Zionism Building The Kingdom Of The Anti Christ
Zionism and the World Wars
Prior to WWII, in 1933, the influential Jewish political figure Samuel Untermyer solidified Jewish antipathy against Nazis in a declaration of a “holy war” on Germany. (for the milieu preceding this, see Douglas Reed, “Insanity Fair”, Chapter 17, concerning the Nazi antipathy to Jews and their boycott of Jewish goods which was preceded by actions instigated in papers like the London Daily Express which on March 24, 1933, had spread across its front page: “Judea Declares War On Germany,” (this preceded the Nazi anti-Jewish Nuremberg laws) and see “Communism in Germany” by Adolf Ehrt: https://archive.org/details/CommunismInGermany_568 – concerning the terrorism by Communist thugs running rampant across the Germany that the Nazis inherited). We can read the text of Untermyer’s radio address here: https://ia600403.us.archive.org/2/items/ZionismAndTheWorldWars/Text-of-Untermyer-s-Address.pdf
An overview of all this is provided here: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
Regarding the boycott of Jews in response to this, Hitler stated, “The action committees are responsible for the utmost protection of all foreigners, regardless of their faith, origin, or race. The boycott is merely a defensive measure exclusively directed toward Jewry in Germany. […] It must be made clear that the battle against the atrocious Jewish hate propaganda is purely self-defensive. The action committees are responsible that this whole effort proceeds in the most peaceful way and with greatest discipline. Don’t even hurt as much as a hair on a Jew’s head! We will defeat their provocations simply with the far-reaching impact of these given [economic] measures!” (the Barnes Review, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014, VOLUME XX, NUMBER 1. “Adolf Hitler’s Swift Response to ‘Judea’s’ Declaration of War”)
And regarding this holy war – there was also published in the early 1950s a controversial text called “The Iron Curtain Over America” by the academic and military intelligence insider John O. Beaty. Beaty’s text was charged with making claims that could not be supported by the source literature it relied on or used sources inappropriately, though it was vehemently supported by other notable individuals, and in many cases it is independently verifiable and very useful. An overview of papers dealing with the attacks on his work, his responses, etc., is provided here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/smu/00034/smu-00034.html
Since then, major aspects of Beaty’s thesis have been independently corroborated. The first major aspect was a mild version of the “Jewish Bolshevism” argument that is actually much more severe when you consult British and American Government documents from the time period, as I have shown here: https://archive.org/details/LesDerniersJoursDesRomanof
As it applies to the American Communist scene, which Beaty focused on, it is important also to note that Richard Nixon, who presided over the prosecution of Alger Hiss, revealed that with the exception of Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss, the communist agents operating in the United States were almost all Jewish: “The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy were Chambers and Hiss. …Every other one was a Jew and it raised hell with us.” (Statement of President Richard Nixon in 1971, as recorded at the White House on tape and released by the National Archives in 1999 – as cited in the New York Times, Oct. 7, 1999): http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/in-1971-tapes-nixon-is-heard-blaming-jews-for-communist-plots.html
And as for corroboration of the other major aspect of Beaty’s text – the thesis which this book popularized in the political right-wing that the Ashkenazi faction of modern Jewry which forms a majority is not Semitic, but has its origins in the Turko-Slavic Khazarian empire of 650-1048 AD, specifically the conversion to Judaism of the Khazarians circa 740 AD, is presumed by some racial anti-Semites to have been an invention of Arthur Koestler, though Beaty’s text predated Koestler’s analysis. As regards the Jews, As regards the Jews, Hans F.K Guenther wrote in “The Racial Elements of European History” that “There are a great many false ideas about the Jews. They are said, for instance, to belong to a ‘Semitic race.’ There is, however, no such race; there are only Semitic-speaking peoples, showing varying racial compositions (cp. above). The Jews, again, are said to be a race in themselves, ‘the Jewish race.’ This is just as mistaken; a casual glance at once shows men of greatly differing appearance among the Jews. […] In both branches, however, of the Jewish nation selective processes have been at work in the same direction to narrow down, as it were, the range of variations which otherwise would be possible from such a mixture of races. The result is that in the Jewish people as a whole there are always static and psychological characteristics recurring, and with such uniformity for the great body of Jews in every land, that it is easy for the impression of a ‘Jewish race’ to be formed. The Jews are (or at least were, down to the time of the so-called Jewish emancipation), through seclusion and inbreeding on a definite selective principle, on the way gradually to become a race, a ‘secondary race’ (as we might call it), the possibility of whose formation is discussed in Chapter V. […] Ethnology must render an account to itself of all the influences, cultural and spiritual, issuing from the Jewish element that have been at work on the evolution of Europe, and are always at work on it with the most powerful instruments: finance, banking, literature, the press, and widespread organizations.’ It is not the economic preponderance of the Jews which in itself has been the cause of the Jewish problem, and made it a burning one to-day. The influence of the Jewish spirit, and influence won through economic predominance, brings with it the very greatest danger for the life of the European peoples and of the North American people alike.” The most recent genetic evidence comes from 4 papers – one possibly giving support to the “secondary race” hypothesis which had the following summarizing statement in the Times of Israel “Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews. They found that the Ashkenazi Jews’ genetic similarities were so acute that one of the study’s researchers, Columbia professor Itsik Pe’er, told the Live Science website that among Ashkenazi Jews, “everyone is a 30th cousin.” […] Our analysis shows that Ashkenazi Jewish medieval founders were ethnically admixed, with origins in Europe and in the Middle East, roughly in equal parts,” said Shai Carmi, a post-doctoral scientist who works with Pe’er and conducted the analysis. “[The] data are more comprehensive than what was previously available, and we believe the data settle the dispute regarding European and Middle Eastern ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews.”: http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/, and then there is this article which states that “The researchers wrote in the 10-page article to appear in the journal’s print edition that Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations. Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster. In addition, each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations. The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups – Middle Eastern and European Jews – split from from each other about 2,500 years ago.”: http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci-Tech/Science-And-Environment/New-research-One-people – other *qualifying* evidence is provided here: http://www.eranelhaiklab.org/Challenge.html, though regarding the eventual Khazarian conclusions of that author, the following article notes that “Elhaik’s arguments did not go unchallenged. In a detailed review in the Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, Anatole A. Klyosov dismissed much of his analysis as mere acrobatics. However, since this article appeared in Russian, it got little attention. Recently, at least two studies have come to similar conclusions. A scientific team led by M. Metsapalu announced that it has found “no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews” (the paper is forthcoming). Meanwhile another team led by M. Costa has argued both that there is strong evidence of the admixture of European women in the ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewish women and that there is no evidence for significant Khazar ancestry. On his website, Elhaik has argued that neither paper disproves his thesis. A third team, led by Doron Behar, has a paper coming out in the journal Human Biology whose title announces “No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews.” But Elhaik will, no doubt, maintain his position.
Can a non-scientist enter into this debate? Let us return to Elhaik’s paper, which turns on comparing the genomes of individuals, especially males. “The complete data set,” he writes, “contained 1,287 unrelated individuals of 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations.” This is impressive, but it says nothing about the number of Eastern European Ashkenazi Jewish males whose Y chromosomes are central to Elhaik’s analysis. If one searches Elhaik’s website, it turns out that there were exactly 12 Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews in the data set. How many were male? To find out, I had to turn to the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Tartu. It turns out that there were eight males in the sample. As small as this is, however, it turns out to be huge compared to the data set on Khazar DNA.
The trouble with obtaining Khazar DNA is that no population group today is recognized to have descended from the Khazars. Elhaik acknowledges this difficulty and deals with it efficiently. According to him, “Caucasus Georgians and Armenians were considered proto-Khazars because they are believed to have emerged from the same genetic cohort as the Khazars.” He bases this claim on “Polak 1951; Dvornik 1962; Brook 2006.” This appears quite convincing unless one is familiar with the names cited—and the ones missing. Polak and Dvornik were important scholars, but their work is a half-century old and outdated, while Kevin Brook is a talented but amateur Khazar enthusiast who has no first-hand knowledge of Central Asian studies. In fact, no contemporary scholarship supports this claim. Moreover, elsewhere in the article Elhaik himself refers to a study by Balanovsky et al., but fails to mention that it concludes that of all the national groups in the Black Sea region, the Georgians and Armenians were the least likely to have absorbed significant populations from other national groups. In other words, while there was DNA from eight Ashkenazi males in Elhaik’s study, there was no Khazar DNA at all.”: http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/802/are-we-all-khazars-now/, here though we find Elhaik stating, regarding the arguments of his opponent, Harry Ostrer, ““It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people,” Elhaik wrote to Ostrer. “Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. “It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,” he wrote. “Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.” That last requirement, Elhaik argues, reveals the bias of Ostrer and his collaborators.”: http://forward.com/news/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/, and in the article “Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301023/, we find that “Although there is no much enthusiasm among many historians to the assumption that Asian Khazars or some other Europeans were involved in the origin of the Ashkenazi, it is not possible to exclude an important input of such founders to present-day Ashkenazi (Behar et al., 2003, p. 777). The possibility of the existence of the Levites’ cluster in the Middle-East even before the segregation of the Jews from the rest of the nations of the Middle-East is rejected by Behar et al. (2004): The differences in mutation rates and elimination rates by random drift of SNPs and of microsatellites, respectively appears to be enough to explain many of the apparently conflicting findings concerning the relationship among eidoth of common origin.” Also of relevance is the article “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi [though this does not mention Sephardics in this context] maternal lineages”: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html – The noted critic of Jewish influence David Duke thinks that there are racially problematic traits in Jews, but that Sephardics are worse on account of having less European blood, and makes some interesting arguments: http://davidduke.com/new-genetic-study-confirms-racial-basis-judaism/ – a superior source on this is Sir Richard Burton in “The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam” (H. S. Stone, 1898) p. 55, “The Ashkenazím, who are wrongly represented to be considered pariahs by the Sephardím, have brought from Northern climates a manliness of bearing, a stoutness of spirit, and a physical hardness strongly contrasting with the cowardly and effeminate, the despised and despicable Sephardím ‘Jew of Israel’s land.’ If spoken to fiercely, they will reply in kind; if struck, they will return the blow; and they do not fear to mount a horse, unlike their Southern brethren, who prefer an ass, or at most an ambling pony, to the best of Arab blood.”: https://books.google.com/books?id=VHUWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false
Clearly there is outbreeding, but there is also inbreeding reinforcing a core of hereditary attributes. Thus even for the Ashkenazi, genetic markers show a definite chasm from European Gentiles that only really is crossed when we go beyond those who are 1/4 Jewish (Need et al. “A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans.” Genome Biol. 2009;10(1):R7. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-1-r7. Epub 2009 Jan 22.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19161619)
This is reinforced by incestuous breeding habits – incest is actually so prevalent that it is leading cause of abortion in Israel: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3642871,00.html, even to the extent that this is not the case, “They married within the small, close-knit community. In general, the genetic similarity of any two groups was larger the closer they lived to one another, but there was an exception: Turkish and Italian Jews were most closely related genetically, but are quite separated geographically.
Historical records suggest that Iranian and Iraqi Jews date from communities that formed in Persia and Babylon, respectively, in the fourth to sixth centuries B.C.E., and the DNA confirms that. The genetic signatures of these groups show that they remained relatively isolated—inbred—for some 3,000 years.”: http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-can-learn-jewish-genome-73025
Simpson stresses the doctrine of the thoroughbred against too much outbreeding: http://tinyurl.com/pkkqjyz [though see also this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest], – though you have to consider the kinds of traits that many might have as a result of particular traits being enhanced in inbreeding (as concerns heritability, we can begin by taking note of the article “Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences.” by Bouchard and McGue (J Neurobiol. 2003 Jan;54(1):4-45.): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.10160/epdf).
Thus the writer and Chemical Engineer Matthew T. Nuenke, of neoeugenics.net, notes:
“Compared to gentiles, Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic-depression, and neurasthenia [chronic fatigue, weakness, loss of memory, and generalized aches and pains] (Gershon & Liebowitz 1977; Gilman 1993 92ff). Gershon and Liebowitz (1977) find that Jews had a higher rate of hospitalization for affective disorder than did non-Jews in New York.” (Shattering the Myth of Racism: Volume I. A free Internet book: researched, written and published by Matthew T. Nuenke. © November, 2001 (Last revised May, 2002): https://archive.org/stream/ShatteringTheMythOfRacism/ShatteringMythOfRacism_djvu.txt, c.f. relevant commentary in MacDonald’s “A People That Shall Dwell Alone” (originally published by Praeger, but with searchable text in a later 2002 edition: https://books.google.com/books?id=4cgQmKMMBVgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+people+that+shall+dwell+alone&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs_6S1kPTKAhVB8GMKHbOsBbcQ6AEIHTAA#v=snippet&q=affective%20disorder&f=false))
Likewise, we find the following, from Frank Sprinklehopper (Ashkenazi Jew and Scientist) in “The Jewish brain: A technical analysis of its psychotic tendencies”:
“”In claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one’s behaviour and its outcome. The victims ‘merely’ seek justice and fairness. If they become violent, it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.”
