the agenda is always so important!

    Lyons, himself Jewish, credits the Jewish commissar Lazar Kaganovich with the major portion of responsibility for this major crime against humanity:

    “Lazar was his mind that invented the Political Departments to lead collectivized agriculture, his iron hand that applied Bolshevik mercilessness.” (*Lyons, p.578). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says tersely, “(Kaganovich) was one of the small group of Stalin’s top advisors pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929...Within the Politburo, Kaganovich and Molotov led the opposition to Kirov’s proposed concessions to the peasantry and to his attempts to relax the harshness of Stalin’s control...(Kaganovich) opposed Krushchev’s de-Stalinization...”. Kaganovich died at the ripe old age of 98 in 1991 (Encl. Brit.), ethnically safe from pursuit by the Israeli secret service, the Simon Wiesenthal organization, the New York media-intelligentsia or other hunters of real or imagined war criminals or human rights violators.

    The suffering caused by the great man-made famine was covered by some reports in newspapers in Britain, Europe, and the United States. Books dating from before World War Two can still be found in second-hand bookshops which describe the ferocity… Arthur Koestler, *Soviet Myth and Reality* in *The Yogi and the Commissar* (1945) Muggeridge, Lyons, Chamberlin… Yet this episode has been completely, entirely, totally ignored by our guardians of history, morality and political correctness…


    (obviously) to record the indescribable scale of human suffering which resulted, undoubtedly because such a high burden of responsibility for it lies with the Jew, Kaganovitch, and because the victims were not Jewish. No chance exists for such a monument, according to a private consensus, owing to certain political realities.

    This six million is the ‘incorrect’ six million, because their inconvenient story is not and has not been useful to today’s elite. The tribal affiliations of the chief perpetrator (Jew) and the victims (non-Jews) are the wrong ones, not fitting into the ‘correct’ pattern.

    According to Solzhenitsyn, in the eighty years that preceded the Revolution in Russia, - years of revolutionary activity, uprisings and the assassination of a Czar, an average of ten persons a year were executed. After the Revolution, in 1918 and 1919, according to the figures of the Cheka, the secret police itself - more than a thousand persons were executed per month without trial. In 1937-8, at the height of Stalin’s terror, more than 40,000 persons were executed per month. (*Solzhenitsyn, p.17).

    Millions of persons were executed or sent to labour camps. In his magnum opus, *The Gulag Archipelago*, Solzhenitsyn credits Naftaly Frenkel, a ‘Turkish-born Jew’, with being works chief/chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor (Baltic-White Sea) canal, built entirely with slave labour (paperback edition, vol 2, p.72). Solzhenitsyn quotes the official Soviet history of the project, which describes Frenkel as having ‘...the eyes of an interrogator and prosecutor... A man with enormous love of power and pride, for whom the main thing is unlimited power. If it is necessary for him to be feared, then let him be feared. He spoke harshly to the engineers, attempting to humiliate them.’ (ibid, p.75). Other Jews were also involved in influential positions. Yakov Rappoport was deputy chief of construction (p.78) and Matvei Berman was the Chief of Gulag (p.79). Frenkel, Berman and Rappoport are amongst six men described by Solzhenitsyn as ‘hired murderers’, ‘each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives’ (p.91). Is Solzhenitsyn alone in his accusations? Why are these names generally unknown to ordinary citizens in the West?

    “The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, *Who Financed Hitler*, p.164).

    “There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1...The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years...It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists...led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon, *Hitler, Germans, and the ‘Jewish Question’*, Princeton University Press (1984) p.23).

    “The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s...Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution...Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Bernal, Black Athena, vol. 1, pp.367,387).

    “To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”

    When Lenin died in 1924, Zinoviev - the first chairman of the Communist International - formed a triumvirate with Kamenev and Stalin to govern Russia. This ‘Troika’ as it was known was formed to keep Trotsky from the succession. Stalin was the only one of the three members of the Troika who was not Jewish. “Though Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky as too militant and extreme, they shared his belief in permanent revolution, which Stalin did not. Russia had been in almost continuous turmoil for twenty years and had suffered revolutions and counter-revolutions, war, invasions and a pitiless and drawn-out civil war. There were limits to which the endurance of a people could be stretched. The Russians wanted to bury their dead and resume what they could of normal life. Stalin understood this. Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev (the three Jews) did not.”

  6. (McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies
    by Ann Coulter

    When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in *Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism*, liberals chose not to argue with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to read my book, such as that I wear short skirts, date boys, and that *Treason* was not a scholarly tome.

    After printing rabidly venomous accounts of McCarthy for half a century based on zero research, liberals would only accept research presenting an alternative view of McCarthy that included, as the Los Angeles Times put it, at least the "pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity."

    This week, they got it. The great M. Stanton Evans has finally released *Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies*. Based on a lifetime's work, including nearly a decade of thoroughgoing research, stores of original research and never-before-seen government files, this 672-page book ends the argument on Joe McCarthy. Look for it hidden behind stacks of Bill Clinton's latest self-serving book at a bookstore near you.

    Evans' book is such a tour de force that liberals are already preparing a "yesterday's news" defense -- as if they had long ago admitted the truth about McCarthy. Yes, and they fought shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan to bring down the Evil Empire. Thus, Publishers Weekly preposterously claims that "the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted." Somebody better tell George Clooney.

    The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history -- the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victimhood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.

    The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in *Blacklisted by History*, is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

    In the face of the Democrats' absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.

    Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn't like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.

    Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no "McCarthyites" until liberals came along.

    *Blacklisted by History* proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:

    -- That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;

    -- That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;

    -- That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;

    -- That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.

    Ironically, for all of their love of conspiracy theories -- the rigging of the 2000 election, vote suppression in Ohio in 2004, 9/11 being an inside job, oil companies covering up miracle technology that would allow cars to run on dirt, Britney Spears' career, etc., etc. -- when presented with an actual conspiracy of Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S. government, they laughed it off like world-weary skeptics and dedicated themselves to slandering Joe McCarthy.

    Then as now, liberals protect themselves from detection with wild calumnies against anybody who opposes them. They have no interest in -- or aptitude for -- persuasion. Their goal is to anathematize their enemies. *Blacklisted by History* removes the curse from one of the greatest patriots in American history.

  7. (Pearl Harbors Past and Present
    Edmund Connelly
    December 7, 2008)

    Sixty-seven years ago today, Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and America was thrust into World War II. Ever since, the term “Pearl Harbor” has evoked a sense of casus belli for Americans. Thus, in our own times, the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001 is considered the “Pearl Harbor” that prompted America’s attack on first Afghanistan, then Iraq.

    George Bush had not been in office a year when this event defined his administration. Now that we are nearing the end of his eight-years in office, it might be useful to reconsider what the 9/11 attacks may in fact have been.

    While the official story that nineteen young Arab men hijacked four civilian airliners and caused the damage stands, a robust counter narrative has also emerged. David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology, might be considered the leading light of this movement thanks to his meticulous books casting doubt on the official story.

    Griffin employs the term Pearl Harbor in two of his most critical books. The first, published in 2004, was *The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11*. In that book Griffin outlined in detail the doubts surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7, the alleged crash of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field.

    In the next to last chapter of the book, “Is Complicity by US Officials the Best Explanation for 9/11?,” Griffin approvingly quotes a writer who asks "cui bono?":

    The forensic principle of “who most benefits from the crime?” clearly points in the direction of the Bush administration. One would be naive to think the Bush Jr. faction and its oil, military-industrial and Wall Street backers . . . do not benefit astronomically from this mass-kill explosion. If there was a wish-list, it is all granted by this numbing turn of events. . . . The military, the CIA, and every satellite armed security apparatus have more money and power than ever, and become as dominant as they can over civilians in “the whole new era” already being declared by the White House.”

    As good as Griffin’s 2004 book was, events have overtaken it. Fortunately, the indefatigable Griffin saw fit to revise and update the book, and in the latter half of 2008 released *The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, The Cover-Up, and the Exposé*. (When I say Griffin is an indefatigable writer, I mean it. When is the last time you found a five-page footnote such as the one Griffin includes?)

    Griffin does not mince words. In his view, “the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming.” In over two-hundred and fifty pages plus notes, he makes an intriguing case.

    Consider, for example, testimony Griffin has unearthed from experts associated with the original planning of the World Trade Center. “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in assumed collision with a large jet airliner traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse.” Another expert averred, “I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners.”

    Griffin’s analysis of the architectural strength of the Twin Towers is damaging to the official account of collapse caused by airliner strikes. For example, the oft-argued claim that heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel is brought into question. “The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours . . . to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening even a few exposed members.” Even the National Institute of Standards and Technology officially admitted that “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 482˚F,” far below the required 1,112˚F necessary to deform the structural steel.

    One of the quotes Griffin employs to sum up his belief in what happened that day has it that “it is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.” As the structural engineer in question articulated it in engineer-speak, “engineering science and the laws of physics simply don’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result.”

    Obviously, it is impossible to do justice to Griffin’s book in this column, but I would like to mention Griffin’s debunking of the alleged phone calls from aboard the hijacked planes. With respect to Flight 77, for instance, which was destined to strike the Pentagon, Griffin proves that the phone calls we heard about were fake. “According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.”

    Remember the “Let’s Roll” story of martyred heroes who knew they were going to be used as a flying bomb to hit Washington? Allegedly, United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked by Arab terrorists, but male passengers such as Todd Beamer overpowered the hijackers and the plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field.

    The official account from the beginning highlighted claims that some passengers had made cell phone calls from cruising altitude, but Griffin shows that the technology of 2001 absolutely precluded that possibility. As one expert confirmed, that numerous cell phone calls could be made from an airliner flying above 31,000 feet was “flat out impossible.” Yet the narrative remains with us, preserved in celluloid in films such as *United 93* of 2006.

    As an aside, Griffin throws in but never develops the curious fact that on the day before 9/11, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted at a press conference that a whopping $2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon. As luck would have it, the portion of the Pentagon that was most damaged that day was the Army’s financial management/audit area.

    If there is a weakness in Griffin’s account, it lies in apportioning the blame for the government complicity Griffin sees in 9/11. Like many others, Griffin indicts the Bush administration as well as senior government and military officials. But in the “war on Iraq for oil” vs. the “war on Iraq for Israel” debate, Griffin comes down solidly in the former camp, dismissing Jewish neoconservative participation with a wave of the hand.

    To be sure, Griffin sees the theory that the neocon agenda was central to 9/11 as a false flag operation. But he goes out of his way to exonerate Jews acting as Jews in their actions on behalf of Israel. “The term ‘neoconservative’ is . . . used here to refer strictly to an ideology, not to any biographical facts about those who hold this ideology. I mean ‘biographical facts’ to include ethnicity. Although many of the prominent neoconservatives have been Jewish, leading people to think that Jewishness is a necessary condition for being a neoconservative, this is not so.”

    Of course this reasoning is flawed because it completely ignores the degree to which Jews acting on behalf of perceived Jewish interests have dominated the neocon movement. The presence of non-Jews such as Cheney and Rumsfeld does not change this well-documented fact.

    To make up for this deficiency, I now turn to scholar James Petras. In three important books, Petras illustrates how Israel and its agents within the United States have manipulated public policy to benefit Israel at the expense of America and other countries. In *The Power of Israel in the United States* (2006) and *Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants* (2007), he analyzed the neocon power structure that controls Washington.