Psychology of Victimhood by Dr Ofer Zur:
Recent evidence (1) suggests that Ashkenazi Jews due to their genetically isolated periods were good candidates for studying the genetic basis of psychotic disorders Bipolar and Schizophrenia. Both of these are marked out by excess dopamine production. A more recent study published in April finds that there are genes implicated in both disorders, which are still to be verified exist in Non Ashkenazi populations. (2) Lehmans work finds that matriarchial populations like the jewish one (Jewish mother makes jewish child) produce genetics squewed towards destablization of mental faculties. (8) Here I will present the initial development’s of a wider work that there is enough developing neuroscience to begin putting together an accurate and factual picture which highlights that the main components of Jewish behaviour’s all converge to produce excess amounts of dopamine. This presents the first draft of a technical analysis which highlights the existence of a highly unhealthy set of mental correlates for this population.
A. Neurological Memetics of Religions : A new area of science, is starting to converge on the systematical correlates of religions as started by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet. (3) This indicate that religions may be a bad social mutation caused by recently developed human mental processes which worked well in the small communities from which we evolved to share ideas, and that these mechanisms are going wrong when communities grew beyond tribal scale. Several processes each of which can be defined by current neuroscience are anaylsed as serving to keep the mind in a regressive state.
1. Indulging of the misattributing intentions: As humans we have frontal lobe brain areas to quickly attribute intentions as a means to survive. When faced with too much information this area cannot cope. Creationists for example attribute intentions to evolution, or conspiracy theorists to almost everything.
2. Copy mechanisms : Mirror neurons in the frontal lobes ensure that we feel what others do just by watching and naturally tend to a state of copying those around us, in preference to self thought. Creative people, who tend to think independently from large groups, often do not have these areas working properly.
3. Persistance : Our reward parts of the brain, the basal ganglia such as those involved in intense problem solving, and reward ensure that we keep working and ritualizing our reality, releasing a lot of dopamine again.
4. Delusion : Group cohesion in religion facilitates delusion because it is indulging the misattribution of intention, causing our persistence brain areas to release dopamine. This I believe is a powerful feedback loop going wrong in the brain. Religious people confabulate reasons for god or strange beliefs like a drug addict attempts to deceive others, because the beliefs are as addictive as Crack Cocaine.
To summarize the effect of these mechanisms operating together in religions induce quite a lot of dopamine release, which can destabilize the brain and prevent rational thought process, although this impairment is traditionally offset by being part of a larger group doing the same.
B. Neuroeconomics : A whole branch of neuroscience is opening up which uses monetary reward to study human behaviour. Repeatedly the chemical dopamine is implicated. (4) This has implications for the economically biased jewish behaviour because paranoia, psychopathy and schizoid spectrum illnesses are marked by excess dopamine. Combining religion with economics could induce too much dopamine behaviour in a group. Paranioa if shared within a jewish group may help prevent individuals in the group from getting stressed to the point of schizotypical behaviour, but only serves to maintain a larger group with inherent delusions such as victimhood (7).
C. Neural correlates of Hate : Brain scans are now revealing that several systems of the brain which are involved in hate look to be unemotional and are reward based problem solving areas marked again by excess dopamine. (5) This intense problem solving process centred around host cultures is a common industry of countless jewish organizations that succesfully reshape a host nations policies. As this process is the result of a hate type problem solving process, the result could be to induce hate in the host nations as a result of natural human reciprocal behaviour. i.e. The host now sees that they have a problem which requires attention. The jewish community is quick acting to react to this and a psychological battle for power ensues requiring yet more jewish problem solving, and a conflict which results in only the most intelligent jews surviving. In other words inducing aggravation is a rewarding feedback loop which could increase intelligence in the smaller remaining numbers.
D. Ashkenazi mutations of the nervous system : As a result of the above process, most of todays jews are Ashkenazi with the world highest IQ for a population. Some interesting research by Cochrane and Harpingder points out that the abnormally high Ashkenazi IQ could be linked to the mutations which cause Ashkenazi genetic diseases. Most which are linked to reduced immunity and stability of the nervous system, that is they take the brakes of the neuroimmune system allowing a speedup of neuronal lipid metabolism. (6) This can increase many types of cognition, although the researchers point out the increase in intelligence is coming at too high a price for jews themselves.
So to summarize religions already create a lot of dopamine. Combine that with a constant jewish bias towards economics and that is a recipe for increasing dopamine release, inducing neural destabilization and paranoia, creating a group that is prone to the high delusions of victimhood. (7) If that is not bad enough, combine this again with intense problem solving and the destabilizing effects of high IQ Ashkenazi genetics. (5,6) The result is a controlling power seeking minority population with hyper intelligent but paranoid and unstable brain types, which could threaten the stability of host populations through harmful policies. In such a population sharing these cognition traits, it does not matter if anything happened to them was or was not their fault. The dopamine dysfunction’s outlined above will cause the jewish group to persist destructively and eventually induce harsh social reactions in others. The reaction of others are planned for in jewish upbringing and are internalized as a means to increase the Jewish delusion of victimhood.
Jewish tradition has a questionable purpose in the wider world if it serves to re-enforce the unhealthy behaviours listed above. It is important to determine whether the present behaviours and manifestation of Jewish nervous system genetics are scientifically clarifiable as mentally unhealthy and what should happen. The normal reaction of a crack/drug/dopamine style addiction is often bemusement or indifference towards any suggestion of treatment due to the resultant psychopathy so methods of approach need to be modeled on psychological interventions in psychopathy. In a small world more easily destabilized than ever before, the general message given to those groups re-enforcing psychopathy has to be clear. Reduce psychopathic behaviour by stopping your focus on others, get real about your self delusion of blamelessness and start to take responsibility for your collective actions.
References : (still more to add)
(1) Genomewide linkage scan for bipolar-disorder susceptibility loci among Ashkenazi Jewish families. American journal of human genetics, 2004
(2) Chromosome 10q harbors a susceptibility locus for bipolar disorder in Ashkenazi Jewish families. Mol Psychiatry. 2008 April “a gene located on chromosome 10q21.3-10q22.3 is underlying the susceptibility both for SZ and for BP disorder in at least the Ashkenazi Jewish population.”
(3) The God Delusion : Richard Dawkins 2006
(4) Paul J. Zak, “Neuroeconomics”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2004. (5) Neural Correlates of Hate. Semir Zeki : S Zeki, JP Romaya , 2008
(6) Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending 2006
(7) Psychology of Victimhood by Dr Ofer Zur: – Destructive Trends In Mental Health: 2005
(8) Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease : Andrew Lehman 2006″: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45078
Some of this is reenforced in “Racial Biology of the Jews” by Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, p. 10ff: https://archive.org/stream/RacialBiologyOfTheJews/RBJ#page/n13/mode/2up [von Verschuer also highlights a Racial tendency towards psychopathy, and as regards this, there is some genetic relation between psychopathy and heroism and thus a shotgun genetic approach may be overly detrimental when dealing with this in a diluted form (see “What Do Heroes and Psychopaths Have in Common?: Heroes and psychopaths may share some traits, but the reasons why are unclear” by Scott A. McGreal MSc. on Sep 25, 2014): https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201409/what-do-heroes-and-psychopaths-have-in-common, but a full fledged psychopath is anything but heroic: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-you-know-if-youre-a-psychopath-2013-2 – on that, see also this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers, and this refutation of an attempted defense of psychopaths: http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/wisdom-of-psychopaths-kevin-dutton]
And on this, I will highlight that I do not have a completely negative view of Jews. As regards positive impact, the following, which is recommended in Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment”, while biased, is likely the most reliable source – that is a good enough refutation of the view that Jews as a whole are “parasites” in spite of an anti-social trend which has been, and will be established: http://jinfo.org/
Though I will say that much is made of Jewish intelligence: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020872.html [also, “While Lynn’s book lists the IQs of blacks, Asians, Indians, and other groups living as internationally dispersed minorities, this is not done for Ashkenazi Jews, who are largely – sadly -neglected, though a few examples are given to indicate they score highly in America and Britain. Earlier discussions of Israel’s IQ, when it was listed as 94 in IQ&tWoN treated it as a suspect score, because Ashkenazi Jews are thought to score 1 SD higher than other Europeans. Of course even if this were true (and Lynn himself (2004) estimates the IQ as only about 107), Ashkenazi Jews represent only about 40% of Israel’s population, and Oriental Jews and Arabs, who make up the majority, are thought to score nearly as far (if not more) below Europeans as Ashkenazi Jews score above them, so the estimate actually wasn’t unreasonable at all (although ’95’ in a country with a distinct, high scoring population is qualitatively different than a ’95’ country with a single bell curve). Lynn lists 8 studies for Israel with IQs ranging between 89 and 97 and with a median of 95, but none of the studies are broken down by ethnic background to provide direct estimates of the IQs of Oriental and Ashkenazi Jews. So Lynn uses population percentages (40% Ashkenazi, 40% Oriental, 20% Arab), results from one direct study of Israeli Arab IQ (86), and knowledge from several Israeli studies that indicate that Ashkenazi Jews score 12 points higher than Oriental Jews, to give indirect weighted estimates of 91 for the IQ of Oriental Jews and 103 for Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. No direct studies are given or listed for these groups in Israel, and if Lynn is correct that Jewish-American IQs are really only about 107, then that really isn’t different enough from his Israel estimate, in my opinion, that we can rule out their scores being identical in each nation – the estimate just isn’t that precise. Another puzzle left untouched is that the listed Oriental Jewish IQ is also 3-7 points above the regional average. Is it possible that for reasons of cultural and/or genetic amalgamation, the two populations are meeting each other in the middle; one being pulled up and the other being pulled down? Lynn does believe Ashkenazi Jews have some genes related to higher intelligence, which he attributes to medieval persecution. At his book’s cost, Lynn makes absolutely no mention of Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending’s Ashkenazi paper at this point, which I find curious.”: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php, though Lynn also noted that Jews placed statistically significantly lower value on “Honesty” and statistically significantly higher value on “Judgement” than non-Jews in The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement. (Washington Summit Publishers, 2011), p. 346]
But much of this can be attributed to a cultural tradition of Eugenics which Jews practice but discredit for others: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Radical_New_Int.html, also Europeans in contrast are not firing on all cylinders – their less collectivist, easily manipulable culture has in the past 150 years encouraged trends that are strongly dysgenic, thus they have 14 less IQ points than they did in Victorian times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2323944/Were-Victorians-cleverer-Research-indicates-decline-brainpower-reflex-speed.html
Thus currently their brain size is on average less than East Asians, whereas in the 1830s, Samuel Morton in the United States assembled a collection of skulls, measured their volume, and calculated that Europeans had the largest brains followed by Chinese, Malays, and Native American Indians, while Africans and finally Australian Aborigines had the smallest brains. (on this see Lewis JE, DeGusta D, Meyer MR, Monge JM, Mann AE, Holloway RL (2011) The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias. PLoS Biol 9(6): e1001071. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071)
If they undergo a rigorous Eugenic enhancement, I don’t see why Nordics could supersede Jews in general intelligence. But many of them have an egalitarian ethic and pathological altruism that makes them easier to con, thus leading to overall cultural dysgenic influences, and thus a Eugenics program among Whites would need to select against that in favor of those with an aristocratic, war-like mentality which is behind the expansive impulse that historically has positively defined the West, explored by the Canadian sociologist Ricardo Duchesne in his article “A Civilization of Explorers” (Academic Questions 03/2012; 25(1). DOI: 10.1007/s12129-012-9276-9): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257771621_A_Civilization_of_Explorers, among others.
As regards this intelligence, it is important to note that Kevin MacDonald noted that, “The psychological traits attributed to Nordics are principled moral behavior and idealism, high intellect, inventiveness, and, in the words of Gustav Friedrich Klemm, a proclivity to “constant progress” and science:
Members of that race most often strive for the unknown, for the sake of a pure idea, driven by the thirst of knowledge, and not self-seeking interest.
My view is that there is a strong empirical basis for this suite of traits, and that ultimately these traits, particularly moral idealism and science, are the psychological manifestation of individualism as a response to selection pressures in the far north. As Avdeyev notes:
…the home of the Nordic race may be located in the zone of a cool and moist climate, abundant with clouds of fog, in which water vapor is retained in the air [absorbing ultra-violet rays]. In this climate there should be strong and frequent fluctuations of temperature.
I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in Raciology. Lenz, like several modern theorists (e.g., Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton), gives major weight to the selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples. He proposed that the intellectual abilities of these peoples are due to a great need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection for traits related to mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness in problem solving (what psychologists term “performance IQ”). He argued that Jewish intelligence, in contrast, was the result of intensive social living(what psychologists term “verbal IQ”).
There is in fact good evidence that in general intelligence is linked to mastering the natural environment (see here), and this is particularly the case among Northern peoples.”: http://www.vdare.com/articles/vladimir-avdeyev-and-the-russian-revival-of-racial-science (Avdeyev himself, in “Raciology” (2011 edition, original edition Moscow: Beliye Alvy, 2007), quotes scholarly sources on pp. 162-163 noting unique Jewish brain fissures)
And more than intelligence they have exhibited craftiness and networking – the conservative Jewish intellectual Ron Unz has written on the networking and de facto oligarchical power gained by this group which is culturally antagonistic to Europeans in “The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?”: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ [c.f.: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/03/01/meritocracy-gelmans-sixth-column/]
There is a good record of anti-social activity as recorded in the reaction of leading European intellectuals regardless of cultural context, indeed, there is a “Universality of Anti-Semitism”: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.culture.usa/aMnm8VD5njY/MQ7VYXdtTHoJ
The general verdict, re-enforced by the observations of leading intellectuals throughout history, can be found in the statement of the Roman historian Tacitus that “[Jews] regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.”: http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html
It is incorrect to classify anti-Semitism as an irrational by product of Christianity, as numerous classical writers of antiquity observed and held aversion to Jewish behavior – arguments in favor of this, as well as arguments falsifying attempts by Josephus to present some classical writers as having favorable opinions of Jews, can be found here: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asemiticcontroversies.blogspot.com+Against+Apion&rlz=1C1WLXB_enUS640US640&oq=site%3Asemiticcontroversies.blogspot.com+Against+Apion&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.10408j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
Also, among Enlightenment and major philosophers, Benjamin Franklin expressed aversion towards Jews in his letters (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=36&page=248a, http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=36&page=113a), as did Voltaire: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/30/books/l-voltaire-and-the-jews-590990.html, as did Immanuel Kant in his writings: http://www.judeofascism.com/2011/03/immanuel-kant-on-jews.html, as did Arthur Schopenhauer in his writings: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/schopenhauer-on-race-differences-in-intelligence-and-on-judaism/, http://www.cwporter.com/schop.htm, as did Martin Heidegger: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/13/martin-heidegger-black-notebooks-reveal-nazi-ideology-antisemitism) On this, Otto Weininger made the interesting remark, “Zola was a typical case of a person absolutely without trace of the Jewish qualities, and, therefore, a philosemite. The greatest geniuses, on the other hand, have nearly always been antisemites (Tacitus, Pascal, Voltaire, Herder, Goethe, Kant, Jean Paul, Schopenhauer, Grillparzer, Wagner); this comes about from the fact as geniuses they have something of everything in their natures, and so can understand Judaism.”: https://books.google.com/books?id=XrysvMtsAVwC&pg=PA304#v=onepage&q&f=false
As regards the mix of cultural and biological factors, probably the best overview I have seen was from Ludovici – although he was very close to the Jewish intellectual Oscar Levy, and had an ultimate view towards reconciliation in this area: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/transfor.htm, he nevertheless was very aware of the ruthlessness and behavior that, to put it lightly, is not symbiotic with host cultures, of the group in general: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/jews_pre.htm, and expressed a fear of them which is healthy and justifiable until they stop treating the “goyim” like enemies: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/antisemi.htm
Beyond Ludovici, Douglas Reed, in “The Controversy of Zion”: https://archive.org/details/TheControversyOfZion, gives insight into the megalomania [Reed’s view on the opposition of the Old Testament and New is supported by Marcion: http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/antithes.htm, though New Testament Christianity nevertheless contains much within it that is culturally toxic: https://christianitydebunked.wordpress.com, Ludovici’s “Religion for Infidels” helps to clear away the intellectually immature Christian perspective that contaminated the minds of even exceptional writers like Reed: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/ri_pre.htm]
Reed’s general perspective is corroborated by the eminent macro-historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who noted that “Judaism is a development of the Pre-Exilic religion of Judah that was created in and by the Babylonian diaspora and was imposed by it on the Jewish population in Judaea. … There has also been the aim of converting the gentile world to the worship of Yahweh under the aegis of a world-empire centred on Eretz Israel and ruled by ‘the Lord’s Anointed’: a coming human king of Davidic lineage.” (Reconsiderations, p. 486): https://books.google.com/books?id=dglXAAAAYAAJ&q=..%20There%20has%20also%20been%20the%20aim%20of%20converting%20the%20gentile%20world%20to%20the%20worship%20of%20Yahweh%20under%20the%20aegis%20of%20a%20world-empire%20centred%20on%20Eretz%20Israel%20and%20ruled%20by%20%27the%20Lord%27s%20Anointed&dq=..%20There%20has%20also%20been%20the%20aim%20of%20converting%20the%20gentile%20world%20to%20the%20worship%20of%20Yahweh%20under%20the%20aegis%20of%20a%20world-empire%20centred%20on%20Eretz%20Israel%20and%20ruled%20by%20%27the%20Lord%27s%20Anointed&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIjKDV_fH8xgIVhJyICh2QVQPX – see also: http://mailstar.net/toynbee.html [as to the religion, which, whether followed or not, gives insight into heritable mentality, Judaism is ultimately mundane and political, and the Jewish god reflects the psychological attributes of the tribe. The Old Testament posits a creator god who epitomizes Jewish stereotypes, who is selfish (Genesis 3:5, 22), jealous (Exodus 34:14), supremacist (Zechariah 14:9), desiring all the gold, silver and jewels of the World (Joshua 6:19. Proverbs 1:13-14. Ezekiel 28:13. Joel 3:5. Haggai 2:7-8. Zechariah 14:14), and who wants to rule the World from Jerusalem and impose Jewish law on every human being (Exodus 34:11-17. Psalm 2; 72. Isaiah 2:1-4; 9:6-7; 11:4, 9-10; 42:1; 61:6. Jeremiah 3:17. Joel 3:16-17. Micah 4:2-3. Zechariah 8:20-23; 14:9).
The founding leaders were psychopaths – this viewpoint is confirmed by the above and by further consideration of the Old Testament: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/02/psalms-of-learned-elders-of-zion.html?zx=d6e5b40b9ce95773, and as regards the Talmud, or compilation of Rabbinical law and discourse, The Jewish Encyclopedia in its article “Gentile”, under the subheading “Rabbinical Modification of Laws” reflects the consensus viewpoint – “1. The Pharisees, interpreting the spirit of the Law, and acting under the elastic rule that “there is a time to serve the Lord by relaxing his law” (Ps. cxix. 126, Hebr.; Yoma 69a), permitted the desecration of the Sabbath in besieging a Gentile city “until it be subdued” (Deut. xx. 20), in accordance with Shammai’s interpretation (Shab. 19a). This definition was not new, as already the Maccabeans had taken advantage of it in fighting the enemy unceasingly, putting aside the observance of the Sabbath for the sake of God and of their national existence (I Macc. ii. 43, 44). Probably for the same reason (to facilitate war with the Gentile enemy), the Rabbis modified the laws of purification so as not to apply when one comes in contact with a corpse or human bones, or when one enters an enclosure containing a dead body. With regard to the text “This is the law when a man dieth in a tent” (Num. xix. 14), they held that only Israelites are men, quoting the prophet, “Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men” (Ezek. xxxiv. 31); Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians (B. M. 108b). The Talmudic maxim is, “Whoever has no purification laws can not contaminate” (Naz. 61b). Another reason assigned is that it would have been utterly impossible otherwise to communicate with Gentiles, especially in the post-exilic times (Rabinovitz, “Mebo ha-Talmud,” p. 5, Wilna, 1894). Patriotism and a desire to regain a settlement in the Holy Land induced the Rabbis, in order not to delay the consummation of a transfer of property in Palestine from a Gentile to a Jew, topermit the deed to be written on the Sabbath, an act otherwise prohibited (B. Ḳ. 80b).
2. The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The passage in Moses’ farewell address: “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran” (Deut. xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it. He withdrew His “shining” legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder [ = “let loose,” “outlawed”] the nations” (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. Ḳ. 38a).”: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6585-gentile#anchor13 [As regards the followers of the “Noahide Laws”, The entry Noachidæ, found in the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, states the following: “The descendants of Noah. A term applied to Freemasons on the theory, derived from the ‘legend of the craft,’ that Noah was the father and founder of the Masonic system of theology. And hence the Freemasons claim to be his descendants, because in times past they preserved the pure principles of his religion amid the corruptions of surrounding faiths. Dr. Anderson first used the word in this sense in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions: ‘A Mason is obliged by his tenure to observe the moral law as a true Noachida.’ But he was not the inventor of the term, for it occurs in a letter sent by the Grand Lodge of Calcutta in 1735, which letter is preserved among the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. (See Ars Quartuor Coronatorum, xi., 35.) (https://books.google.com/books?id=E6oYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA514&dq=%22A+Mason+is+obliged+by+his+tenure+to+observe+the+moral+law+as+a+true+%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI06iknOvsxgIVVi2ICh0adg3M#v=onepage&q=%22A%20Mason%20is%20obliged%20by%20his%20tenure%20to%20observe%20the%20moral%20law%20as%20a%20true%20%22&f=false) – on Freemasonry, see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/81452955/Freemasonry] – now, it is true that these laws were imposed upon the regular Jewish population by dictators – Eisenmenger, as translated by Stehelin, himself notes, “That the Talmud is held in greater Esteem, among the Jews, than the Bible, will appear in the following Quotations. [… citations given … one interesting one says “We are to hold no Conversation with those who take the Bible and the Mishna into their hands without understanding the Talmud, (which is here to be understood of the Gemara.)” …] The Jews believe and teach, that it is their duty to obey the Rabbins; and likewise to give Credit to everything they say. […] The Jews are not permitted to contradict, or argue against their Rabbins, or Teachers. […] There are several Punishments threaten’d in the Talmud against the Jew who shall contemn [sic] or fight against the Words or Instructions of their Rabbins. The Eruvin says, “He who transgresseth the Words of One learned in the Law, is guilty unto Death.”” (cited in a facsimile of Traditions of the Jews, provided in Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas, John Peter Stehelin, and Michael A. Hoffman. The Traditions of the Jews. Coeur D’Alene, ID: Independent History & Research, 2006. pp. 201-204) – the texts of Eisenmenger, translated as ”
Books on Google Play
Rabbinical literature: or, the traditions of the Jews, contained in their Talmud and other mystical writings. Likewise the opinions of that people concerning Messiah, … with an appendix, comprizing Buxtorf’s account of the religious customs and ceremonies of that nation; also, a preliminary enquiry into the origin, progress, authority, and usefulness of these traditions; … By the Revd. Mr. J.P. Stehelin, F.R.S. In two volumes. …” (Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, John Peter Stehelin, Johann Buxtorf. J. Robinson, 1748) Vol. I: https://books.google.com/books?id=zXoQAQAAMAAJ, Vol. II: https://books.google.com/books?id=GHsQAQAAMAAJ
However, in a document I have written vindicating Eisenmenger, I expose a WIDESPREAD ritual enacted for the purpose of lying to gentiles: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80454336/Kol-Nidre – for proof that behind Communism is secular Judaism, thus merely a permutation, see this: http://mailstar.net/philos.html]
Beyond this, Organized Jewry (a category which I do not place everyone of them by birth in, but which does exist as shown here: https://archive.org/details/Weizmann, and the reach of which forces us to have weariness) thwarts attempts at culture vitalism from the host cultures. Francis Parker Yockey, in “The Proclamation of London”, a final draft of the Nazi ideology, called them “culture distorters”: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/proclamation.html
Now, my view is that Nazism was an extremist warping of positive tendencies in the German Conservative Revolution, which had within it an understanding of culture vitalism (on that see this: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/the-german-conservative-revolution-and-its-legacy/, there were also some Jewish individuals who contributed positively to these tendencies: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_3/german_nationalist_jews.php – on culture vitalism see also Ludovici’s review of Brooks Adams’ work on “The Law of Civilization and Decay”: http://www.anthonymludovici.com/thelawof.htm – for those who pretend that society doesn’t exist, its just atomized individuals, de Benoist’s critique of Hayek helps us in deconstructing this perspective: https://web.archive.org/web/20090129193525/http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/benoist.htm – the following from de Benoist also provides insight – it is the best introduction to and defense of Nationalism that I have ever come across: http://openrevolt.info/2012/01/29/alain-de-benoist-the-decay-of-modern-society/ – we can bypass modern political nonsense by going back to Aristotle, who actually provides a basis for an Organic conception of society in his “Politics”: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html).