    In this year’s *Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power*, Petras adds to his previous consideration of who is to blame for 9/11 and the wars that followed. He began his 2006 book by asking “Who fabricated the Iraq War threat?” His answer: “The Jewish Lobby, not Big Oil.”

    He then addressed the issue of September 11 and the Israelis, pointing to Carl Cameron’s Fox News reports about Israeli spying in America. Reportedly, sixty Israelis were detained for engaging in a long-running intelligence operation in the US. “Many of those arrested were active Israeli military or intelligence operatives.” More seriously, experts believed that these Israelis had advance knowledge of 9/11 plans yet did not share it with Washington.

    Petras accepts the charge that Israel had prior knowledge of the attacks but he explains that “the lack of any public statement concerning Israel’s possible knowledge of 9/11 is indicative of the vast, ubiquitous and aggressive nature of its powerful Diaspora supporters.” Thus, he tells us not to expect that the Israeli connection to 9/11 will be publicly disclosed. And he notes that suppression of this topic from public discourse is not astonishing at all “if we understand properly the ‘unique relationship’ between the US Empire and Israel, a regional power.”

    Petras devotes a chapter to “provocations as pretexts for imperial wars.” Because wars in a democracy require the consent of highly motivated masses, the need to invent a cause for war is strong. Since no foreign foe is openly attacking America, rulers such as Bush must fabricate a reality which paints the target as an “invader.”

    Rulers do this, according to Petras, by creating a threat to the homeland, thus making the casus bellicus “immediate, dramatic, and self-righteously defensive.” He then briefly describes previous American incidents of such contrived threats, beginning with the attack on Pearl Harbor, followed by pretexts for wars against Korea and Vietnam.

    Petras situates 9/11 as a false flag operation in that mold. The goal was to provide justification for attacking Israel’s enemies. After all, in 2001 few Americans had the stomach or desire to launch a new war in the Middle East — this despite the vigorous efforts of Israel and the neocons to inflame a pro-war mood.

    Consequently, the key challenge for the militarists in the Bush Administration was how to bring the US public around to support the new Middle East war agenda, in the absence of any visible, credible and immediate threat from any sovereign Middle Eastern country. The Zionists were well placed in all the key government positions to launch a worldwide offensive war. They had clear ideas of the countries to target.

    One man who ties together Griffin’s critique of the official 9/11 account and Petras’s exegesis of Zionist control of Washington comes in the person of Philip Zelikow, who later went on to direct the 9/11 Commission Report. Remarkably, in 1998 this Jewish academic had presciently written that in order to realize an agenda of American permanent global war, a trigger was necessary. “Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force (torture).”

    Coincidentally (or not), the heavily Jewish neocon think tank The Project for the New American Century had written a year before 9/11 that “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor,” would be necessary to galvanize public opinion in favor of a preemptive war in the Middle East.

    On the morning of September 11, 2001, Zelikow and Jewish think tanks in Washington got their war justification.

    Petras fingers the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) as being the principal domestic backer of US military activity:

    No other organized political-economic force consistently supports all US military efforts in each of the zones of conflict. No other group backs US military action in countries where there is little or no oil. No other group totally ignores the “overstretch” of the US military — the overextension of US military forces in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa at the expense of providing military defense of other strategic imperial regions. Only the ZPC, of all theoretically possible influential “interest groups” has put all countries — Islamic or secular — critical of Israel on the US’s military hit-list.

    Petras further claims that ”never in the history of the US republic or empire has a powerful but tiny minority been able to wield so much influence by using our nation’s military and economic power and diplomatic arm-twisting in the service of a foreign government.”

    He also makes the important point that “Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the organized, active minority driving the major Zionist organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority, which assumes 'legitimate' claim to speak 'for the community.’” This characteristic of Jewish activism has also been documented extensively by Kevin MacDonald.

    Since 9/11 we have certainly seen the results of this process.

    Given the immense power of the Zionists in America, the unshakeable will of their leaders to work for Israel’s interests, plus the plethora of committed Jews in key positions of power, is it too much to suspect a ZPC hand in the execution of 9/11?

    Further, would the stubborn propagation of the official 9/11 story be so hard to explain if we took into account Jewish power not only in government but the media as well? This might explain a mystery Griffin ponders: “The official story about 9/11 is so filled with implausibilities and outright impossibilities and contradictions that it should have been exposed as a big lie within weeks, if not days.”

    Why hasn’t it?

    By taking seriously these books by Griffin and Petras, one may gain needed insight into what officials and the media studiously ignore or treat as “conspiracy theories.” The best part of reading both authors, however, comes with the cross-fertilization obtained by pairing doubts about the official 9/11 story with a cold look at what power is actually directing our nation in so many ways.

    The 1941 Pearl Harbor resulted in horrible deaths for millions. Before letting that happen again as a result of a “new” Pearl Harbor, we should at least avail ourselves of the facts surrounding this event.

  8. (Richard Perle's Outrageous Lies
    Edmund Connelly
    February 24, 2009)

    I’ve just finished listening to an enlightening 2-hour radio interview with hosts Mark Glenn and James Morris and guest Kevin MacDonald, and including an interesting call-in appearance from Stephen Sniegoski. The general topic was Jewish power, but one point in particular stood out: Recently, a premier architect and promoter of the neocon war against Iraq, “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle, has been escalating his campaign to deny the neocon role in American politics. Let me explain.

    Back in 1996, a group of Americans writing for an Israeli think tank published a paper for Israeli Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” In addition to calling for Saddam Hussein’s replacement, it also advised an overthrow or destabilization of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran, thus leading to something akin to a “Greater US-Israel Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

    One year later came the formation of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon think tank based in Washington. William Kristol and Robert Kagan co-founded it as a non-profit educational organization, but many have accused it of playing a primary role in the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Later, the Pentagon hosted a unit called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), where Paul Wolfowitz joined Douglas Feith in propagating what many have claimed were false allegations about Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

    In the American media there were legions of neocon writers who repeated the party line about the need for a preemptive war against Hussein. Anyone following the efforts and words of the neocons likely recognized a sense of schizophrenia about describing who, exactly, these neocons were. Last year I wrote about this phenomenon of naming neocons (see also here), noting how such comfortable homes to neoconservatism as *The Public Interest*, *The National Interest*, and *Commentary* (published by The American Jewish Committee) began to ignore any connection between Jews and neoconservatism. For example, the Winter 2004 issue of *The Public Interest* had an essay titled "Conservatives and Neoconservatives." Yet author Adam Wolfson offered not even an oblique reference to Jews. Never mind that journal co-founder Irving Kristol is considered by many to be the father of neoconservatism, or that the other three editors over the forty-year life of the magazine have also been Jews.

    Over at its more foreign-policy oriented sister publication, *The National Interest*, Francis Fukuyama, in "The Neoconservative Moment" (Summer 2004) also failed to mention this connection. And in the October 2005 issue of *Commentary*, Joshua Muravchik did likewise in his article "Iraq and the Conservatives." (Notice that Muravchik doesn't even call them neoconservatives.)

    The schizophrenic aspect of naming or not naming neocons as Jews was obvious at the *New York Times* beginning at the end of 2008. In mid-December, America’s “paper of record” featured a review of a book about neocon hawk Richard Perle written by Alan Weisman, “a world-traveled journalist and the son of Ukrainian Jews.” In the review were found familiar neocon names such as Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, and David Frum. The reader, however, heard not a word about their Jewish identity.

    One month later, however, the very same *Times* Book Review addressed Jacob Heilbrunn’s *They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons* — yet another book on neocons written by a Jewish author. But this time the reviewer, Timothy Noah, could not have been more blunt about the Jewish nature of the movement: “There’s no point denying it: neocons tend to be Jewish.” Heilbrunn confirmed this in an interview, when he bequeathed to us this verbal gift: "It is anything but an anti-Semitic canard to label neoconservatism a largely Jewish phenomenon.” In an article in *The American Conservative*, Philip Weiss delivered the same verdict: “Heilbrunn achieves one important chore: a forthright social narrative of the neocons as a Jewish movement.”

    All of this brings us full circle back to 2004, when Kevin MacDonald wrote that "neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish intellectual and political movement." "The current situation in the United States is really an awesome display of Jewish power and influence.” MacDonald goes over the entire history of the movement back to the 1960s and shows that the principal players were Jews with a strong Jewish identity and a strong sense of pursuing Jewish interests — first and foremost the interests of Israel, but also advocating the use of US foreign policy to combat anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. He shows that neocons hold traditional Jewish liberal attitudes on every other issue, including immigration policy, but that they managed to elbow out traditional conservatives in the Republican Party to the point that paleocons like Pat Buchanan have been relegated to the sidelines.

    Of course anyone following the antics of the neocons always knew about a certain Jewish character to the movement. After all, didn’t Pat Buchanan famously write in his seminal cover story in *The American Conservative* in early 2003 that a “neoconservative clique” was responsible for a pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11? Continuing, he thundered, “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

    And who might benefit from the Iraq War? Buchanan spelled it out:

    Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

    One might argue that the Jewish nature of the neocon movement and its efforts on behalf of the State of Israel are two of the most heavily documented and discussed topics of the last decade. Here is just a short list of the most well-known considerations of Jewish power in this respect:

    *John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s *The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy*
    *Jimmy Carter’s *Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid*
    *IHS Press's *Neo-Conned* and its massive sequel *Neo-Conned Again*
    *Mark Green’s edited *Persecution, Privilege & Power: Reconsidering the Zionist Narrative in American Life*
    *Kevin MacDonald’s *Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement* (also here)
    *Jacob Heilbrunn’s *They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons*

    Perhaps the crowning achievement in this category is Stephen Sniegoski’s *The Transparent Cabal*, a comprehensive solo effort that definitively documents the neocon-Zionist hand in America’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq, as well as in American Middle East policy more generally. His lucid comments on the radio show mentioned above make this topic even easier to understand.

    Finally, I arrive at the point of this column: Despite the massive proof of neocon involvement in America’s decision to go to war with Iraq and despite the overwhelming evidence that neoconservatism qualifies as a Jewish movement, central neocon figure Richard Perle has, with a straight face, stated that neocons do not exist. And it follows that if they don't exist, they certainly are not a Jewish cabal.

    In a story last week in the *Washington Post*, journalist Dana Milbank expressed skepticism about Perle’s odd claims. “Listening to neoconservative mastermind Richard Perle at the Nixon Center yesterday,” he wrote, “there was a sense of falling down the rabbit hole. In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday's forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:

    1. Perle is not a neoconservative.

    2. Neoconservatives do not exist.

    3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn't be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.”

    Against any form of reality that most of us would recognize, Perle averred that "There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy." This nonsense was spoken at a gathering hosted by *The National Interest*.

    As evidence of the coordinated nature of this disinformation campaign, one can point to the essay Perle recently penned for *The National Interest*. Titled *Ambushed on the Potomac*, the essay has Perle spouting such howlers as, “I know of no statement, public or private, by any neoconservative in or near government, advocating the invasion of Iraq primarily for the purpose of promoting democracy or advancing some grand neoconservative vision.” And this: “And as for Israeli interests, well, the Israelis, who believed that Iran posed the greater threat, were strongly and often vociferously against the United States going into Iraq.”