I think that the Nazis failed to understand Aristotelian ethics, and this was a general error of Fascism – Sorel wrote a very interesting text entitled “Reflections on violence”: https://archive.org/details/cu31924074961735, but as the entry on Sorel in the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences noted, “Mussolini did frequently claim ideological descent from Sorel, but to do so he had to interpret the theory of the myth as an apologetic for the blind unleashing of passions and the theory of violence as a justification for brutality; these interpretations are far removed from Sorel‘s intentions.”: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Georges_Sorel.aspx – to put it succinctly, Evil is excessive force, disorder is created by failure to use force, and order is created by just the right amount of force to solve the problem.
Nevertheless, the notion of “culture distortion” is well thought out. To understand this, it is helpful to refer to what was summarized in a review of Nietzsche’s “Der Antichrist”, “The Jews’ will for survival is, he asserts, the most powerful “vital energy” in history, and Nietzsche admired those who struggle mightily to survive and prevail. As captives and slaves of more powerful civilizations – the Babylonians and the Egyptians – the Jews shrewdly allied themselves with every “decadence” movement, with everything that weakens a society, not because they were decadent themselves, but in order to weaken their oppressors. Thus, Nietzsche views the Jews as shrewdly inculcating guilt, resentment, and other values hostile to life among their oppressors as a form of ideological germ warfare, taking care not to become fully infected themselves. This technique was ultimately successful in defeating stronger parties – Babylonians, Egyptians, and Romans – by in essence making them “sick,” and hence less powerful. (The Romans, of course, succumbed to the Christian form of Judaism, in this view.) This parallels St. Augustine’s comment, quoting Seneca, that the Jews “have imposed their customs on their conquerors.” [A 23-26 ; De Civitate Dei VI 11]”: http://www.debunker.com/texts/anti_chr.html [Here is a review of an analysis along these lines of more modern Jewish intellectual movements entitled “The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity” by John Murray Cuddihy: http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/11/the-id-of-the-yid/, though it might help Jews, so that some have less of a tendency to support this, to realize that repressions against them are not caused totally by irrationality, but many times in response to their behavior. For instance, as regards the Roman repression of Jews, the Roman historian Suetonius noted that “There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles. Since to put down this rebellion required a considerable army with a leader of no little enterprise, yet one to whom so great power could be entrusted without risk, Vespasian was chosen for the task, both as a man of tried energy and as one in no wise to be feared because of the obscurity of his family and name. 6 Therefore there were added to the forces in Judaea two legions with eight divisions of cavalry and ten cohorts.13 He took his elder son as one of his lieutenants, and as soon as he reached his province he attracted the attention of the neighbouring provinces also; for he at once reformed the discipline of the army and fought one or two battles with such daring, that in the storming of a fortress he was wounded in the knee with a stone and received several arrows in his shield.” (Tranquillus, Gaius Suetonius. “The Life of Vespasian 4:5″, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb Classical Library, (1914), pp. 289-291): http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Vespasian*.html – also see Claudius, “Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world.”: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/claualex.html – in general, Bernard Lazare noted in his book “Antisemitism: Its History and Causes”, “Wherever the Jews settled after ceasing to be a nation ready to defend its liberty and independence, one observes the development of antisemitism, or rather anti-Judaism; for antisemitism is an ill chosen word, which has its raison d’etre only in our day, when it is sought to broaden this strife between the Jew and the Christians by supplying it with a philosophy and a metaphysical, rather than a material reason. If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to divers [sic] races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.”: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/lazare-anti.asp#Chapter%20One – and as Douglas Reed noted, in chapter 23 of “Disgrace Abounding”, “How Odd of God”: “That brings you at a stroke to the root of the matter. Not anti-Semitism was first, but anti-Gentilism. You have heard a lot in recent years about Hitler’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call race-defilement.
A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew in Budapest said to me, ‘After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles’.
Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practise it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews.
Jews, if you know them well enough and understand these things enough for them to talk openly with you, will admit this. They cannot deny it.
In the beginning was anti-Gentilism. This, not the perfidy of the Gentiles, prevents the assimilation of the Jews. This prevents them from ever becoming Germans or Poles or Italians. This keeps them welded together as alien communities in foreign lands, communities ultimately hostile to the Gentile.
It is their religion? Good, but it is the reason why they cannot be assimilated.”]
As regards modern manifestations, people usually refer to Kevin MacDonald’s text “The Culture of Critique” (on which see this: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/zizek-group-selection-and-the-western-culture-of-guilt/) – a text which gives a cultural/biological explanation, but which has overlaps with the conspiratorial elite critique as 2 circles in a venn-diagram would overlap. For an understanding of the synthesis of these perspectives, see the article “Racism & Anti-Semitism” by Julius Evola: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/racism-and-anti-semitism/ (Almost all of this is extremely cogent, except for the fact that Evola is wrong about Henri Bergson, I think because he interprets him through the lens of – according to the abstract of the following article, Bergson’s concept of time is contiguous with that of Aristotle: https://www.academia.edu/268597/On_the_Verge_of_Being_and_Time_Before_Heideggers_Dismissal_of_Bergson, moreover in the text “Beyond Physicalism”, p. 338, Bergsonian intuition is compared to Neoplatonic noesis. Aleksandr Dugin, in “Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Beginning”, critiques Evola for interpreting Heidegger through the lens of René Guénon. Ironically, Julius Evola was extremely influenced by Carlo Michelstaedter, author of “Persuasion & Rhetoric”, viewing Michaelstaedter’s perspective as superior to Nietzsche’s (by whom he was influenced in other ways) on issues pertinent to the übermensch: https://books.google.com/books?id=D7W0ufxS5pEC&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=michelstaedter&f=false, though Michelstaedter does not fall into the category of the behavior being critiqued here).
I am also very much a proponent of the view that Evil is excessive force, disorder is created by failure to use force, and that Order is created by the exact amount of force necessary to solve the problem. Jewish individuals should use their vital energies to contribute as symbiotes to culture vitalism within their host cultures, or they will justifiably be cast off with the rest as parasites in any healthy attempt to establish order. Nevertheless, I have definite ethical obligations, and so I present a means of filtering Good Jews from Bad Jews without risking subversive activity as follows – Israel should it exist should at least not fight its wars by proxy. Then, give all dual Israeli-other Nationality citizens a week to relinquish one of their citizenship claims to one of the countries of their citizenship. Those who fail to do this after one week should be arrested under RICO charges. Then, for those Jewish individuals who are not in Israel, compel them to take a loyalty oath – but one augmented by lie detection tests and tests for psychopathic traits. If they take the oath successfully, they should be considered clean, if not, they should be considered sanayim, and their citizenship removed. After this is done, create generalized ethnic quotas on media ownership, educational leadership, and political representation, so as to reflect demographics – e.g. if a country has 70% of one ethnicity, then that ethnicity has 70% representation in those areas, if it has 20% of an ethnicity contributing to its overall demographic makeup, that ethnicity gets 20% representation, if there is only 2% of a particular ethnicity contributing to the demographic makeup, then that ethnicity has its representation in these areas capped at 2%. This seems to be fair, and also optimal.
But anyway – all of the above was cited because Beaty provides important background information on the “holy war” on Germany in his text, in chapter IV, “The Unnecessary War”: http://iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm#the unnecessary war
The Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, as tensions surfaced between Germany and Britain, on September 10, 1941, offered Churchill to get the U.S. into war. He said, “they are keen to do it – and may do it – again” and that it was “acknowledged by British statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales of America in favour of Great Britain” [referring to previous Zionist intrigues in World War 1] (Weizmann-Churchill correspondence, from the Weizmann archives in Rehovot, Israel – a facsimile of this letter is the second image attached – derived from the following resource: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/Weizmann_Churchill_corr.pdf). The U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal recorded in his diaries that according to Neville Chaimberlain, Jewry in America wanted war also (http://tinyurl.com/86gxpc9), so the pressure was on both sides of the Atlantic.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in shaping American foreign policy. He noted:
“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …
… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe.
…the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence…
…Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press.
In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously.”: http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/4/2/Weber135-172.html
Hitler said in his last testament: “It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America.”: http://www.hitler.org/writings/last_testament/
As regards World War II, see the writings of Douglas Reed: http://douglasreed.co.uk/, particularly “The Controversy of Zion”: http://www.controversyofzion.info/ – Reed’s statements as regards the Roosevelt administration were corroborated by Col. Curtis Dall in “FDR: My Exploited Father in Law”, which noted FDR’s subservience to Communism, Zionism, and “World Money”: https://archive.org/details/FranklinRooseveltMyExploitedFather-in-law
of relevance is the following New York Times article, preserved here (“Trotsky Predicts Revolution in the U.S. He Expects Rockefeller to tell Hague how to run it”, Dec. 13, 1938): http://tinyurl.com/jj4c3cg – this reads as follows:
“TUSCON, Ariz., Dec. 12 (AP).-
Leon Trotsky, exiled Russian revolutionary, interviewed in his gardened villa near Mexico city by William R. Matthews, publisher of the Arizona Daily Star of Tuscon, said the New Deal program “represents the culmination of the final contradictions in the decay and fall of capitalism.”
“Capitalism has reached its zenith in America and has exhausted itself,” he declared. “It is now living on its savings. Look at your unemployed. No form of society can continue long that permits such conditions to exist. You are doing nothing to increase wealth.”
He described Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City as a more powerful figure than President Roosevelt and as the symbol of America’s political reaction. The Rockefellers, he said, symbolize this nation’s ruling class.
“You will have a revolution, a terrible revolution,” he predicted. “What course it takes depends on what Mr. Rockefeller tells Mr. Hague to do. Mr. Rockefeller is a symbol of the American Ruling class, and Mr. Hague is a symbol of its political tools.”
Documents uncovered by Tyler Kent, a high level cipher clerk, showed a secret Roosevelt-Churchill correspondence beginning in 1939 that refutes any preconception of “isolationist” intentions on the part of Roosevelt (Kent was of course persecuted for this).: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html
In October 1939, Churchill sent the following cablegram to Roosevelt: “I am half American and the natural person to work with you. It is evident that we see eye to eye. Were I to become Prime Minister of Britain we could control the world.”: http://tinyurl.com/zpx9e8r
Harry Dexter White, a very influential Soviet Agent, would also be a key agent of influence in getting the U.S. into the war. White, on direct orders from Stalin, authored 8 of 10 points in the Hull Memorandum which provoked war with Japan. We know now from the McCollum Memorandum, first brought to public attention by Stinnet in his authoritative book on the subject, “Day of Deceit”, that FDR provoked the Japanese. The McCollum Memorandum explicitly calls for Japan to be provoked into committing an “overt act of war” and describes how that might be done: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
Roosevelt himself was complicit in Pearl Harbor: http://mailstar.net/pearl-harbor.html, an act which, as Kubek noted in “Communism at Pearl Harbor”, was facilitated tremendously via the geo-political maneuvers of Communist agents to achieve their political objectives: https://www.scribd.com/doc/118893630/Anthony-Kubek-Communism-at-Pearl-Harbor
Historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his colleagues, after the war, wrote the revisionist classic, “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”. In Ch. 7 of that book, “The Pearl Harbor Investigations”, Percy L. Greaves, Jr. noted (p. 645), “The APHB top-secret report concluded with this paragraph: Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…”: http://tinyurl.com/js96zg5
The notable historian Charles Beard quoted Henry Stimson’s diary in “President Roosevelt and the coming of the war, 1941: appearances and realities” (p. 517), as saying “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”: http://tinyurl.com/j4kf7nd
And as for the subsequent war with Germany that followed, historian Thomas Fleming, in “The New Dealers War”, noted that FDR had written plans to invade Europe by 1943 that were leaked just before Pearl Harbor, and that this was what contributed to Germany’s declaration of war on the United States.
Now, as regards Hitler, some of the view below is subject to change. I am accumulating positive literature on him like that of Leon Degrelle and am corresponding with revisionists. For now, the view that follows is neither negative nor positive:
Hitler went overboard with his ideology – he went beyond opposition to Jewish Bolshevism to being a pusher of anti-Slavic destructive activity, and lost allies in view of his arbitrary divisions of whites: http://mailstar.net/world-war-II.html (this in spite of pp. 170-183, 208-212, 220-231, 236-241, 246, 250-251, 259-261, 266-272, and 284-286 of Irving’s rebuttal to the negative court decision against him: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/rebuttal/doc_book.html) – Dall noted his personal conversation the U.S. Naval Attaché in Istanbul who Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the German Secret Service, approached personally. Canaris told him that the German generals felt Hitler was leading Germany to destruction. They could not accept Roosevelt’s policy of “unconditional surrender,” but if FDR would offer “honourable surrender,” the army was prepared to stage a coup d’etat. They believed that Russia represented a threat to Western Civilization and they were act against Communist designs in Eastern Europe. But FDR ignored these offers. Canaris’ dissent with hitler reflected a pattern going back to the Strasserites and the German Conservative revolutionaries, on which see K. R. Bolton’s article “The Anti-Hitler Underground within the German Conservative Revolution”: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2015/volume_7/number_2/the_anti_hitler_underground.php
[nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the positive portrayals of Hitler’s Germany as put forth in White Nationalist overviews like the following: http://marchofthetitans.com/vol4chap7.htm, are corroborated in primary source material like the observations of David Lloyd George: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/hitler-george-washington-of-germany.html?zx=94d8223a2e614e12
Commesurate with the observation of George was the observation of British historian A. J. P. Taylor, who noted: “Germany’s economic recovery, which was complete by 1936, did not rest on rearmament; it was caused mainly by lavish expenditure on public works, particularly on motor roads, and this public spending stimulated private spending also, as [British economist John Maynard] Keynes had said it would. …while nearly everyone else in Europe expected a great war, Hitler was the one man who neither expected nor planned for it.” (A. J. P. Taylor, From Sarajevo to Potsdam. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975, p. 140).]
As to revisionism, For now, I will not get into these issues, except to argue that holocaust revisionists are serious scholars:
I referenced above David Irving’s rebuttal to the negative court decision against him. This is an excellent introduction to revisionism, and I will now demonstrate that it is worth considering by noting an important point – Sir Charles Gray, the judge in the 2000 Irving vs. Lipstadt & Penguin trial, stated in his verdict, that Deborah Lipstadt lied in her 1993 book “Denying The Holocaust”. The following extracts are from Lipstadt’s book: “An ardent admirer of the Nazi leader, Irving placed a self-portrait of Hitler over his desk” (p. 161); “The confluence between anti-Israel, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial forces was exemplified by a world anti-Zionist conference scheduled for Sweden in November 1992. Though canceled at the last minute by the Swedish government, scheduled speakers included Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, Faurisson, Irving, and Leuchter. Also scheduled to participate were representatives of a variety of anti-semitic and anti-Israel organizations, including the Russian group Pamyat, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas.” (p. 14)
Sir Charles Gray stated in his verdict:
“13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been proved to be true. The Defendants made no attempt to prove the truth of Lipstadt’s claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hammas. Nor did they seek to justify Lipstadt’s claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held, failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive. The question which I have to ask myself is whether the consequence of the Defendants’ failure to prove the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails in its entirety.”
Sir Charles Gray also gave high praise for Irving as an historian:
“13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5).”
He then stated
“13.8 But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving’s military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.”
Justice Grey then produced a hostile judgement against Irving.
See, for an argument against the judge, information about his appeal, particularly on the Dresden case: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/rebuttal/Dresden/index.html – corroboration for his views on Dresden comes from the British intercept of the 5:55pm, March 24th, 1945 encoded transmission from the Dresden police chief to SS Oberfuehrer Dietrichs. The message stated that 80,000 to 100,000 people are estimated to have been reported missing, of which, 9,720 had been confirmed as fatalities: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/11/bombing-of-dresden-death-toll-is-being.html – as well as other primary sources not connected to or discovered by Irving: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/11-months-later-corpses-still-being.html
With this in mind, we can read Irving’s rebuttal to the negative decision against him, which counters the attacks on him. It is also noteworthy to note that Irving maintains no eivdence for Hitler being an issuer of an extermination order. Apparent counter-evidence is in The Testament of Adolf Hitler, Boring, Or.: CPA Book Publisher, 1990. p. 30 where we find Hitler’s own seeming admission to excessive use of force: https://archive.org/stream/TheTestamentOfAdolfHitler/TOAH#page/n19/mode/2up, though upon further investigation this appears to have been forged by François Genoud: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html
Jürgen Graf, cowriter of many tracts on revisionism, critiqued some of Irving’s concessions in favor of the standard narrative in his article “David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps””: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2009/volume_1/number_2/david_irving_and_the_aktion_reinhardt_camps.php, and regarding serious scholarship, in a book Graf wrote with Carlo Mattogno entitled “The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt””, in which Mattogno noted (pp. 57-58), “Prominent German historian Prof. Ernst Nolte, for example, has referred to me as being among “serious scholars.”91 What is more, the prestigious documentary compendium Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz 1940-1945, published by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in München, mentions my study on the Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, 2005) in its bibliography.92 Tomasz Kranz, director of the research department of the Majdanek Memorial Institution, considered our study on Majdanek worthy of mention in a short book, without praise to be sure, but without reproach either.93 And finally our book Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? (Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, 2002) is present in the Polish National Library in Warsaw under the shelfmark II 2.182.986 A.”, and on pp. 12-13 of that text, Mattogno noted, “The adherents of the orthodox Holocaust story regularly compare revisionists to those who think that the earth is flat. Such people do indeed exist; they even have their own organization, the Flat Earth Society, and their own website.1 But interestingly enough, nobody bothers the Flat Earthers. The political and scientific establishment refuses to pay any attention to them; not in their wildest dreams would our politicians envisage promulgating anti-constitutional laws in order to silence them. No Dr. James Smith from a Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre castigates their published material as “pernicious and dangerous.” After all, the Flat Earthers have no chance of winning: Any competent astronomer could easily trounce them in an open debate.
On the other hand, orthodox Holocaust historians are mortally afraid of a debate with qualified revisionist researchers. To prove this assertion, we need look no further than the collective volume Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas (New Studies on the National Socialist Mass Killings by Poisonous Gas)2 which was published in 2011. In his introduction to this volume, Thomas Krüger writes:3 “This collective volume […] explains the intentions and structures of revisionist propaganda and presents suggestions and concepts for dealing with revisionist denial.”
As it is not possible to “deal with revisionist denial” on a scientific basis without summarizing and analyzing the revisionists’ claims and arguments, one would of course expect the authors of Neue Studien to do precisely this, but in fact they categorically refuse any debate. Two of the editors of the volume, Günter Morsch and Bertrand Perz, explain why they are unwilling to address the arguments of their opponents:4 “There can be no question of responding to pseudo-scientific arguments in order to refute them, because this would confer their representatives and their absurd theories an aura of respectability.””
In accordance with this strategy, in his article about the alleged homicidal gassings at Sachsenhausen concentration camp,5 G. Morsch ignores the only detailed revisionist study about this camp, an article by Carlo Mattogno published in 2003.6 Likewise, Dieter Pohl, the author of an article about the Camps of Aktion Reinhardt,7 does not mention the revisionist monographs about Treblinka8 and Bełżec.9
However, one of the authors of Neue Studien, Achim Trunk, deviates from this strategy of silence by discussing, and attempting to refute, several revisionist arguments in his article “Die todbringenden Gase” (The lethal gasses),10 thus conferring upon the “pseudo-scientific deniers” an undeserved “aura of respectability,” as Morsch and Perz would put it. Unfortunately for Trunk, his “refutation” fails miserably, because in his recent response to the collective volume, Schiffbruch (Shipwreck), Carlo Mattogno demolishes Trunk’s objections with the greatest ease.11 The only revisionist argument Trunk is able to refute is Fred Leuchter’s assertion that the explosiveness of hydrogen cyanide would have prevented the SS from installing gas chambers in the same building as crematoria ovens. This argument is indeed unsound, since the danger of an explosion would only have existed if exorbitant quantities of HCN had been used. But since Carlo Mattogno had pointed out this fact fully fifteen years before the publication of the collective volume,12 and because Leuchter’s error was corrected in a revised edition of his report authored together with Germar Rudolf and Robert Faurisson,13 Trunk merely forces an open door.”: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-long.pdf
(see also ” A fraudulent attempt to refute Mr. Death. Or: What do we call it, when scientists chose to ignore facts that are crucial for the subject they investigate?” by Germar Rudolf: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html)
The chemist of the Max Planck Institute, Germar Rudolf, in spite of the politically incorrect nature of his thesis, did receive some academic praise for his update to the Leuchter report: http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/302-the-rudolf-report-expert-report-on-chemical-and-technical-aspects-of-the-gas-chambers-of-auschwitz/, which was critically analyzed by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Project: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/, though Rudolf addressed this and other critiques in the revised English edition of his report: http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4 (c.f.: http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html). Rudolf noted the following at the end of his report: “-Even according to the statements of pharmacist J.C. Pressac, who, in the late 80s and early 90s, was promoted as THE technical Holocaust expert, eyewitness testimonies relating to the engineering of the installations and their capacity are, almost without exception, untenable. But even the corrections to the testimonies considered by Pressac to be necessary do not go far enough to make them credible. In particular, the testimonies relating to the duration of executions in the ‘gas chambers’ (morgue 1) of crematoria II and III, as well as the ventilation times after the executions go completely awry. This is because of the over-estimation of the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the carrier of Zyklon B, as well as the incorrect concept of the effectiveness of the ventilation of the rooms. If the eyewitness testimonies relating to the quantities of Zyklon B used, and at least approximately relating to the rapidity of the execution procedure are to be accepted, then they are incompatible with testimonies, sometimes of the same witnesses, that the victims’ corpses were removed from the ‘gas chambers’ immediately after the executions and without gas masks and protective garments. This is particularly true for those alleged ‘gas chambers’ without ventilation installations (crematoria IV and V and farmhouses I and II), since working in poorly ventilated ‘gas chambers’ with high concentrations of poison gas is impossible without gas masks. The extreme danger to the sweating workers of the Sonderkommando, who are supposed to have worked without protective garments, makes the witnesses untrustworthy. The eyewitness accounts are therefore completely contradictory, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore incredible. The witnesses engage in particular contortions when it comes to the cremations (amount and kind of fuel used, speed of cremation, development of flames and smoke), which furthermore fail to accord with the analyses of aerial photography.
-The alleged installations for the mass murder of human beings are, in Pressac’s judgment, impractical for their purpose, but were, on the contrary, illogically constructed in parts, so that they would not have been suitable as instruments of mass extermination. Once one considers the actual technical requirements, the impression remains of the total inadequacy of the installations in question-which were deficient to the point of uselessness-in gross contradiction to the technically advanced disinfestation chambers in the immediate vicinity. The facts set forth here with relation to Zyklon B introduction pillars in the ceilings of the ‘gas chambers’ (morgue 1) of crematoria I to III strengthen the suspicion of a subsequent manipulation almost to a certainty. These installations would have been even less suitable than crematoria IV and V. It would have been impossible to introduce the gas into them.
-Due to the proven, enormous environmental resistance of Iron Blue pigment, the slight cyanide traces in alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’, which are demonstrable in places, but are not reproducible, cannot be explained on the basis of remaining residues of a disintegration process, since even on the weathered exterior side of the disinfestation wing large quantities of cyanide can be found even today. Towards the end of the operating period of the installations, therefore, the cyanide content must have been present in the same order of magnitude as it is today, as well as in the areas which were never exposed to weathering. But the cyanide values of protected areas in the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ are just as low as in places exposed to weathering. Weathering has, therefore, not actually diminished these slight traces. The low cyanide values cannot be explained by fumigation of the premises for vermin, as postulated by Leuchter, since such fumigation would probably have left greater quantities of cyanide in the moist cellars of crematoria II and III. The cyanide values of the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ lie in the same order of magnitude as the results, among others, of the samples taken by myself from parts of other buildings (hot air disinfestation Building 5a, inmates barracks, the washroom of crematorium I). These values, however, lie so near the detectable threshold that no clear significance can be attributed to them, most importantly due to their lack of reproducibility. From the above, one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found in the walls of the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’.
It was further possible to show that, under the conditions of the mass gassings as reported by eyewitnesses in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ of crematorium II to V, cyanide residues would have been found in similar quantities, coloring the walls blue, as they can be found in the disinfestation wings of building 5a/b. Since no significant quantities of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal ‘gas chamber’, one must conclude that these installations were exposed to similar conditions as the above mentioned other installations (hot air disinfestation, inmate barracks, washroom of crematorium I), i.e., that they most likely were never exposed to any hydrogen cyanide.”
Rudolf co-wrote an article with British historian of science Nicholas Kollerstrom that was rejected from peer-review due to mere technicalities, instead of the quality of the paper, entitled “Differential Exposure of Brickwork to Hydrogen Cyanide during World War Two”: http://tinyurl.com/njvya28
Rudolf wrote an overview of the revisionist case entitled “Lectures on the Holocaust”: http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/301-lectures-on-the-holocaust/, and edited an anthology entitled “Dissecting the Holocaust”: http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/201-the-controversy-about-the-extermination-of-the-jews-an-introduction/
Along with Mattogno, he wrote a counter to debunkers entitled “Auschwitz Lies—Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust”: http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/303-auschwitz-lies/
Mattogno’s article “Gypsy Holocaust? The Gypsies under the National Socialist Regime”: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_1/gypsy_holocaust.php, and “Special Treatment in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term”: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/st/
Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus at the University of Ulster, said on December 5, 2005: http://www.rense.com/general69/porof.htm
“I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.