    He also alleges that his fellow Jew Jacob Heilbrunn’s *They Knew They Were Right* exhibits “an obsession with neoconservative influence” but fails “utterly to describe or document that influence.” Further, he adds, “This neoconservative conspiracy is nonsense, of course, and no serious observer of the Bush administration would argue such a thing, not least because there is not, and cannot be, any evidence to substantiate it.”

    *The National Interest* is entirely complicit in this campaign. Witness, for example, the six large pictures interspersed throughout the article: Bush, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Rice, Rumsfeld — none of them a Jew. Perle (with the help of The National Interest) wants to frame them for “the hijacking of foreign policy.” And he concludes that “what is unusual is the extent to which President Bush was undermined by his own administration.”

    What might be missed here is a two-year-old piece in *Vanity Fair* which reveals even more chutzpah on who is to blame for Iraq. In conversations just prior to the 2006 elections, a host of neocon operatives were interviewed and sought to distance themselves from the Iraq fiasco by blaming others — but only non-Jews.

    Kenneth Adelman, for instance, though professing deep respect for personal friend Donald Rumsfeld, still blamed him for many of the problems in carrying out the plans of the neocons. “I’m crushed by his performance.” Adelman also blamed three other top non-Jews: Paul Bremer, George Tenet and General Tommy Franks. “Those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq.”

    Michael Ledeen, top scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, a leading neocon think tank, felt that Condoleezza Rice, in her capacity as national-security adviser, had sought compromise rather than correct decisions. Eliot Cohen saw “a very different quality of leadership” as responsible for missed chances in 2003 and 2004. Michael Rubin, also from the A.E.I., faulted the Commander-in-Chief this way: “Where I most blame George Bush is that, through his rhetoric, people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves."

    Perle offered that “this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the Bush administration. . . . At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.” Incredibly, Perle claimed, “Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened . . .”

    The most outlandish opinion, however, came from Ledeen, who argued that the best way to understand the dysfunction of the Bush administration was to ask, “Who are the most powerful people in the White House?” His answer: "They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes." Quite frankly, I'm speechless.

    James Petras, who has penned three recent books on the “Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC),” also noted the blame-the-goyim approach. "Whatever inside dope [journalist Seymour] Hersh cited that had not been public was based on anonymous sources which could never be double checked or verified, whose analysis incidentally coincided with Hersh's peculiar penchant for blaming the Gentiles (WASPs) and exonerating the brethren."

    Petras is a man worth reading. In two previous books, *The Power of Israel in the United States* (2006) and *Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants* (2007), he lucidly outlined the power structure that controls Washington. (See my review of both books for The Occidental Quarterly here). Last year he come out with a new book, *Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power* that continued his exposition. (For a short summary of such ideas about the ZPC, see here.)

    Petras minces no words in this new book:

    The lesson is clear: the rise of Judeo-fascism represents a clear and present danger to our democratic freedoms in the United States. They do not come with black shirts and stiff-arm salutes. The public face is a clean-shaven, neck-tied attorney, real estate philanthropist or Ivy League professor. But there is rising anger and hostility in American against the ZPC, against its arrogant authoritarian communal attacks on our democratic values, to say nothing of our national interests. Sooner or later there will be a major backlash — and it will reflect badly on those who, through vocation or conviction, engage in the firings, censoring and intimidation campaigns against the American majority. The American people will not remember their cries of ‘anti-Semitism’; they will recall their role in sending thousands of American soldiers to their death in the Middle East in the interests of Israel, and how that war has diminished the United States’ image in the world, to say nothing of its economic well-being and democratic freedoms at home.

    Time will tell whether the American people will react as Petras suggests. But more to the point, will the American people swallow the current lies of Perle and his fellow neocons? There are two reasons they might. First, Jews have a long history of deception of non-Jews. MacDonald was being polite when he titled a chapter on the history of Jewish deception “Rationalization and Apologia.” Less charitable people might call it something else. In any case, we might suspect that Perle is simply engaging in a tried and true tactic of his tribe.

    The second reason Perle et al. might succeed in deceiving the masses is that the bulk of American media is in the hands of Jews, most of whom, as Petras and others have shown, are highly sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Israel Shamir provides a reason why the transgressions of Perle and his fellow neocons may well go unpunished: “The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren's) misdeeds.”

    And for people who are not deceived by all this, there is little doubt that organizations like the ADL will step in to label as anti-Semites anyone who publicly states that neoconservatism is a Jewish cabal. Indeed, the ADL has already done so. As usual, such charges will keep public discussion of these issues to a minimum, and respectable politicians will be loathe to discuss the topic.

    How the American people react to these brazen attempts by the Jewish neocons to whitewash their role in steering America on such a disastrous course will show their maturity and determination to get to the truth of the matter, or it will show their lack thereof. The proper response, of course, is to forcefully reject these outrageous lies.

  9. Mr. Douglas S. Winnail
    c/o Tomorrow’s World
    P.O. Box 3810
    Charlotte NC 28227-8010

    Dear Mr. Winail,

    Reading your article “Resurgent Germany: A Fourth Reich?” the words of Harold Nicholson came to mind. In his study *PEACE MAKING* written in 1919, he said: THE ANGLO SAXONS ARE GIFTED WITH A LIMITLESS CAPACITY, PARTICULARLY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FOR APPLYING MORAL CANONS TO OTHERS WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER APPLIED TO THEMSELVES. HOW MANY ENGLISHMEN REMEMBER THAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE WAS MAINLY THE RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL NAVAL AND MILITARY ACTIONS IN ALL PARTS OF THE GLOBE? Obviously not you, Mr. Winnail, for according to you, only the Germans are guilty. The twisting of the truth is not very Christian, don’t you think?

    Its dream of world conquest foiled… I would have thought that this old canard would have died a peaceful death, but no, you must bring it back. All historians of the period know that it was just propaganda. How can a nation of 80 million go on the rampage to conquer the world? There is of course one which did just that: Great Britain, but which you seem to consider justified in doing so. Have you asked the relatives of the 5 million Irish starved to death or the 30-odd million Indians who died in the same way, or the Boers in South Africa? The British Empire was created not to bring light to the world but because Britain ran out of silver. At the same time the yeomen were being thrown out of their farms to make room for extensive sheep farming by the so-called gentry. Parliament passed a law stating that anybody loitering should be hanged, but there were so many of these unfortunates that it was found more expedient to press-gang them onto ships and send them to other parts of the world to steal, rape and murder. At that time, as now, the trade ran from the East to the West and the silver the other way round, therefore Britain having no silver mines and having plundered the Spaniards, now decided that it would be nice to go and steal the silver from the treasury of Bengal. So they sent Clive and his fleet and found mountains of silver. Britain was back in business for a while. And of course, since the King was God’s representative on earth, all the mayhem was done in the name of God, which of course for the victims must have been a boon. (Brooke Adams, *The Laws of Civilization and Decay*)

    During my stay in England in the 60’s, our history teacher stated that Germany started two wars. I raised my hand and said that during the same period, England was involved in 28 wars. The teacher replied that those were COLONIAL wars. so I asked him if the life of an Englishman was more important than the life of a Chinese in God’s eyes. He could not answer that one, but he did not like me so much afterward. For this is the crux of the matter. Who gave Britain the right to trample on the people of the world? Who gave the Zionist Anglo-American Empire the right to murder the people of Iraq or Afghanistan? Who gave a bunch of Turko-Mongol Khazars from the North of the Caucasus, converted to Judaism in the 9th Century AD, the right to steal the land of the Palestinians. Did God do that? For you to reply.

    Will a Fourth Reich rise? Before it can rise, the Third one must go out of existence. It never capitulated. Only the army capitulated, therefore it is still legally in existence. The Federal Republic is not an independent country, as no peace treaty was ever signed. It is just a vassal state of the Zionist Anglo-American Empire. It does not even have a final constitution, only a provisional one. As to a “Europeanized” Germany, as you put it, I do not think too many people worry about it, except the empire which controls it. In any case, it would be better than the corrupt, oppressive regime which now runs the country in the name of its imperial masters. The “Americanized” Germany is a sick country. It can only die or become healthy again. And it must be remembered that it is Vidkun Quisling who first proposed a European Union. The idea was taken over by the “elites” who controlled Europe after the war.

    WWII began in 1939 when Adolf Hitler openly broke agreements with neighboring countries… WRONG. WWII started in 1933, 58 days after Hitler was democratically elected to power. All main newspapers in the world had for headlines: JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY. That declaration in fact meant that every Jew within the ambit of the Reich became an enemy alien and at the time enemy aliens were consigned to concentration camps. Ask the Japanese, Italian, Germans and others in the US of A. In Germany, the Jewish Agencies were active till 1941 and were organizing the emigration of Jews toward Palestine, the US (see US immigration statistics) and other countries. Germany did not break agreements with its neighbouring nation as you imply. It was negotiating with POLAND for a one-mile-wide rail-and-road link to its province of East Prussia. The deal was almost done when Britain and, reluctantly, France, [came] under US pressure (Roosevelt needed a war after the Great Depression). That guarantee was supposed to secure ALL the Polish borders against ALL aggression, but in fact it was aimed at Germany only. When the Soviets invaded from the east, the guarantee had long been forgotten. With the support of the Western countries, POLAND BROKE ALL NEGOTIATIONS WITH GERMANY, MOBILIZED ITS ARMY, AND MARCHED TOWARD THE BORDER. A general mobilization was deemed at the time as a declaration of war. The Poles were so sure of their victory, that they had commissioned a huge painting of the Polish president marching through the streets of Berlin. It was found half-finished when the Germans took over the presidential palace. At the same time, Polish communist irregulars were busy mass-murdering the German population of the Corridor, forcing Hitler to intervene to save his brethren. The rest is history. FRANCE AND BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY (not the other way around). Germany did not attack them till a year later when it had exhausted all possibilities of peace. Then its better-led forces smashed the French armies. The British contingent ran for the Channel where HITLER, WHO STILL THOUGHT THAT PEACE WAS POSSIBLE, LET THEM ESCAPE AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL.


    Millions of Jews, Czechs and Poles were deported to work as slave laborers in German factories etc. There was no need for slave labor in slave factories, as thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, French, Dutch, Belgians etc. worked WILLINGLY for the war effort. They had the same pay and labor conditions as the German workers. A Dutch friend of mine who worked in one at the time even told me that the Jews working there were receiving Kosher food, which included more proteins such as beans. He also asked to have the same food and got it. The only sign of discrimination was that the Jews were eating with wooden spoons and non-Jews with metal spoons. He has never been able to find the reason. As to the concentration camps, which were in fact vast industrial estates, there have been so many lies, that it has become a religion where myths must be believed under threat of the Holy Inquisition. In many countries of Europe, you are jailed just for querying aspects of the official truth. BUT IF THE TRUTH MUST BE PROTECTED BY JAIL SENTENCES, IT CANNOT BE THE TRUTH.

    The German war machine of WWII stands unequaled in modern Western civilization for its efficiency (correct), destructiveness (wrong) and brutality (wrong). You must have seen too many Hollywood films and Action Heroes comic books. The German army was efficient, there is no doubt, but it was a disciplined army. Rape was punished by firing squad for example, unlike the US and Russian armies where it was a national sport. After the landing in Normandy, US commanders were complaining that the French were sullen and did not want to be liberated, at least not the US way with waves of darkies raping the French women. In four years of occupation of France there were less rapes by German soldiers than in ONE WEEK of Western Allied occupation of Germany. Paris, Rome, Brussels and all other Western towns were left untouched by the German army, while the British and US Air force razed French and German towns and the women and children sheltering them. Germany was razed against all the tenets of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians in war time. You can talk of brutality and destructiveness…!

    Why did Germany descend into tyranny? IT DID NOT. The people democratically elected the National Socialist Party to power. In three years, the unemployment rate passed from 50% to 0%. Its workers had the best protective laws in Europe at the time, they were the first to enjoy paid holidays, canteens in factories, health check-ups, cruises for deserving workers. Those laws are still in existence in Holland, so they must have been good. After the chaos of the Weimar Republic which your Mr Barzini seems to have loved so much, it was a breath of fresh air for the German people. THEY WERE FREE FROM THE SHACKLES OF VERSAILLES AND THEY HAD RECOVERED THEIR DIGNITY. This did not please the International bankers, who pushed for boycott of German goods as Hitler refused to borrow money from them. His motto was that a sovereign state should not borrow from a bank. It can create its own money, interest free, in sufficient quantity to finance the needs of the nation. As the Western nations tried to destroy the National Socialist revolution through boycott, Germany went on to barter trade and gave a better deal to the nations of the Third World than the greedy US, Brits and French. Germany grabbed the entire South American market, which did not please the greedy nations. As Churchill said, THE UNFORGIVABLE CRIME OF GERMANY BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR WAS ITS ATTEMPT TO TAKE ITS TRADE STRENGTH OUT OF THE WORLD FINANCE SYSTEM AND TO BUILD ITS SYSTEM OF GOODS FOR GOODS TRADE IN WHICH CASE WORLD FINANCE WOULD NO LONGER RECEIVE ANY PROFIT. (MEMOIRS)

    James Baker III, Secretary of State under Reagan and Bush I said in the German magazine Der Spiegel, 2/92:


    (That is why the best of Europe had to die.)

    Lewis Wyndham stated it in a different way…


    In 1938, Churchill sent an open letter to Adolf Hitler: “If England should ever suffer a national misfortune like that of Germany’s of 1918, I will pray to God to send us a man of your power of will and spirit.” The self same Churchill, seeing the rise of the Soviet Union, made this strange admission 1945: WE SLAUGHTERED THE WRONG PIG. By that time it was too late.

    Tacitus wrote that German men had “no taste for peace” and spent their time in warlike pursuit…and posted a serious threat to the Roman army. It is the same argument as the Zionist Anglo Empire crowd. Only the Romans had a taste for peace and only the Anglo have it now. The Germans did not want the Romans to disturb their life. They did not want Pax Romana, and neither do we want Pax Americana. In fact the Romans should have been grateful to those Germans as they were the backbone of the Roman army. As Brook Adams states, if the empire had been in Spain, instead of the borders of Germany, it would not have lasted very long. Caesar could overcome against Pompey’s superior number of legions because he had German warriors.

    To find Germany leading the effort to unite Europe today is not surprising as the idea has been part of German cultural heritage for more than a thousand years…. Is that a crime? Germany is the center of Europe and it is therefore in its interest that peace prevails on the continent. England on the contrary has always been the troublemaker on the continent… Churchill in his memoirs states: ENGLAND WILL NOT TOLERATE A RISING POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF EUROPE. Any idea who was responsible for the conflict?

    Why did so many Germans accept the “master race” concept and the destructive policies of Hitler’s Third Reich? Very strange statement indeed. There is only one people on this Earth who thinks it is the master race. Just read the Old Testament and you will have an idea. The same people calls the rest of us GOYIM, meaning human cattle which can be slaughtered, raped, robbed, fleeced by the Chosen of the Lord as their rightful booty. These are the real UEBERMENSCHEN. In fact, the Germans have been the most pacifist of the lot. They did not create an empire outside their territories, except for a few pieces of Africa they inherited from the scramble. As to humility, compassion and charity, please Mr. Winnail, I am sure you find that in the British and the Americans. Ask the victims of the empire! They will tell you. In fact Christianity should be thankful to the Germans for, when corruption threatened to overcome the Church and destroy it, it was first Alaric the Goth who saved the faith when he invaded corrupt Rome and later Martin Luther and its Reformation.

    The same idea of uniting Europe under the banner of Christendom… Now you contradict yourself. First you say that they cannot be Christians due to their lack of humility, compassion and charity, then you tell us that they want to fight under the banner of Christianity. Those qualities of humility, compassion and charity (which of course permeate the Anglo establishment) are the sign of slavery, not of a proud nation. That is why Christianity appealed to the wretched of the earth, the hoi polloi. Its goal was the destruction of the Roman Empire through pacifism. Christianity in opposition gave us this biblical quote: OUR ENEMIES ARE THE RULERS OF THE WORLD (the Romans), but Christianity in power told us that GOVERNMENTS ARE ORDERED BY GOD (obey the Church or be burnt at the stake).

    Prussia was recognized as the most thoroughly militarized power in Europe and one of the most self-sufficient and prosperous. Nothing wrong with that. Militarization brings discipline and discipline brings prosperity. One could say the same of China today, while the US is floundering in a sea of iniquity. Nothing can be built without discipline. That is the reason for the success of the German nation.

    As to blood and iron, I cannot quite understand your argument. How do you think the British Empire was built? What do you think George Bush is doing in Iraq? Why has the US over 700 bases all over the world? That is really the pot calling the kettle black.

    It was this Prussian tradition - authoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic and expansionist - that paved the way for the rise of Imperial Germany, the Nazis, and the military adventures, atrocities and diasters of the Third Reich. I do not know Barzini, but the man is deluded. Germans are good at everything they do, be it in peace or in war. In fact Germany is the only country in Europe which lost territories over the centuries. Wherever there have been German settlers, those countries prospered. In fact the largest population group in the US is that of German Americans. Those were the builders of America. The present Zionist rulers of America, on the other hand, will drag it to the ground.

    As to alleged German atrocities, the numbers are coming down every year. Auschwitz for example passed from 4 million to 1.5 million to 74,000 according to the 1994 report of the International Red Cross, only 30% being Jews. Treblinka is a joke. 800,000 alleged killed in a camp with an open fence, one km. from a Polish village whose inhabitants never saw a thing. These victims were supposed to have been buried in a hole 70 x 90 m and to have been exhumed and burned at the rate of 3000 a day on huge pyres nobody ever saw, not even Allied surveillance planes. The curator of the Majdanek State Museum stated in a Polish magazine that to the great maximum only 86,000 could have died in the camp, down from the original 1.5 million. The trees of the ravine of Babi Yar in the Ukraine where up to 100,000 Chosen were supposed to have been buried were exactly in the same place in 1945 as in 1939 according to aerial surveys, just bigger. Had all those victims been buried there, the trees would have been uprooted to make place for graves. In 1991, the Yad Vashem Museum admitted that the stories of Jewish soap and tattooed skin were just propaganda. In 2004, the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum admitted what the prestigious French magazine stated in 1995 about Auschwitz. Everything is fake. The alleged gas chambers shown to the public were built after the war by the communist authorities for the tourist trade. Suddenly the real one was in Birkenau and the Holocaust had shifted 11 km. Unfortunately, those buildings have no hole in the ceiling, as the legend wants it. NO HOLE, NO HOLOCAUST. I would leave the last words on the subject to J.C. Pressac, Auschwitz expert of the Jewish Beate Klaarsfeld Foundation in Paris, author of 18 books on the camp who finally threw in the towel and said:


    If Germany will now rise again, there is no doubt about it. You cannot keep a good man down. The country now rising in Europe is Russia, with its immense resources. As Russia rises further, US influence will diminish and a new Europe will be born, from Dublin to Vladivostock, which will throw out the invaders from the South. Interestingly, former Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder understood this. He became a firm friend of Vladimir Putin. Merkel is just a puppet of the Zionist Anglo-American Empire which is now in its twilight. Still dangerous, but nearly on its deathbed. Whatever the outcome, we do live in interesting times, as the Chinese curse states it so well.

    I enclose a bundle of documents, which will, I hope, allow you to write with more authority on the subject and remain,



  10. >Is Nietzsche's philosophy compatible with National Socialism?

    [NN responds:]

    I understand it to be so - though this is not to say that one is committed to arguing that Nietzsche would have approved of National Socialism. I have taken what I believe is a fair conceptualization of N.'s political orientation and updated and enhanced it. This extension of his philosophy endorses NS in somewhat the same fashion as does Yockey's extension of Spengler, despite Spengler's differences with the National Socialists.

    Nietzsche's "aristocratic radicalism" could, in my judgment, have only been realized by the means chosen by Hitler. The Germans had to be united by nation and race in order to conquer other nations and races, thus to achieve "the elevation of the type 'man'" in the only manner known to history, in Nietzsche's view (and mine). That this process among the Germans involved the social democratization of Germany might well have offended Nietzsche's sensibilities, but Nietzsche seems to have forgotten that the Roman and Napoleonic empires that he admired were not achieved by contracting the parties into it, but rather by one nation conquering all others (as the Romans even had to do to their Italic allies in the last century of the Republic). And he seems to have overlooked the fact of the origins of the Roman and Napoleonic empires in Republic and Revolution rather than in Reaction.

    Hitler and Germany were repeating this pattern on the way to Imperium, if only unconsciously, unpreparedly, and incompletely - yet seemingly according to Nietzsche's hope and expectation of the emergence of tyrants in an increasingly democratic Europe with whom his "Free Spirits" would collaborate.

  11. (The American Prospect
    Selling Private Ryan
    Nicholas Confessore writes, in part:)

    "...But in becoming perhaps the nation's preeminent example of the academic as entrepreneur, Ambrose has introduced to his millions of readers a profoundly distorted view of America at war. He underplays, for instance, the contributions of Great Britain, which bore the brunt of the Axis assault alone for a year between the fall of France and Hitler's invasion of Russia. In his haste to present the United States as a united democracy dutifully tramping off to battle, he ignores the vicious ideological divisions at home during the war years (as in 1942, when voters dealt a sharp rebuke to Rooseveltian internationalism by sending a slate of Taft Republicans to the House of Representatives). Nor did most Americans fight — as an Ambrose reader might think — to liberate France, to free the Jews, or 'because they didn't want to live in a world in which wrong prevailed.' As a wide array of writing on soldiers' motivations during the war makes clear, most American GIs fought out of loyalty to one another or because, in the end, they had no choice. Those who embraced a broader cause sought revenge against Japan, not Germany.

    "In Ambrose's view, D-Day was 'the climactic battle of World War II,' the war itself a 'test of national systems' in 'which democracy proved better able to produce young men who could be made into superb soldiers than Nazi Germany.' But as Benjamin Schwarz notes in a recent Atlantic Monthly essay, it is widely accepted among academic historians that the pivotal battle of the European theater was fought at either Stalingrad or Kursk, not Normandy, and that — as distasteful as the idea may be — far more German soldiers were killed by the children of Stalinist Russia than by the children of democracy..."