This is astonishing. How can it be explained?
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.
University of Ulster
Douglas Reed was the Central European correspondent for the London Times during this time period.
Reed wrote about this issue in a chapter of “The Controversy of Zion” entitled “The Talmudic Vengeance”, where he noted:
“Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs’ death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai’s vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas.
These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic vengeance (that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time was supposed to be an “Iron Curtain” dividing “the free world” from the enslaved Asiatic one; in this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one.
By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews”. The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart’s words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.
I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler’s victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler’s book-bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”; and so on interminably).
The statement about the “six million Jews”, allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.
The figure would not even deserve scrutiny if it had not been used to give the Second War the brand of “a Jewish war” and if that, again, did not foreshadow the shape of any third war. Because of that, it may be examined here.
At no time in history, from antiquity to this day, can the number of Judahites, Judeans or Jews, living at any given time, be determined; for that reason the number afflicted in any calamity also cannot be determined, and there are many more reasons why the number of Jewish victims in the Second World War cannot be fixed. The process of mystification begins in Genesis and continues through the Torah (the seventy people taken by Jacob to Egypt, for instance, apparently increased to two or three million within 150 years). At all periods large, and sometimes huge variations occur in the “estimates”, and only estimates are possible, as the present term, “Jew”, is legally indefinable and statistically elusive.
An eminent Jewish authority, Dr. Hans Kohn, in his article on “the distribution of Jews” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1942, writes:
“In view of the fact that in several of the countries where the largest number of Jews were living in 1941 the census did not contain any questions regarding religion … the exact number of Jews in the world in 1941 could not be ascertained. The definition of persons falling under the classification of ‘Jewish race’ is in no way agreed upon … In countries where the census included questions of religious origins, even this religious criterion of Jewish faith is difficult to define exactly. Thus the assumption which generally varied around the figure of 16 million” (for the entire world) “cannot claim any foundation on exact ‘figures. To this uncertainty about the number of Jews in the world was added in recent years a growing uncertainty about their numerical distribution in the different countries and continents. Probably more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and the U.S.S.R.”
A weaker basis than that even for “estimates” (not to speak of “statistics”) can hardly be imagined, yet in the ensuing period, when all the additional confusions of war and occupation were piled on this infirm foundation, precise numbers of Jewish casualties were produced day by day, circulated by thousands of assiduous propagandists, and at the end dec1ared to amount to six millions!
Dr. Kohn says that “probably” more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and U.S.S.R. in 1941. In respect of the U.S.S.R. this might corroborate another Jewish authority (Prof. H.M.T. Loewe), who said in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 that 2,700,000 Jews then lived there. Similarly, four years earlier (1933) the Jewish journal Opinion had stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was under 3,000,000; and the Soviet official Encyclopaedia in 1953 stated that “the Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939 was 3,020,000”.
This near agreement among four authorities in respect of the period 1933-1941 might lead the reader to think that the number of Jews in one country at least (the U.S.S.R.) was established with reasonable accuracy at a given time. On the contrary, this is a statistical jungle where nothing is ever established. In 1943 the Jewish Commissar Mikhoels said in London (according to the Johannesburg Jewish Times of 1952), “Today we have in the Soviet Union 5,000,000 Jews”. That is two million more than two years before, and if it was true presumably meant that most of the Jews in Poland, after Hitler and Stalin fell out, moved into Soviet territory. However, in the same issue of the Jewish Times a leading Jewish writer, Mr. Joseph Leftwich, stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. in 1952 was 2,500;000, “a loss since 1943 of 2,500,000”. He asked, “where and how did they disappear?”; the answer, in my judgment, is that most of them disappeared into the statistics.
That is not the end of the confusion in this one section of the question. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 (in giving the above-cited figure of 2,700,000 Jews in Russia on Jewish authority) said they formed about six percent of the total population. The total population was elsewhere given in the same encyc1opaedia as 145,000,000 and six percent of that would be 8,700,000!
The encyclopaedias, statistical yearbooks and almanacs are in this one question all at odds with each other and untrustworthy. I could multiply examples (for instance, the Jewish World Congress in 1953 announced that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 1,500,000) but wandering in a maze without an outlet is profitless. All published figures are “estimates” made at the estimators’ pleasure, and are without value. A professional accountant might write a book on the efforts of the encyc1opaedists to make the post-war figure of Jewish population in the world conform with the pre-war “estimates”, minus six million. Figures are tricky things: a few examples:
The leading American reference yearbook, the World Almanac, in 1947 gave the 1939 Jewish world-population as 15,688,259. In later editions up to 1952 it increased this prewar estimate (without explanation) by a million, to 16,643,120. It gave the 1950 population as 11,940,000, which, if subtracted from the first figure given for 1939, gives a reduction of nearly four millions (though not of six). However, it based even this “estimate” on another estimate, name1y, that in 1950 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 2,000,000. This still left unanswered Mr. Leftwich’s question in respect of Commissar Mikhoels’s statement, that in 1943 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 5,000,000.
In England Whitaker’s Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries added up to 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker’s in 1950 gave the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac’s figure for the same year, of 2,000,000.
Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker’s in 1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject.
Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world’s leading Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war’s end) between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the war years.
Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of “mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war’s end Professor Arnold J. Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth volume (1954) said that “the Nazis . . . reduced the Jewish population of Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 6,5 million to about l,5 million by a process of mass-extermination”. He called this “a bare statistical statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be obtainable”. Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish “calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error”. He concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had been done to death by the Nazis.
The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish”, for the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.
The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as “discrimination” and “anti-semitism”. For instance:
“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an intelligent guess … the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery” (the Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran-Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event passed over President Truman’s veto, but even a rigorous application of the reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish”.
This state of statistical affairs is now wellnigh universal, so that the whole question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as for all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated.
The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.
I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October l, 1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and may still pardon sinners, delivers his final judgment. This description says, “… all thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 15 … Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of the judgment… it was roughly ca1culated how long it would take to recast it and to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this”.
I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah’s vengeance. I had foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a “Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the threat that “Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution”. Mr. Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication.
The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949 an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).”
Hopefully, at this point, enough has been given to at least warrant a consideration of the revisionist narrative.
Now, there were definite transgressions. The Nazis had a Manichean worldview where they could have had Aristotelian ethics, ironically, the following far right author was a person who made relevant distinctions between those Jews who supported German Nationalism vs. those who betrayed it, in the article “German Nationalist Jews During the Weimar and Early Third Reich Eras”: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_3/german_nationalist_jews.php – thus items like this are excessive generalizations: http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/oberlindober1.htm – a useful refutation of that generalization comes from the Nietzschian scholar Oscar Levy, on whom see this: http://anthonymludovici.com/oscarlev.htm and https://web.archive.org/web/20050328001735/http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Stone/BreedingSuper.pdf, in his commentary at pp. viii-xiii of George Pitt-Rivers’ text, “The World Significance of the Russian Revolution”: http://ia700603.us.archive.org/22/items/TheWorldSignificanceOfTheRussianRevolution/48920297-Rivers-The-World-Significance-of-the-Russian-Revolution.pdf (though Anthony Ludovici noted that Levy (from a self-defensive position) distorted the views of Nietzsche when the Nazis came to power in order to deny that Nietzsche was an ideological predecessor to them: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/01/memories-of-dr-oscar-levy/, Ludovici noted the consonance between Nazi social views and Nietzsche’s views: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/01/hitler-and-nietzsche/, and the text “The Will to Power: An Attempted Transvaluation of All Values” actually represents the culmination of Nietzsche’s thought, according to Thomas H. Brobjer’s article “Nietzsche’s magnum opus” (History of European Ideas. Volume 32, Issue 3, September 2006, Pages 278–294): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191659906000222) And also, the Nazis anti-Slavic racism is a bitter irony in light of David W. Anthony’s text “The Horse, The Wheel, and Language”: https://archive.org/details/horsewheelandlanguage, their Aristotelian “vices of excess” unfortunately gave some discredit to consideration of racial issues which are of definite importance: https://archive.org/details/Race_John_R_Baker (on that, the aforementioned “Raciology” is also of relevance: http://www.academia.edu/14831926/Raciology_-_Vladimir_Avdeyev)
My view is that Nazism was a perversion of the German Conservative Revolutionary Movement. Had some of the ideas of more moderate, intelligent, and sane predecessors like Moeller van den Bruck (http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/), and Otto Strasser prevailed, it would have likely not led to such havoc. Unfortunately we currently, likely partly inspired by Nazi excesses and partly by the victory of greater evils, live currently under a system where a parasitic oligarchy thrives as others around them deteriorate. In contrast, something that would be truly beneficial would be a reconciliation of aristocratic and socialist values – One person said the following to me, which I appreciate:
“I think the root of all Western political thinking lies in Plato’s Republic, some emphasized his inegalitarian social thinking to the point of ignoring his collectivist economic organization, others vice versa. I see the state as a machine for aiding the attainment of the ideal man in all its citizens [not the “ground of being” of the social organism, but facilitating the activity of the social organism], where those closer to the ideal lead their fellows toward it. For the elevation of the people the base economic needs should be satisfied and in control of the people. Hence collectivism.” Likewise Alexis Carrel noted in “Reflections on Life” that “The great question today is how to improve both the mental and organic state of civilized humanity; that is to say, how to work for the development of beings superior to any who have hitherto inhabited the earth. This enterprise is necessary because our intelligence has not increased at the same rate as the complexity of the problems to be solved. Thus we are on the downward path. Modern society has been preoccupied with material values. It has neglected fundamental human problems which are both material and spiritual. Not only has it not brought us happiness but it has shown itself incapable of preventing our deterioration. The conquest of health is not enough. We must also bring about in every individual the finest development of his hereditary power and of his personality, for the quality of life is more important than life itself.”: http://chestofbooks.com/society/metaphysics/Reflections-On-Life/
Likewise, “It may be said further that the prerequisite for “will to power” in the ascending forms of life was always great health, well-constitutedness, strength, and excess energy. Nietzsche would have rejoiced in William Blake’s assertion that “energy is eternal delight.” At its highest such excess energy lifts a man above all concern even for his existence.
But also, and always, in any and every kind of life, will to power means will toward some kind of ascendancy, expansion, or mastery. The quality of it, the object of it, the place on which its force is spent, may vary infinitely, but always there is the element of will to master something.[…]
Also, Nietzsche believed that in the last analysis all life lived at the cost of others. And, though slowly and reluctantly, I have become convinced that he was right. Within some limits, what takes place among us humans is not so unlike what we can witness among the seedlings carpeting the forest floor in their struggle for light and air. I cannot even make an exception even of a life like that of Whitman, Thoreau, Tolstoy, or Jesus. Every eruption of great vital strength is a danger to the weak. Even Gandhi, despite his pacifism and philosophy of non-violence, was realist enough to recognize that all life necessarily preys upon other life. Doubtless what he had chiefly in mind was the cost of human life to the life of plants and animals: which indeed is obvious. But Nietzsche went further, though his words ought perhaps to be reserved for those having psychological penetration and considerable knowledge of the deductions that seem to follow unavoidably from our anthropologists’ conclusion that man is descended from a race of killer apes. He declared that “life is essentially (that is, in its cardinal functions) something that functions by injuring, oppressing, exploiting, and annihilating, and is absolutely inconceivable without such a character.” And again, “Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strong, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation…’exploitation’ does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power which is precisely the Will to Life…the fundamental fact of all history..” That is, “Living consists in living at the cost of others [not only at the cost of animals, but also of other humans as well.WGS]–he who has not grasped this fact, has not taken the first step toward truth to himself.”
[…]”Dare only to believe in thyself–in thyself and in thine inward parts! He who doth not believe in himself always lieth!” “What saith thy Conscience?–‘Thou shalt become what thou art.’” But over and over again Nietzsche stressed the difficulty of “finding oneself,” of finding within one’s own being a hallowed center of direction and a source of strength that would and could shape a man’s entire life, put it under orders, give it a destiny, and be to it a god. The “way unto thyself” he pronounced “the way of thine affliction.” Inevitable suffering and danger, even the danger of self-destruction, lurked about the path of the man who sets out on this quest. It would be easy for him to miss the path, and, missing it, he might never find his way to the light, but instead spend all his days groping hopelessly through the black depths of a labyrinth. Or, to put the matter differently, he would for a while and maybe for a long while have to bear a constant and bitter struggle with all the refractory elements within himself, which refused to take orders from any god, which in fact would fain set up as gods themselves, and would at least throw themselves across the path of obedience to any other. Worse yet, he would have to be equal to giving pain to those nearest to him, who could not understand or who disapproved: it might become necessary for him to cut off the hands of those dear ones who were determined to hold him back. Sooner or later, he would have to throw away, one by one, every crutch of dependence upon tradition, authority, and the experience of other men. He must be prepared, as the final price of his integrity, to endure the icy breath of an inner aloneness like that of Polar wastes, or of a star projected into desert space.[…]
It is Bucke’s thesis that for at least some thousands of years now, there has been going in man and in man’s pre-human progenitors, an evolution of consciousness. This process began with simple consciousness, which is mere awareness, without any ability to turn one’s eye in on oneself and to know the knower as something apart from the thing known. Roughly this may be taken as the kind of consciousness possessed by our pre-human ancestors for many thousands of years, and still possessed by, say, “the upper half of the animal kingdom.”