    [I, NN, comment:]

    The currently omnipresent Ambrose's jingoist revisitation of the Hollywood History of the Second World War - and his ludicrous but popular suggestion of a "test of national systems" — might have been further reproached and refuted by reference to the authoritative work of Dupuy and of (SLA) Marshal, wherein it was determined that:

    1) The individual German soldier, all factors considered, was superior to "all" opponents which he faced, and was, contrary to the popular fiction, more flexible and capable of assuming command than his counterpart in the ranks of the opposing forces.

    2) American soldiers, in particular, were found alarmingly incapable of raising their rifles to fire at the "enemy" [which enemy had, admittedly, been selected "for" them] — and suffered battle fatigue at a multiple of the rate by which the Germans were disabled [due, largely, to poor preparation for the rigors] — and were regarded as especially vulnerable to the effects of artillery fire.

    3) The findings of (2), above, were confirmed by the percentage of casualties inflicted upon the Germans by indirect artillery fire supplied by US troops not obliged to face the enemy. The usual figure for other combatants was 50% enemy casualties inflicted by indirect means, whereas America's conscripts relied upon the rear areas for 90% of the killing of Germans to be done .

  12. (Ian Macdonald's Letter to the Editor of the Canadian National Post:)

    "When Lord Janner, with your cooperation, exposed the issue raised at the Durban Conference of 'What if Hitler had won?'(NP, Sept. 4, p.1.) no doubt he hoped to evoke shivers of horror among his audience. Inadvertently, however, he provided useful food for thought.

    "If Germany had won, arguably the world would now be a much better and safer place. And the 'what if' is not as far fetched as Allied and Zionist propagandists would have us believe. Germany certainly would have won if Britain and France and eventually America had acted in their own obvious best interests and remained neutral or even entered the war on Germany's side, a not-so-implausible 'what if' given that the immensely popular pro-German Prince of Wales would have been King had it not been for the fateful intervention of Wallis Warfield Simpson (described as a 'god-send' by the pro-war lobby) . As King, Edward VIII could have kept war-weary Britain from declaring war on Germany and, following German success on the Eastern Front against the hated Stalin dictatorship, could have brought Britain into a NATO-style alliance of anti-communist European nations (as took place in any case a few years later). In such circumstances, a grateful, friendly Germany could have guaranteed the integrity and survival of the British Empire, which Hitler much admired.

    "What if then our German ally had liberated the Soviet Union and reconstituted its components as semi-autonomous states under German hegemony. Certainly, the Stalinist threat to freedom would then have been eliminated for the foreseeable future. Had events followed such a favourable course — almost a certainty had the ambitious American divorcee not come on the scene — the outlook for Western Civilization would now be decidedly less ominous than is now the case. Control of our destiny would have remained securely in our own hands.

    "Had Britain not been hoodwinked into war by Germany's vengeful enemies, there would have been no World War, tens of millions of lives would have been spared, priceless European architecture would not have been destroyed, Europe would have been united under German leadership, international communism would have become a footnote in history, trillions of dollars and man-hours could have been used for the betterment of mankind, the environment would have been protected, the communist occupation of eastern Europe and the Cold War would have been forestalled (along with the Korean and Vietnamese wars and Communist-sponsored revolutions elsewhere), Six Million or more Jews would have been happily and harmlessly ensconced in a tropical paradise, there would have been peace and justice in the Middle East, China would have evolved along Taiwanese lines under capitalism, sharing with Japan and the Colonial powers influence over S.E. Asia; there would be no UN meddling, no Third World turmoil, no "refugee" migrations, no racism campaigns, no deprivation of freedom in the name of 'human rights', no 'lost' generations and above all, there would have been no subversion and corruption of Western society and the democratic political process by a cunning and treacherous alien minority.

    "It does not speak well for Establishment historians and journalists that they refuse to address squarely what is probably the most crucial and perplexing issue of our time, namely, the real purpose of WWII and why politicians (notably Churchill and Roosevelt) knowingly acted and continue to act against their countries' best interests. Significantly, honest, unbiased historians who have studied and attempted to discuss these issues have been viciously denounced as 'Anti-Semites', or worse and their findings viciously suppressed. Definitely food for thought."

  13. [Pressac writes, regarding History's largest processing room for Jewish martyrs - the Holiest of Holies, Morgue I of Crematorium II, WWII concentration camp, Auschwitz/Birkenau:]



    (Reply to the argument in a letter from a revisionist)

    Following the exchange of letters and telephone calls with a correspondent who doubts the reality of the gas chambers, I [Pressac] have extracted two of his arguments that appear to me valid.

    Describing the ventilation system of Leichenkeller I [of the future Krematorium II as per the cross-section on drawing 933], he pointed out to me that the air entered through the upper orifices, then was extracted through the lower ones, and concluded:

    “This arrangement is perfectly suitable if the room is used as a morgue: the air entering cools, becomes denser, and is extracted from the lower part.”

    He then asked me to imagine:

    “the situation in the LK 1 after the gassing of a large number of people: the corpses are heaped on top of one another; they block most of the air extraction orifices; the room is full of warm toxic gas; how can there be rapid and efficient mechanical ventilation? I would say that it is not possible...”

    These remarks mean that Leichenkeller I used as a gas chamber had a poorly-designed ventilation system and in the case of large-scale gassings [3000 people in 210 m² according to Nyiszli, or 13.3 per square meter], the lower orifices being blocked, ventilation would become impossible [a model visible at the Museum illustrates this “maximum” case, though there are probably no more than one thousand victims depicted].

    The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct, then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work.

    What would the SS have done in the case of such an “incident”?

    They would have proceeded in two stages:

    1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated:

    Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their “normal” course.

    2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the “repair” would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the “operation” of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the “3000” never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this.

    The initial ventilation system of Leichenkeller I, which was designed for a basement morgue, is not a “definitive” obstacle to using the room as a gas chamber.

    [I, NN, comment:]

    1)Pressac concedes that the facility was *designed* as a morgue. Thus officer Bischoff's controversial and ostensibly incriminating "vergasungskeller" letter to his superior, Kammler, must have originally referred to LKI, rather, as a "morgue," and must have understood it to be such if the letter is to make any sense, in German, as to immediate operation "for use as such" (morgue or chamber) or "for the same purpose as" (the incomplete LKII). The former translation makes sense only in regard to a morgue, since vital (to a supposed gassing operation) ventilation equipment was yet to arrive for LKI, and useful chamber operation depended upon simultaneous LKII operation as a supposed undressing room "in vivo". And the second translation makes sense only if the general purpose of the facility was that for which it was designed, wherein there *would* be a need for morgues, and thus wherein LKI could temporarily substitute for LKII - but wherein, for general homicidal purposes, there was *no* need for morgues such that LKI would be used "for the same purpose as" LKII, *nor* would Kammler be reassured thereby as to the progress of construction for homicidal purposes. Further, Bischoff's "Sonderbehandlung" Memorandum, of the same date, must then be taken at its most obvious interpretation in referring to the "special handling" of typhus epidemic victims, for which the crematoria facility was created and was not yet ready to accommodate in epidemic proportions.

    2)The HH model depicts precisely that obstructive difficulty that the "revisionist" pointed to, and it generously allows for Pressac's reduction of his own "witness'" number of victims per episode. Pressac, in his affirmative conclusion, relies upon the absence of 3000 victms per episode, forgetting that the museum model requires less than 1000 depicted bodies, and that logic permits a number of those to survive in the unadapted facility. Therefore, we are to accept the absurdity that the operation *repeatedly* involved the complicated, time-consuming, and highly dangerous body-extraction procedure that Pressac outlines, since the simple and obvious ventilation system modification he further mentions was not performed, as is known from aerial photographs of the facility.

    3)There seems to be no account of having to *shoot* or otherwise deal with survivors of the procedure such as there must have been if the alleged episodes had not been much prolonged beyond the amount of time that "testimony" allowed, absent the "repair". And if, as seems reasonable, the lower vents allowed captives to survive indefinitely, *every* initial intrusion into the room, no matter how prolonged the episode to that point, would have involved encountering and dealing with living and perhaps belligerent prisoners, of which we have no account in the tale as presently received.

    4)Thus the morgue ventilation issue disposes of the sacred gas-chamber belief-system/myth-structure, since the physical evidence as to its absurdity is not in dispute and must simply be ignored, or clumsily mishandled a'la Pressac, by the proponents of the faith.

  14. ...All the “evidence ” for a Jewish extermination program rests on the bogus Nuremberg Trial, set up and run by Jews behind the scenes. This in itself is suspicious. No one needs a kangaroo court to prove a real extermination. The Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 rests on mountains of emaciated corpses, not anyone’s ‘trial’. That Nuremberg was a kangaroo court is indisputable. Numerous reputable jurists, including American Supreme Court justices, said so. According to Hungarian author Louis Marschalko, of 3000 total personnel at the trial, 2400 were Jews. The man in charge of of procuring all personnel for the trial, Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus, was a Zionist Jew.

    So what happened at Nuremberg? The key point is that although all kinds of perjured testimony coerced through torture [extortion, NN] and forged documents were introduced, real German records were not introduced. The claims about “gassing” operations in the western camps in Germany proper have been dropped, even by Jewish historians. The claim now is that the “gassing” took place at Auschwitz and [other] Polish camps. The German records of the Auschwitz camp were seized by the Red Army and carted off to Moscow. They were not presented at the court. On this ground alone, the Germans were entitled to a mistrial. Auschwitz was a giant industrial production center for the German war effort. It consisted of three main camps and 38 satellite camps. The Germans produced everything from synthetic oil to synthetic rubber there. The camp records show that 100-150,000 people (only a minority were Jews) died at Auschwitz of all causes. The principle cause of death was typhus and heart attacks induced by typhus. The records further reveal that Zyklon B was used to delouse the camps and clothing infected by typhus. Crematory ovens were built in response to the typhus epidemics to sanitarily burn the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the ovens was consistent with the actual number of deaths. There is nothing in the records about an extermination program or “gassing”. Every time there was a death in the camp, close to thirty signatures were required by German personnel before the death could be registered in the camp death books.

    The Germans needed the labor of the inmates for their war effort so everything possible was done to reduce the death rate. Heinrich Himmler, the secret police chief, even issued a signed order that “the death rate in the camps was to be reduced at all costs”. Just to show that this was not Himmler’s initiative alone, one of Hitler’s ministers, Franz Schegelgruber, recorded a conversation he had with Hans Lammerer, the Minister of the Interior, relating a conversation that Lammerer had had with Hitler, in which the Fuehrer had stated that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem “delayed until the end of the war”. These documents are inconsistent with any real extermination program and thus are deleted or hushed up by orthodox historians and the media. All known German documents show that German policy was never anything other than expulsion and deportation. Before the war, the Germans had deported a number of German Jews to Palestine. After the fall of France, they considered deporting the Jews to French colonies like the large island of Madagascar, off the African coast. Once the invasion of Russia commenced, the plan changed to deporting the Jews to the occupied territories of the east.