Then in time came when life, no longer able to maintain and extend itself satisfactorily in the individuals that possessed mere simple consciousness, broke through onto a higher level and appeared as self-consciousness, which, on the whole, is the mark of human life to this day. It is probably safe to assume, for reasons that Bucke gives, that this kind of consciousness appeared first in those individuals living on the plane of simple consciousness that had reached the highest development possible within the limits of simple consciousness, and at that stage in their individual development when they had come to the apex of their powers. Then takes place the leap to self-consciousness that “might well impress us as being as immense, as miraculous, and as divine as that from the inorganic to the organic” or “from the unconscious to the conscious” (Bucke, op. cit., p. 20). And then gradually, over a long period of time, this new order of consciousness, namely self-consciousness, spread, until it was no longer the possession of only scattered individuals but became universal, the ear-mark of mankind, so that not to be self-conscious in some degree is not to be human.
[…]It is only in consciousness of this kind that man experiences the division within himself that provides the foundation for the moral sense of right and wrong, or becomes hounded by a fear of death. The sub-human does not have it. Neither, as we shall see, does the super-human. It is only man in the in-between stage who is racked and bedeviled by it.
But–and this is Bucke’s point–our present kind of consciousness is only a half-way station on the way to consciousness in a different and higher form. Self-consciousness is consciousness in transition, consciousness on its way to becoming what Bucke called “cosmic consciousness.” Here, he says, without losing the types of awareness that mark the lower orders of consciousness, not by the course of a circle but by that of a spiral, a man regains that sense of unity within himself and with the world about him which his ancestors lost when they became self-conscious. Regardless of what the universe may actually be, he now perceives it as (it makes upon him the impression of) varying manifestations of one underlying reality. He perceives it “to consist not of dead matter governed by unconscious, rigid, and unintending law” but, on the contrary, to be “entirely immaterial, entirely spiritual, and entirely alive” (Bucke, op. cit., p. 17). Moreover, he either feels that in some strange way it is himself, every thing and every creature in it, or at least, that he is at one with it. He feels at home with it and unafraid of it. And even within himself there is unity. There is no more division between body and spirit, no more shame, or sense of sin, or fear of death. “The cosmic sense crushes the serpent’s head.” Good and evil, as things contrasted with and opposed to one another, disappear. All this has been replaced by a feeling of wholeness, elevation, and joy, and by a sense not so much that one shall have eternal life as that one has it–that one has now a sort of life that death cannot really touch.
Naturally, such an experience has its effects. These are chiefly integration of the personality, deepened moral sensitiveness and widened sense of social responsibility, new certainty and significance of life direction, and quickened and concentrated intellectual faculty. In short, “The Saviour of man is Cosmic Consciousness” (Bucke, op. cit., p. 6).
And he who possesses it lives on a plane far above that of the man who knows only self-consciousness as the latter lives above the realm of the highest animal. He is almost a new creature, a new kind or species of man, living in a world in which all those who lack his faculties are, to him, like men who though they have ears, hear not, or who have eyes, yet cannot see.
Bucke, however, was mistaken in his easy assumption that cosmic consciousness must spread until it became the consciousness of all men. In the first place, it is a question whether the great human sub-stratum is not hopelessly inert. I often think that the mass of men will have to remain what they are today and from time immemorial always have been–namely, mass-men, incapable of finding their way and their authority from within themselves, incapable of bearing the burden of their integrity, of achieving and maintaining a differentiation from others–in short, men incapable of growth and doomed to remain mass-men.
In the second place, and in any case, it was a crude popular misconception of evolution that there was ever anything inevitable about it. More species are known to have degenerated, or to have become altogether extinct, than to have survived or advanced. And loath though we may be to admit the fact, it would seem that man is no exception to the forces that operate in the rise and fall of other forms of life. Moreover–and this is never for a moment to be forgotten–even among those who are capable of cosmic consciousness or of growth in that direction, the attainment, and the development upon which it is conditioned, will occur only as it is preceded by appreciation, and by aspiration, and by struggle, and by the deliberate cultivation of those powers upon which attainment depends.[…]
Whitman declared, in his “Song of the Rolling Earth,” “I swear the Earth shall surely be complete to him or her who shall be complete. The Earth remains jagged and broken only to him or her who remains jagged and broken.” And this suggests, what in any case I have come to believe to be the fact, that each man’s universe (the universe as it presents itself to his consciousness) is his own self writ large. When one gazes out upon the universe through the eyes of one’s own wholeness, one necessarily sees it a whole and reads oneness there. But the unity one sees in the universe is really one’s own unity read into it, one’s own inner harmony imposed upon it. Nevertheless, not to see it as a whole, and not to feel at home in it and at peace with it, is evidence that one’s own self “remains jagged and broken,” fragmentary and a chaos; and to become an integrated whole is the greatest achievement that any life can attain.
I do not, therefore, say that the universe is as the mystic sees it. In fact, I believe it is not given to man to know how it is or what it is, ultimately. Absolutes are beyond the reach of any faculty that man has, or ever has had, or probably ever will have. The scientist who thinks that by some penetration of telescope or expansion of microscope or leap of higher mathematics he can finally solve the problem of ultimate reality only shows himself puerile. But it is equally true that the profoundest mystic — Jesus, Blake, Whitman, or any other — in his deepest experience, is still confronted by appearance.
That is, illusion is necessary. Man cannot by any means avoid it. “Truth is that kind of error without which a certain species of living being cannot exist. The value for Life is ultimately decisive.” That belief by which a given group has been able the better to maintain and extend itself has inevitably appeared to its consciousness as the truth. The mystical, as I see it, is another step forward under the will to power (the driving force behind all life) by which man attempts to make his universe stable and manageable–to secure a better toe-hold in it, a freer breathing-space in it, even to shape within it a dance floor for his spirit or a take-off for its flights. That is, he presents it to himself in a way in which he can exist in it, and exist ever better. It reflects his growing masterfulness. Instead of being a device of the escapist, by which the mystic attempts to avoid facing reality, I find in it one of the crowning achievements that enable those who possess it to walk the Earth more and more with the dignity, the self-possession, and the self-direction of a god. Like all other perception, the mystical is illusion (i.e., reality veiled, reality “seen through a glass darkly”), but illusion justifies itself, no matter how we come by it, whether by the mystical or by science, if only it enables life to triumph. Our only choice seems to lie between illusion that makes for higher life and illusion that makes for lower.
Yet the difference between the two is of supreme importance to the life of any society. It is the great divide, which perpetually determines whether the drop of water finds its way to the desert or to the sea, whether life merely goes on or goes up, perhaps indeed whether it wastes itself and finally ends in futility and ruin or comes to flower in a great culture. And because the fate of any society, as certainly as the fate of any man, is constantly being determined, and sometimes forever settled, by its choices, between right and wrong or between wise and foolish, it is of supreme importance (as we shall see in Chapter XI) that a society have, as it were, some special organ composed of the men best able to discriminate between true and false, high and low, beautiful and ugly, and also empowered to hold the society to a course that will ensure its life, preserve its health, and create conditions in which, at the same time, genius will flourish and the common people will sing at their work, sing because they want to sing and find cause for singing.[c.f.: https://books.google.com/books?id=RuPFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39… …]
The mystical, for me, is a matter of added sensitiveness to relations and values, such that one is suddenly aware of what a body of ascertained facts adds up to in the realm of truth, or of its significance in the world of values, whether for oneself or for society, or for both. Moreover, it is a means for integrating the truth that one has become aware of with life, with one’s own life, a revelation of what one mustdo about the truth. Thereafter it becomes impossible to be one who merely plays with ideas and bandies words about after the manner of the modern intellectual. Thought, moral imperatives and action are brought together to form a unified whole. One cannot stop short with thinking; one must do something about what one thinks. And thus one grows steadily into the independence and self-reliance, the sure vision, inner harmony, and the quiet strength of the fully integrated personality.[…]
I rejoice in a sense of unity that makes us feel one with all people and all things somewhat as the continents and the mid-sea islands run deep down under the ocean and become one in the Earth. Yet this particular kind of unity does not alter the fact, or the recognition of the fact, that some are big and others are little, that some are high while others are comparatively low. In this kind of unity, there is no loss of identity, no confusion of function, no illusion of equality. And only in this way can I apply the idea to humans. I am willing enough to become “one with God,” if these “absorption” mystics want me to, and if by that they mean become at one with the source of all life, and especially if they mean integrated with the deeper springs of my own being. But if they begin trying to efface the “hard wiry line” (Blake) that determines, at least for practical purposes, where my individual personality begins and ends, even as my skin determines where my body begins and ends, then I am ready to fight, and to become as ugly as may prove necessary, in order to hold off this living death. And Blake and Nietzsche, at least, were two mystics who felt the same way. I should say that Jesus was another.[…]
Religious people who insist that “all men are equal in the sight of God,” thereby plainly reveal their conviction that men ought to be treated as equals here and now. But so long as men continue to live, their first business is with what they can be and with what they can do on the Earth. And to try to treat men as if they were all equal and to set up human arrangements on the assumption that they are equal, when it is perfectly obvious that they are nothing of the sort, is not only brazenly and impudently dishonest, and therefore spiritually degenerating, but is actually to court the doom that must overtake any people so sunk in folly as to found its basic institutions and rest its life on a hollow delusion. We shall never advance as a society, or even build solidly and durably, except as we come to evaluate all men realistically in reference to what we may reasonably expect of them here on this Earth, as creators, as mates, as persons able to bear and to measure up to responsibility, and to fulfill some useful function. Any belief about a Hereafter or a Beyond that does not somehow exalt, enrich and strengthen life here and now is our deadly poison. And any in our midst who are enticed and misled by it are our deadly foes. This is basic.[…]
Before anyone can attempt to frame the principles upon which any enduring and culturally significant society must be built, he must decide what, in his view, should be the end that a given people, whether consciously or unconsciously, must ever hold before itself.
What must it aim at?
The only end worthy to be the primary object of any people’s existence is, as I think, to produce the largest possible number of truly superior men—of robust health, overflowing energy, unspoiled instinct, mind powerful both to analyze and to create, and—above all—of that integrated, masterful personality and elevated spirit that ever characterizes the truly noble man. The reason that every great people has shown a will to give supreme place to its manifestly superior men is twofold; first, because great men and their works are its exceedingly great pride and glory, the justification of its existence and its highest fulfillment, in which each individual, even the lowest, feels himself lifted up, in that he knows he has taken some necessary part in making them possible; secondly, because such great men are its salvation: they alone can organize its life to make it generally satisfying, and therefore sound and enduring, and can steer it successfully past the perils that assail the life of every people, both from without and from within, or enable it to overcome them. The quality of its top ten percent must constantly be maintained if it is ever to amount to anything, or even long to survive.[…]
Thus it is personal greatness, though greatness of every conceivable sort, that the sound society aims primarily to produce. To this end all institutions are shaped, all other considerations bent or sacrificed—that the men of exceptional inborn capacities and richest promise may have the special opportunities that they require to come to their full stature, and that they may have the room in which to do the works of which they alone are capable. Thus, more or less, has it ever been in the past. And thus would I make it in the future.[…]
And I can but believe that for all the family may, from age to age, change to some extent in its form and constitution, it must yet ever remain at once the fundamental and the essential institution of every healthy society. Looked at unsentimentally it is our breeding institution. As such it is easy to see that it ensures first, that the life of a people is carried on into the future. But, wisely used, it can also ensure that the race not only goes on but also goes up. The outstanding individual, it is true, is the immediate means by which the life of a people is served and exalted. Without him the life of society would be left at a standstill.