    There is one aspect of the extermination story which does have partial truth. Large numbers of Jews were shot by the Wehrmacht in Russia. This was entirely understandable for a number of reasons. Jews were disproportionately involved in the Communist partisan warfare against the German troops. The Soviet hierarchy was very heavily Jewish in those days and a great many of these Jews deserved their fate. However, a certain number of the western Jews deported to Russia were also shot, either out of pure malice or because the Germans found it easier to liquidate them than to house them. It is also known that Jews were put to work in Russia for the Germans, building roads or making uniforms or other materials for the Wehrmacht. (It is known, for example, that Otto Frank, the forger of his daughter’s diary, was blackmailed for many years covering up the fact that he had been working for the Wehrmacht in Holland as a producer of wartime goods for German use.) One key piece of evidence for what really happened to the Jews in Russia has disappeared. That is the diary of the German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler. Himmler’s diaries were in Israeli hands after the war but have not been seen since. That would logically suggest that there is something in them which does not fit the story of every Jew killed in Russia. Himmler was in charge of all security operations in Russia and, thus, the suppression of his diaries is very indicative of cover up.

    Other facts do not fit the extermination claims either. Many of the Jews in western Europe were not rounded up until very late in the war, 1944 [long after Total War was declared and all labor was desperately needed, NN]. The Jews in France and Hungary were not even rounded up until the time of the Normandy landings. By the end of the war, only 75,000 out of 250,000 total Jews in France had even been deported (not killed) by the Germans. Surely if the Nazis had wanted to kill every Jew in Europe the round ups would have begun as soon as France fell, in May 1940. The same applies to Hungary, where Admiral Horthy, the regent, could have been prevailed upon long before 1944 to begin the necessary liquidations.

    The total number of Jewish dead from the war is probably about a million, possibly two million, if the extermination claims in Russia are true. This is a lot of death and suffering but it is no greater proportionately than what the Germans and Russians suffered. If the Holocaust Deniers are right (and they are) then there is an immense conspiracy at work in the world. The author has undoubtedly heard of the Protocols of Zion, the supposed Czarist “forgery” detailing a conspiracy to enslave mankind. The significance of “Holocaust Denial” is simply this. If the “gas chamber” story is a myth, then the “Protocols” are true. All social movements which have transformed the formerly white male United States have been inspired by Jews. This includes feminism, racial equality, open borders and “One World”. Are these things Jewish lies, just like “The Holocaust Hoax”? These are shocking questions, but they are implicit in the hoax itself. This is why there must be laws against questioning “The Holocaust,” for the “gas chamber” hoax opens the "Pandora’s Lid" on all the mysteries of the modern world.

    ...It is not necessary to agree with anything I say about the “Protocols” to understand my main point. I proceed on the legal maxim “False in one thing; false in all things”. If the Jews are lying about their “gas chamber” hoax, I see no reason they would not be lying about the “Protocols” the same way. Finally, to return to “The Holocaust”...I shall mention some more damning facts. Several forensic investigations have been made by engineers and scientists around the world of the so-called “gas chamber” facilities. The first was made by a Mr. Fred Leuchter, another by Walter Luftl, still another by Germar Rudolf. All the technical reports conclude that: (1) the buildings lack any of the necessary design qualifications of a real “gas chamber” and (2) there is no trace of Prussian Blue staining in the buildings where mass “gassings” were supposedly being conducted! (However, in the buildings where clothing was being deloused, Prussian Blue stain is found in abundance.) For those of you who are interested in the abundance of technical details which space does not permit here, please consult by Friedrich Paul Berg.

    ...There exist numerous documented German rules and regulations in the camps against mistreating and abusing prisoners. Indeed, there were even prosecutions of German personnel at Auschwitz and other camps for prisoner abuse. Why did the Germans have a special SS court under Judge Konrad Morgen for investigating camp abuses if it were German policy to kill Jews?

    Events in Russia are difficult to evaluate because so much of the relevant evidence is missing. The”gas vans”of the Einsatzsgruppen are rather obviously Soviet propaganda. The alleged kill totals of the Einsatzsgruppen in Russia are vastly exaggerated and clearly beyond the capacity of a small force comprising only 3000 total personnel. The English decrypts taken by Bletchley Park pretty clearly show that there were a lot of executions of Jews in Russia but in a great many cases the executions were justified. The Russian Jews, communists to the core, had done plenty of killing of their own as “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”. I refuse to concede that they did not have it coming.

    ...As to the claim that Israel is an outpost of western civilization in the Middle East, that is a separate issue from Holocaust Denial, although the claim that the “gas chamber” hoax was used to force a Jewish state down the throat of the Arabs using crocodile tears as a cover has considerable merit. As to Zionism per se,...the basic premise of Zionism as formulated by Theodore Herzl and other Zionist intellectuals was that since Jews and non-Jews were inherently incompatible, that therefore Jews should segregate themselves in their own state. Given that premise, I fail to understand how Israel can represent western civilization in any sense. Indeed, throughout most of western civilization, Jews segregated themselves in ghettos and were despised by the surrounding Christian society which expelled them, again and again, as anti-social parasites. And many anti-Semites, in England and elsewhere, happily supported Zionism as a way of getting rid of unwanted Jews and shipping them to Palestine. Did not Chaim Weizmann himself, in “Trial and Error,” state that “It is a fundamental law of history that whenever the number of Jews in a country exceeds the saturation point, that that country reacts against them”? Did he not classify this as a “fundamental law of history which cannot be confused with anti-Semitism in the ordinary and vulgar sense”?

    ...the Nazis themselves collaborated with the Zionists in moving 10-15% of Germany’s Jews to Palestine before the war through the Transfer Agreement. The names of Mark Blumenfeld, George Kareski, George Landauer and Siegfried Moses come to mind. Did not the infamous Stern gang offer to ally the Jewish underground with the Germans to fight the British in Palestine in 1940-1942? Finally, without opening another another debate on the much disputed mass Khazar conversion to Judaism in the Dark Ages, how can a people and a movement even partially based on a Turkic romantic fantasy be deemed an outpost of western civilization? I could even point out that many of the left-wing Labour Zionists in Palestine, such as David Ben-Gurion, Nachman Syrkin, Dov Ber Borochov and others, were ideologically very closely related to the Marxist Jews who later made the Russian revolution. This does not enhance the status of Zionism either.

    Israel and its odious policies is the main cause of political turmoil today. Supporting Israel as an “outpost of western civilization” is ludicrous on the face of it, particularly given the real history of the Zionist movement. Both Zionism and “gas chamber” hoaxes belong in the trash bin of history. I have not the power to destroy either but I can point out the truth for those willing and able to think.

    As to the argument that Judaism forms a strong part of western civilization that is true in the sense that Christianity is an offshoot of the parent religion. In any other sense, it is flatly false. Judaism has been at war with western civilization for a long time. It was at war (literally as well as figuratively) with the mighty Roman Empire. The barbarities inflicted upon the Greek and Roman populations of Alexandria are only too shockingly described by the ancient historians, such as Deo Cassius. Judaism was spiritually at war with the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, as well as in such bloody, Jewish-inspired revolts as that of the Hussites in the 15th century. The Talmud, that revoltingly evil book, has been at war with the rest of humanity ever since it was compiled. Communism, essentially a Jewish-inspired form of Messianism, strove to destroy the gentile social structure in blood. Zionism, another form of Jewish Messianism, has set the Middle East ablaze. Judaism is the poison of western civilization.

    I will agree that the Arabs, left to themselves, are less than lovable. Their societies suffer from many problems. But justice is on their side. They were betrayed by the British Empire post-WW1, and the planting of the Zionist state in a peaceful little Arab backwater in Palestine has caused nothing but grief for the world. If the US launches an assault on Iran for Israel’s benefit, the whole world will experience just exactly how great a disaster Zionism has been.

    Jews might consider why the world is hostile to them. The hostility of the Arabs is easy to understand: The Jews came into Palestine with the intent of stealing their country. The hostility of people gouged by Jewish tax farmers is also easy to understand. If Jews insist on being a people set above the rest of humanity, if they operate from a Talmudic set of ethics which enjoin strict honesty when dealing with brother Jews but cheating, lying and swindling when dealing with non-Jews, if they place loyalty to Israel and loyalty to Jews everywhere and anywhere above loyalty to the land of their residence, then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences of their own behaviour.

    ...The Talmud has been a much disputed book over the centuries. The Maimonides quotation is pure camoflage, as are a great many other cover stories offered in its defense. It is true that the Talmud consists of a series of debates between rabbis on various questions of interpretation. Thus, Jews can always claim that the various offensive passages in the debates are only one particular rabbi’s opinion within the context of the particular point involved. They do not represent a hard rule covering all situations. The bigoted, simple minded anti-Semite is taking it out of context and drawing unwarranted conclusions. There is not sufficient space here to go into all the innumerable applications of these and related techniques. Suffice it to say that it is all res judicata. The whitewash and varnish has been penetrated and exposed many times by Johannes Buxdorf, Johannes Eisenmenger, the converted Jews Pfferkorn and Donin and others. No competent student of the subject believes the pretenses for a second.

    I certainly claim that Communism/Marxism, 1880 through 1950, was a Jewish movement. Any number of Jewish reference works make this clear. Whether one reads Nora Levin, Jonathan Frankel, Tony Michels, or Gerald Sorin on the subject, they all quite candidly admit that Socialism/Communism were the movement of the impoverished masses of Russian Jews. You can get the books and read them; I won’t bother to quote them. Or, you can get the latest contribution, the highly-praised “Jewish Century” by Yuri Slezkine in which the documentation of the Jewish control behind Stalinist Communism is so overwhelming that no further dispute on the subject is possible.

    To anticipate a possible objection, the Soviet Union was always anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. The conflict in the Russian revolutionary movement was whether Communism should be established in Palestine or Russia. And yes, I know all about Vladimir Jabotinsky and the pro-capitalist revisionist Zionists...Another standard dodge is to claim that these Communist Jews were renegades who had repudiated their Jewishness. They did not represent the majority of the world’s Jews. But if that were true, there hardly would have existed a vast worldwide Communist press published in Yiddish. Remember the “Morning Freiheit,” “Der Hammer,” “Der Emes,” and all those other Red journals published in a language which only ghettoized Jew boys understand?

    ...In actual fact, Jews predominate in both the capitalist and socialist movements. This merely shows that Jews play both sides of the political spectrum. The Communist revolutionaries in Russia (mainly Jewish) were largely subsidized by wealthy Jewish bankers like Jacob Schiff, Olaf Achsberg, and Dimitri Rubenstein. So much for the idea that Jews cannot work together because they are diametrically opposed on everything.

    Jews have many divisions within their own ranks. The Zionists quarrel with the Communists, Labor Zionists quarrel with the Jabotinsky Revisionists, etc. But if Jews are incapable of agreeing on anything, then how did they all agree that Hitler was bad? How did capitalist Jews manage to work with Communist Jews in destroying Russia? ...there exist innumerable Jewish organizations, such as the World Jewish Congress, who immediately speak up for any Jew anywhere in the world, who gets in trouble. Is this merely self-help or proof of international tribal solidarity? There are plenty of examples of Jewish international influence at work. The Jewish press in America and England was always going after Czarist Russia for its alleged “persecution” of the Jews in the pre-WW1 days. The Russians could never get a fair hearing for their anti-Jewish measures because of the one-sided distortions of the so-called “pogroms’ which were merely a response to Jewish financial gouging and sex-slave trading. Rumania was targeted by the banker, Bleichroeder, for its attempts to protect its population from Jewish excesses in the 1870’s. After the First World War the Jews got the British Empire to issue the Balfour Declaration in exchange for that famous “contract with Jewry” testified to by David Lloyd George and Mr. Samuel Landmann. The Jews sent delegations to the Paris Peace Conference from the USA, Great Britain and Eastern and Western Europe where they succeeded in getting “minorities treaties” imposed on the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Does this not suggest a co-ordinated, transatlantic Jewish power at work?

    There are plenty of other examples of Jewish power at work. Let us take one example from both the British Empire and present day America. It was Jews like Barney Barnato, Ernest Oppenheimer, Werner and Beit, Lionel Phillips, Samuel Montague, etc. who got the British to attack the Dutch in South Africa so that Jewish financiers could get their hands on the mineral wealth of South Africa. It was Israel-First Jewish neo-cons, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle. Dov Zackheim, Douglas Feith, etc. who launched the criminal invasion of Iraq.

    On a more personal level, innumerable individuals have had their careers destroyed because of Jewish pressure. I will only mention the distinguished historian, David Irving, as an example. A Mr. Frederic Toben was recently released from jail in your nation because there is still some resistance to Jewish-inspired “hate thought” laws. That the laws against “Holocaust Denial” are Jewish inspired is beyond question.

    ...did not Theodore Herzl write in”Der Judenstaat” that “the Jews are a people, one people”? Jews want their logic both ways on the collective guilt question. They wish to act as a collective, as when they demand more and more tribute for the state of Israel as the representative of the Jewish people, but when Israel does bad things with the assistance so generously bestowed upon it, then they disavow any responsibility and wish to be judged as individuals only. I am afraid it will not wash.

    ...I do not assert that all Jews are bad people. Neither did Adolf Hitler, he of the fabled “six million”. Hitler always liked to attend performances of Shakespeare by Max Reinhardt, when he was living in Vienna. He was also partial to the part-Jewish soprano Margarete Slezak whose career, at the Berlin State Opera, Hitler personally sponsored. Hitler even said of Edward Bloch, who treated Hitler’s mother, Klara, for cancer, that Dr. Bloch was a good Jew and that if all Jews were like Dr. Bloch, there would be no “Jewish problem”. Hitler had his paintings marketed by Viennese Jews like Morgenstern, who he frankly confessed was his “financial angel” in his starving artist days. Many of Hitler’s customers were wealthy Viennese Jews, as is known by the extensive card catalogue which Morgenstern kept. All these inconvenient facts have disappeared from the orthodox history books.

    The history of Zionism in England is very instructive because it demonstrates that there is in fact a Jewish international force at work behind the scenes as well as demonstrating that Jewish opposition to Zionism was well founded. The history of the famous Balfour Declaration by which the British government sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine was one of the most intrigue-filled episodes in the history of politics. For a full accounting of the details I recommend two books: “The Balfour Declaration” by Leonard Stein and “Palestine: The Reality” by J.M.N. Jeffries.

    The declaration was the product of careful drafting on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Numerous drafts and revisions were prepared and then discarded after objections and the need for further refining. The document was a masterpiece of deliberate deception. It pretended to protect the rights of the Arabs of Palestine while conspiring to take them away. Well over thirty men were involved in the preparation of the declaration (and possibly more, as the full story still has not been told). These men included both British statesmen and Zionists in America and Britain. The declaration spoke of a Jewish “national home” - when a Jewish state was intended all along. It spoke of the "civil and religious rights" of the Arabs, but said nothing about their “political and economic rights”. The declaration, which was incorporated into the “Mandate” issued by the League of Nations, provided no mechanism by which Arab rights could be guaranteed. However, the Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration did provide for a Jewish Agency to collaborate with (more precisely, to attempt to dictate to) the British Mandatory power. It is therefore obvious exactly whose “rights” were being guaranteed.

    The British government issued this declaration as a “payoff” to the Zionists for their alleged influence over President Woodrow Wilson in getting the US into WW1 on Britain’s side. Numerous Zionists in both England and America worked on this declaration. These included Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolw, Moses Gaster, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Felix Frankfurter, Richard Gottheil, Benjamin Cohen and others. They collaborated with Lords Alfred Milner, Robert Cecil, Jan Christian Smuts, Leo Amery, William Ormsby-Gore and others to produce the declaration. The declaration served Zionist objectives, toned down somewhat to meet British objections of too strong a declaration of intent.

    This declaration committed the British government to thirty years of subservience to Zionist aims, which ended in the British being kicked out of Palestine by force and violence. It destroyed the reputation of the British Empire for good faith and fair dealing. And it came about precisely because of wartime double-dealing to court international Jewish and Zionist influence. The wiser English Jews, anti-Zionist to the core, had vehemently opposed the declaration. They had pointed out that the declaration would revive the ancient charge of Jewish “dual loyalty” (as indeed it has - witness the well-justified charges that the current war in Iraq is being fought for Israel’s benefit). The declaration would violate the rights of the Arabs of Palestine, who wanted no part of it. The declaration would jeopardize the but-recently won rights of Jews in England and elsewhere. (And this very point was addressed in the declaration, which stipulated that nothing in the Balfour Declaration would jeopardize the rights of the Jews living in any other country.) Edwin Montagu, Lucien Wolfe, Moses Montefiore, David Alexander and Leonard Cohen moved heaven and earth to try to defeat the declaration. Indeed, the declaration would have been issued in August 1917 rather than November but for the Herculean efforts of Mr. Montague. In the end, it all failed. The declaration went through - and the British paid an enormous price. The United States, as the de facto successor to the British Mandate, is paying a similar price now.

    It is idle to accuse anti-Zionists of being anti-Semites because anti-Semitism was always the “raison d’etre” of Zionism. Anti-Semites were only too willing to collaborate with Zionists to move unwanted Jews out of their own countries to Palestine. Unfortunately, shipping the Jews to Palestine has only made the “Jewish problem” worse by moving it to a particularly sensitive part of the world. English Jews who once opposed Zionism have proved considerably wiser than gentile Zionist politicians who do their bidding. This discussion shows that one can oppose the evil that Jews do without necessarily opposing Jews per se. An honest Jew like Alfred Lilienthal, who opposes the state of Israel, is to be preferred to a gentile “I am a Zionist” like Joseph Biden. Organized Jewish power is more of a problem than individual Jews, who frequently have desirable characteristics. There are those who will argue that Jews as a collective cannot be separated from their individual positives. That may be true but it is well to try to remember that although the Jew, individually, may be good, the Jew, acting in his corporate persona as a representative of the oldest aspirations of his people, is frequently a disaster.

    One argument here is that the heavy Jewish involvement in Communism was incidental to the movement. It could just as easily have been Albinos, Eskimos or any other group. This argument will not wash. Without Jewish involvement and the deep, Talmudic hatred of Russian civilization it nurtured, Communism would never have taken the murderous turn it did. Yes, Chinese Communism was equally murderous but that Communism was based on principles and the example already set by the Jewish commissars.

    ...The basic Talmudic principle is that only Jews are human; non-Jews are merely animals in human form, fit to be enslaved or exterminated by the “Chosen People”. This is a precise description of what happened under Jewish Bolshevism. It is therefore obvious that Communism was merely a secular form of arcane reference work, “From Moses To Marx”,...contains hundreds of documented quotes from prominent Jews and Jewish leaders about the essential similarity between Socialism and Judaism. If this is true, then it would hardly be surprising to see so many Jews rushing to support an ideology consonant with their religious traditions. For what it is worth, the Old Testament is replete with one massacre after another committed by the Jews as they invaded Canaan.

    This is not a matter of a “few Jews” inventing a supposed connection between Jews and Socialism. It is not a matter of postulating false equivalences for purposes of political advantage. On the contrary, there is a veritable library of reference works by Jewish authors substantiating the thesis I am advancing. I have already given the names of several of these heavily-documented sources in previous postings. Dozens more exist. There used to be a little pamphlet entitled; “Why Don’t You Believe What We Tell You?” with documented quotations by Jews themselves on the relation between their religion and Communism.

    I quoted the Old Testament not to endorse the dubious authenticity of the events described but rather to show the continuity of the Jewish mindset from ancient times to the present. The Jews perpetrating the God-awful massacres of civilian populations during the revolt against Rome were just as murderous as the Jewish commissars of the 1920’s and 1930’s in Russia. The Jews have sold the world a false version of their own history. They pretend to be inoffensive victims of “persecution”. The truth is far different. The Jews moved into Palestine under the pretense that Jews and Arabs would be “brothers” and mutually benefit. We all know how that turned out.

    ...Let me quote...from a very interesting article in the November-December 2008 edition of the “Nationalist Times”. It is entitled “A Hate With No Name” by Edmund Connelly. A few paragraphs read:

    “…a profound sense of historical grievance-hatred by any other name - is the norm among Jewish groups. In a rare stance by a prominent scholar, James Petras makes this general statement specific by arguing that the ultimate cause of Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is ‘the pervasiveness of racist attitudes, which had characterized Zionist extremism since inception’."

    Petras’ recognition that the source of the problem is ‘Jewish distrust of the non-Jewish world (and) their unwillingness to compromise’ is consistent with the views of John Murray Cuddihy, author of the seminal work on modern Jews, ‘The Ordeal of Civility’. Cuddihy pointed to the tendency for Jewish intellectuals to examine the white Christian world ‘in dismay, with wonder, anger, and punitive objectivity.’

    Thus, wherever Jews go, ethnic strife follows because masses of Jews, goaded on by the extremists among them, perceive themselves to be in an existential struggle with the host populations around them. As an acquaintance so indelicately put it: ‘Jews lust to fight the war (against white Christians) with every molecule in their Jewish brains. The vast majority of white Gentiles barely know it exists. Raise your hand if you think that poses a problem for a promising white future.’

    This sad state of affairs was again driven home for me when I read the latest issue of E. Michael Jones’ "Culture Wars". A letter to the editor read as follows:

    "A Jewish man murdered his two children because they were being raised as Catholics by his ex-wife. He claimed that he would rather see them dead than Catholic. As incredible as it may sound, the courtroom was filled with supporters from the Jewish community. Yes, that’s right, supporters. The judge, who was Jewish, allowed him to get away with outbursts insulting his grieving ex-wife and her family, to the applause of the spectators. It was an absolutely appalling scene.

    "I think that most Christians simply do not understand the virulence of Jewish hatred for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. And, because of media campaigns making ‘anti-Semitism’ the worst possible sin in this society, they are unprepared to stand up to it. This hatred dates back right to the origins of Christianity and has been held onto and indeed nourished by the Jewish community down through the millenia. It is a major part of Jewish identity to blame everything bad that has ever happened to Jews on the Catholic Church.”

    ...Jews are the biggest “haters” on the face of the planet. They usually conceal this hatred behind platitudes about “human brotherhood," “racial equality,” “non-discrimination,” and other such nonsense. But the moment they get the upper hand, all the camouflage disappears. Then the Soviet gulags with their Jewish commissars appear, and the bulldozers crushing the Arabs do their dirty work.

    ...The Jews have a concept “Tikkun Olam,” which roughly translates as “healing the world”. This is part of their Messianic ideology which holds that the world must be reborn - but only after it has first been destroyed. This is essentially what the Jewish Communists attempted.

    ...The true nature of the Talmudic passages has been known for centuries. Many learned Christian Hebraists during the Middle Ages studied them at great length. Examples are Martin Luther, Johannes Eisenmenger, Johannes Buxdorf, etc. Numerous converted Jews, such as Nicholas Donin, Rabbi Pfferkorn, and, in our own day, the late Professor Israel Shahak, have all documented the true nature of the Talmud. It is true that in courtroom trials of the Talmud in the 19th century, such as in the case of August Rohling and the priest Father Pranaitis in Czarist Russia, the anti-Semites have sometimes embarassed themselves. This is because the anti-Semitic scribe usually studies only the odious anti-gentile passage but does not study the entire Talmud. This allows the Jews to show the critic’s ignorance of the Talmud and allows the Jews to claim that the critic is taking passages out of context. Nevertheless, there is not the slightest doubt that the Talmudic scriptures do contain the anti-gentile passages alleged. If you consult the Pranaitis translation, “The Talmud Exposed” or Benjamin Freedman’s little pamphlet, “Facts Are Facts: The Truth About Khazars,” you will find all the incredible passages. Thus, there are passages about taking the virginity of three year old girls, non-Jewish women fucking farm animals, mothers making it with nine-year-old sons, women menstruating over wine casks, lying and cheating of non-Jews explicitly condoned, non-Jews as nothing more than the beasts of the field, the wonders of excrement, Jesus of Nazareth being burned in hot excrement for all eternity, etc. It is psychopathic in the extreme.

    For many centuries the Jews would not translate the Talmud out of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The reasons are obvious. They also adopted the interesting technique of teaching the more outrageous passages only orally because they were too dangerous to write down, particularly in a Christian age where too many learned men read Hebrew, a condition which no longer obtains. In the 1930’s, the Jews translated the Talmud into English for the first time. This was the Soncino press edition of the Talmud, presided over and edited by the chief rabbi of England, J.H. Hertz. They made the translation, I think, for two reasons. Too many Jews could no longer read Hebrew and Jewish political and commercial power had reached the point that critics no longer need be feared. The ugly passages in the Soncino translation (reissued in the early 1960’s) may be found, verbatim, in the Freedman booklet previously mentioned. I personally found the 26 or so volumes of the Soncino translation in a library and verified the accuracy of Freedman’s translation, word for word. (I think maybe one comma or semi-colon was out of place.)

    ...Jews do indeed have an agenda for creating a global society where racial [self-segregation] is effectively destroyed and outlawed. If you will check the race and “hatred” laws in the British isles, you will discover that in the UK, as elsewhere, all such laws have been proposed and enforced by Jews. Again, for the documentation, go to the relevant chapters in Professor MacDonald’s book, “Culture of Critique”. (Or, read the literature of the BNP. I am sure they have more complete information on the political situation there than I do.) Jews provably do have an agenda. Jews also make many damning admissions in their own reference works because few individuals read those reference works. Even when they do, they do not “connect the dots” or realize the enormous, enormous implications of what they are reading.

    ...There is the info for the masses which appears in the newspapers and on the TV. That is the level of information which informs peoples “minds”. Then there is the suppressed information which the Jews can afford to let out because it is basically for “their eyes only”. The few goyim who pry into the forbidden secrets and who see “the big picture” may be safely disregarded. No one will listen to them or understand what they are saying.

  15. In the world governed by lies and violence, elite Jewry now governs with the lies that both the Weenied Left (Frankfurt School anti-fascism) and the 'tarded Right (Hollywood History anti-fascism) are pleased to hear.

    Long gone are the days when a King (Alexander or Caesar) and his host combined both the intellect and aptitude for domination and the manhood for personal combat, in campaigning for conquest and gain unrationalized by such ideological nonsense and fantasy.

    For the past century, rather, our contemptible neighborhood sissy nerds (Weenies) have been raised to piously but unwittingly front for the Elders - in comfortable official positions remote from conflict - and our jocks and morons ('tards) have been ceremonially marched off to heroically do the cowards' bidding in battle - believing it's for the Weenie meliorists' One-World Nanny-State Utopia, on the one hand, or for the 'tarded militarists' Apple-Pie America Uber All those who deplorably are not yet Americanized, on the other.

    But in fact it's all been for the sake of crypto-anarchist Judeo-Communism - or for megalomaniacal Judeo-Fascism - in any campaign that was seen through to a nominal "victory".

  16. Professor Sigurd Skirbekk has identified the “self-immunizing techniques” among anti-racist elites and pro-immigration activists, dominated by a Zeitgeist in which virtue ethics and universal human rights have become “a widespread belief system for the intelligentsia in the West.” Rooted in the often stereotypically retold events of World War II, the gospel of liberal immigration policy is preached and marketed as moral penance. In both Europe and America the Holocaust can be seen as a central icon of a victimology (often accompanied by a correspondingly antagonistic demonology) and a powerful weapon of the forces advocating — more or less implicitly — the displacement of European-derived peoples.

    In accordance with this dualistic Good-versus-Evil Weltanschauung, Hitler, racists and the Holocaust become secular mental images of Satan, demons and hell. The world is thus perceived, according to Skirbekk, as a stage for a mythic “struggle between two forces … a manifestation of good and evil locked in an archetypal battle that must be re-fought and re-won.” In a society gradually becoming completely operational, euphemistic and “hyperreal,” the symbolic duality of Good and Evil undergoes a fundamental mutation: Good becomes a utilitarian value judgement.

    "...[In post-democracy] public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professional experts in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams. The mass of citizens plays a passive, quiescent, even apathetic part, responding only to the signals given them. Behind this spectacle of the electoral game, politics is really shaped in private by interaction between elected governments and elites …. It is my contention that we are increasingly moving towards the post-democratic pole. … [P]olitics and government are increasingly slipping back into the control of privileged elites in the manner characteristic of pre-democratic times."

    The result is that many of the most important issues facing Western countries, such as the wisdom and fairness of massive non-White immigration, are never debated by political candidates or discussed in the mainstream media.

  17. "uh" here. A couple remarks on the latest red side updates.

    "It took a long time for Aryan invaders to "settle down" in Europe and India, and to start cultivating the earth. And even then, Aryan noblemen still long considered ploughing the soil (image so beloved by Volkisch nostalgists) as a lowly drudgery fit only for Sudras and serfs."

    Rudolf von Ihering says exactly this in his 'Evolution of The Aryan', which I urge you to read:

    "Agriculture implies a higher degree of civilization in those who practise it than do merely pastoral occupations; not only because it wrests from the soil a larger return, but also because it forces man to put forth greater energy, all necessity for work being a blessing. A pastoral life requires no bodily exertion. The shepherd watching the cattle can pursue his occupation with folded arms, for the cattle find food for themselves; but the labour of the peasant is arduous. To him, not to the shepherd, applies the command, " In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread." He who earns his living with difficulty holds it precious; he who gets it without trouble thinks lightly of it. Thus the Aryan. He is a gambler. With the dice in his haud, his mania knows no bounds; he gambles away all he possesses—if need be, even his freedom. The Semites, although perhaps not unacquainted with games of chance (this I leave for the better-informed to decide), certainly had not the Aryans' passion for play. If they had possessed it to the same extent, this injunction would not have been missing from the Ten Commandments of Moses—"Thou shalt not gamble"; with the Aryans it would certainly have been included.

  18. (cont.) This contrast between the two races has obtained down to the present time. In the midst of a hundred players of Aryan origin at the gaming table you will not see one of the Semitic race. In his passion for gambling, the Indo-European stamps himself to the present day as a descendant of the ancient Aryans. And as we find in him the gambler, we also detect in him the spendthrift. The Jew is no spendthrift —he holds his own securely; therefore it hardly ever occurs that, where wealth has once been accumulated in a Jewish family, it is again lost; while in Christian families often nothing is left of a fortune after a few generations have passed. Economically the Jew steadily advances; the Christian only too often retrogrades.

    Whence this contrast in national character, which has existed from the earliest antiquity until the present day ? Once present it could be transmitted from generation to generation; but in order to be inherited it had first to be developed. How was this development brought about ?

    The answer is that the Aryan for many thousands of years found his sustenance as herdsman without any trouble, while the Semite had to till the soil by the sweat of his brow: the life of the former was without labour; the latter involved heavy labour. It is evident that such a difference in life must have considerably influenced the national character in the course of thousands of years. In support of this view, I refer my readers to the picture that Cook draws of the South Sea Islanders : they were the most harmless, brightest little nation that Cook ever encountered in any of his voyages. The reason for it was to be found in the fact that they did not work. What the cattle did for the Aryan, the fruits of their trees did for them—rendered manual labour on their part needless.

  19. Nor does a pastoral life compel a man to use his brains. The duties which fall to him are of the very simplest kind: he watches, milks, shears, and slaughters his cattle. But the husbandman is compelled to make use of his intellectual powers. He has to discover Nature's secrets—the right time for sowing and reaping, how to prepare the soil, what kind of crop to grow, and whether a change of crop is desirable; whether he can go on using the land until it is exhausted, or whether it should lie fallow at times. The husbandman had to study the soil—not so the herdsman; and much else fell to his lot which was spared to the other. He had to invent the plough, the harrow, the threshing operation; to conceive the idea of assisting the exhausted soil by means of manure; to substitute an animal for himself in working the plough, and to train beasts for that purpose. It is true that the husbandman of to-day has no great need for original thought; but that is only because others have thought for him: he works with an intellectual capital of experiments and discoveries which a long past has hoarded up for him, the further increase of which is taken out of his hands by the scientifically - trained agriculturists of to-day. But in the past he had to think for himself; everything that agriculture has achieved is due to him — an immeasurably great result in comparison with that of the herdsman, over whom thousands of years have passed without his having made any advance, whilst the husbandman was all along making steady progress."

    Shit you won't read on StormFroth, eh?

  20. Whoever said this put his finger on the very pulse of all White Nationalism:

    "Most of the things white racialists (particularly the more romantic and mythologically oriented ones) actually appreciate about "white" culture are those so-called matriarchal features it retains, like community minded-ness and respect for women and folkish art and culture. "

    Let's call White Nationalism what it is: a domestic ideology. They want white neighborhoods and white babies. Good, clean, hygienic bourgeois sterility. No blood, no thrill, no risks -- a defensive retreating mentality, the values of the thwarted who want to cut their losses and return to sedentarism, precisely the type we would've found in the old towns of the ancient Danube culture which coalesced and fortified to protect themselves against the wild Aryans just over the Dnieper (a point von Jhering, more than 150 years before David Anthony in 'The Horse, The Wheel and Language', also touches on). -- Here, at least, Big Von has something over the White Nationalists, in his romanticism of the bloody Russian, etc. All Europe is "old Europe", despite aryanization. One might also point to the Pashtun Taliban as representatives of the older mobile Aryan, coming from the old Parthian line (and "Afghan" itself going back to Sanskrit *as / ekwos, signifying their predatory equestrian culture) -- all the hallmarks are there: suppression of the feminine, man-boy affiliation, the *ghosti- ethos ("nanavati", in+going, "refuge"), etc. There's your warrior's creed.

    Hard to navigate this damn blog!

    Anyway, shoot me an email so we have each other on file: wastulas -at- eml -dot- cc