But before and after the individual, and in and under and behind him, is the family. I cannot see how the individual can be made the basic unit. A society of individuals is an atomistic society, a pile of loosely-cemented sand. Its cohesive forces are weak. Under heavy strain it falls to pieces. And for me even the great individuals, the great persons, are not to be understood apart from the family. They are not men who live as an end unto themselves (unless, perhaps, in the ultimate reaches of genius), not the miraculous “sports” they often seem, not like certain comets that come we know neither whence nor why. These great persons are at bottom, and really, the flowering life of a family. Apart from the family, perhaps they could not come into existence. They are not individuals, properly so called: they are family-come-to-flowering in one or another of its sons, the fruiting tips of a family tree. Through many generations, perhaps even through centuries, a family, with a sense of its worth (and it may be a family on any level of society), has treated its seed, improved it by wise marriage, and quietly and carefully granted each gain–until at last the swollen family energy and capacity suddenly bursts its bonds and pours forth into a superior person.” – William Galey Simpson, “Which Way Western Man?”
We have turned away from such thinking since the end of WWII. Such thinking I think is extremely important, but must be implemented under high ethical considerations and also checks and balances to prevent transgressions.
In spite of that, the Zionist leader Nahum Goldmann admitted in his autobiography that the whole Nuremberg trial, in which the Nazis were condemned for war crimes, had been prepared years in advance, before the end of the war, in order to secure Palestine for the Zionists (this is the third image attached, it certainly puts the whole affair in a different light). On February 29, 1944, a letter from the British Ministry of Information to the BBC and British Clergy noted that the Communists had committed atrocities all over Europe, but to save face, the British would fabricate atrocity propaganda to vilify the Germans (http://tinyurl.com/72qxk8d). Subsequently, they would do just that, incorporating into their case against Germany propaganda that had appeared in other contexts, as false accusations, for years prior to WWII (on which see this and note the interesting number: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/145-references-to-6000000-jews-prior-to.html?zx=dea2f39387769f50, also of interest are the following admissions from leading holocaust historians: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-real-evidence-for-gas-chambers.html?zx=9adb2c3e7aba8af7
In Dissecting the Holocaust, the chapter “National Socialist Concentration Camps: Legend and Reality” [pp. 305-7], Jürgen Graf tells of how the Jewish communist Bruno Baum admitted to being one of the main fabricators of propaganda at the Auschwitz camp. Baum was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in 1935 for anti-government activity, along with Erich Honecker, who would later be president of the communist East Germany. In 1943, Baum was transferred from Brandenburg prison to Auschwitz. In the first edition of his memoirs, published 1949, Baum wrote [pp.34-5]:
“It is no exaggeration when I say that the majority of all Auschwitz propaganda, which was spread at that time all over the world, was written by ourselves in the camp. […] We carried out this propaganda in [for] the world public until our very last day of presence in Auschwitz.”
In the next edition, published 1957, Baum had changed that to:
“It is no exaggeration when I say that the greatest part of the publications on Auschwitz spread all over the world originated from ourselves […] We informed the world in this manner until the very last day of our stay in Auschwitz.” [p. 89]
As Graf says, “propaganda” became “publications”, which “informed” the world. And on p. 308, Graf states:
“The orthodox historians are unable to explain why Jewish inmates who were allegedly destined for extermination were, in many cases, nevertheless transferred from one camp to another, without succumbing to extermination; or why Benedikt Kautsky, who, as a left-wing Socialist and Jew was doubly marked for extermination, survived Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and, once again, Buchenwald; or why Israel Gutman, later co-editor of the Encyclopadia of the Holocaust, survived not only the “extermination camps” of Majdanek and Auschwitz but the “ordinary concentration camps” of Mauthausen and Gunskirchen as well; or why the Polish Jew Samuel Zylbersztain survived to write a report entitled Memoirs of an Inmate of Ten Camps, describing his experiences in Majdanek, Auschwitz, and eight (!) other concentration camps.
The orthodox historians must be deeply embarrassed by the release of 20,000 inmates from Majdanek “extermination camp,” each one of which must have been a witness to the cruelty of the “mass exterminations,” if any such exterminations ever took place there; or by the fact that the National Socialists released large numbers of inmates in the summer of 1944, in the midst of the alleged extermination of the Hungarian Jews. They cannot explain either why the Germans, during their withdrawal from Auschwitz-Birkenau, left 4,299 inmates behind, almost all of them Jewish, each of whom would have been an accuser of the Third Reich if the official version of Auschwitz squared with the historical facts.
In short: the orthodox history of the National Socialist concentration camps has reached the point of collapse.”: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndGraf.html
Incidentally, in the New York Times, May 20, 1945, in the article “HIDDEN FACTORIES KEPT REICH GOING” it is written of those in Hitler’s Concentration Camps that “more than six million of them have been liberated.”: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0DEFDF163AE333A05753C2A9639C946493D6CF
Regarding a “New World Order” emanating from Judaism, we can see the New York Times October 6, 1940, a relevant article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B03EFDC1639E23ABC4E53DFB667838B659EDE (archived here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-world-order-pledged-to-jews.html), we can also see prominent Jewish rhetoric in favor of a World State contiguous with the above cited excerpt from Toynbee in Jung, Leo. Israel of Tomorrow Vol. 1 NY: Herald Square Press, 1949 edition, originally published 1946. pages 4 & 5, archived here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/jewish-foundations-of-new-world-order.html, for the centrality of the standard Holocaust narrative to this, it is important to note that Ian J. Kagendan, of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and B’nai B’rith Canada, wrote in The Toronto Star – Nov 26, 1991, that “Memory of the Holocaust is central to the new world order…” (text archived here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/holocaust-new-world-order.html)
Also, a “final solution” of extermination was not proposed by a German Nazi, but rather by an American Jew; and it was not the extermination of Jews which he proposed, but the genocide of German Gentiles. Theodor Newman Kaufman advocated the genocidal sterilization of all Germans as a “final solution” in 1941 in his book “Germany Must Perish!”, before the Wannsee-Konferenz occurred.
Here is a relevant quote from the book:
“A final solution: Let Germany be policed forever by an international armed force? Even if such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war, suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold. Thus we find that there is no middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That Germany must perish forever from this earth!” (Kaufman, Theodor Newman. Germany Must Perish!, Argyle Press, Newark, New Jersey, (1941), p. 88): http://archive.org/details/GermanyMustPerish_479
The Jewish Communist Ilya Ehrenburg further expressed this anti-German hatred. In one leaflet entitled “Kill,” Ehrenburg incited Russian soldiers to treat the Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:
“The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime … If you have already killed a German, then kill another one – there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! … – Kill the Germans! Kill!” (cited in De, Zayas Alfred M. “Nemesis at Potsdam: the Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans : Background, Execution, Consequences”. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1977. p. 66): http://tinyurl.com/3fowj58 (c.f.http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/jewish-orders-to-massacre-german.html)
Stalin’s anti-European exterminism and aggression was documented by historian Joachim Hoffman in “Stalin’s war of Extermination”, from which I excerpt the appendix with facsimiles of source literature – the Nazis did act against this destructive activity: http://tinyurl.com/km6ppyb
While this was going on, as George Crocker documented in “Roosevelt’s Road to Russia”, Roosevelt acted as a complete tool for Soviet expansionism: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000466316, the Schecters in “Sacred Secrets” also verified the claim, put forth by Elizabeth Bentley and Maj. George Racey Jordan and others, that Harry Dexter White provided stolen U.S. treasury plates to the Soviets, which they subsequently used to used to print extremely high quantities of occupation currency in the eastern zone of postwar Germany, sparking a black market and serious inflation throughout the occupied country. The Schecters noted that this was just “another thread in the tapestry of service [White] wove on behalf of the Soviets.”
Proof that Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins transferred atomic materials to the Soviets during World War II is provided in commentary here: https://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries
Isaac Don Levine, in “Eyewitness to History” (Hawethorne Books, In., 1983), pp. 197-198, confirms that FDR was told about Alger Hiss being a Communist agent, but did nothing [and later Hiss would rise unimpeded through the ranks].
In spite of Hitler’s transgressions, as the neo-Fascist philosopher Francis Parker Yockey correctly noted in his manifesto “The Proclamation of London”, which presents a “final draft” of Nazi ideology that at least removes the inter-European racism, “The fact is that only American intervention in the Second World War prevented Europe from completely destroying Bolshevik Russia, as a political unit.”: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/proclamation.html
Also, formerly secret files from London and Washington show that Japan was trying to surrender at the end of WWII, and been very adamant about trying to do so, three weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped; and that Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, and the other Allied leaders were aware of this.: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html
And major political figures of the time period noted the same: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
Bernard Baruch (in spite of the U.S. Atomic weapons transfer to the Soviets under Roosevelt and Hopkins) stated the following after WWII, in an address to the UN Atomic Energy Commission as recorded in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
“Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation … Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. … We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States – a formula certain to benefit the world’s future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation. … Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.”: http://tinyurl.com/7ejoc9f
Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist, and foiled this, so the cold war was on. Stalin would later face some problems where he was located, and be murdered: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html
Baruch interestingly stated before a Senate Committee in 1948: “Although the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.” He was one of the first people I am aware of to use this term: http://tinyurl.com/75jvhmv
For an understanding of post-war conditions, see Charles Lutton’s review of “The Secret Betrayal” by Nikolai Tolstoy in the Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pp. 371-376: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v1/v1n4p371_lutton.html, and see Kubek’s article in the Journal of Historical review, Vol. 9, No. 3, Fall 1989, pp. 289-303 entitled “The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of Policy Perversion”: https://www.scribd.com/doc/97493068/The-Journal-Of-Historical-Review-Volume-9-Number-3-1989 (for a visual impression, see: http://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/ – previous portrayals of horrendous allied war crimes had been put forth by Freda Utley in “The High Cost of Vengeance”: https://archive.org/details/highcostofvengea009824mbp)
Kubek himself is a serious source. He was consultant to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee as regards the Morgenthau Diaries (see p. iii: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011421463, and p. iii of Vol. 1: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009990175), and also, it appears, the Amerasia papers: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009990510. Kubek’s text “How The Far-East Was Lost” also provides major substantiation for the argument that “United States” foreign policy was the major contributor to the rise of Mao: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000334614 (on Mao, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/books/review/23cover.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), and thereby corroborates Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s major charges (on whom, see: http://humanevents.com/1997/05/30/mccarthyism-waging-the-cold-war-in-america/ – for corroboration of McCarthy’s most notorious charge, that of 57 (not 205 – Evans demonstrates that this was a Myth) Communist enablers in the State Department, see Evans, “Blacklisted by History”, pp. 261-262: http://tinyurl.com/lp9ey79
Then U.S. President Harry Truman said to McCarthy, in reply to this item from McCarthy: http://research.archives.gov/description/201514, “…this is the first time in my experience, and I was 10 years in the senate, that I ever heard a Senator trying to discredit his government before the whole world…”: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/mccarthy-telegram/images/truman-reply.gif
Of relevance is the following CFR document – the history of the organization, “Continuing the Inquiry”, by Grosse – regarding McCarthy, it states:
“Not surprisingly, the Council’s membership seemed solidly united in contempt for the Wisconsin demagogue; under his provocative rhetoric, after all, was a thinly veiled attack on the entire East Coast foreign policy establishment, whose members gathered regularly in the closed conference rooms of the Harold Pratt House.”: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/x_leads.html
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. noted on p. 51 of his ultra-orthodox book “A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House” that “The community [New York financial and legal community] was at the heart of the American Establishment. It’s household dieties were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; it’s present leaders, Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; it’s front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations and Council on Foreign Relations; it’s organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs.”
By implication, then, the grievances of McCarthy corroborated by Kubek ultimately traced back to the “CFR”/New York Finance Oligarchy/”East Coast Foreign Policy”.
Of the CFR, Curtis Dall stated, “few members of the C.F.R. know the long-range plans of its small top-management group. Hence, giving effect to all of the foregoing status areas, ninety per cent or more of the membership do not remotely comprehend just who “plays the piano upstairs.” The piano is continuously played, nevertheless, and no time is lost by the C.F.R. in teaching many of our duly elected officials to dance.”
More interesting is the information given by the businessman DeWest Hooker who had some intimacy with anti-Communist efforts about the Jewish effort to sideline McCarthy. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League the ADL collaborated with the FBI in the 50’s to downplay the Jewish role – this citation is from Stuart Svonkin’s text “Jews Against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties” (Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 134: line 14 (see phrase “minimize the association of jews with communism”): https://books.google.com/books?id=E-C1QPTEJTAC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some new revelations which might have been given at the time had this not happened come from in a July 9, 2012 article in the Jewish news source The Forward entitled “A Jew in Mao’s China” by Laura Goldman, who noted that “In fact, 85 to 90% of the foreigners helping the Chinese at the time of the Communist takeover were Jewish. This included the daughter of the founder of the brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, who left the comfort of her Park Avenue home to assist the Chinese.”: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/#ixzz3oIFStf1M
Hence Richard Nixon’s statement about almost everybody in the Communist espionage conspiracies of the ’40s and ’50s being Jewish. Incidentally, Donald Neff, in his article “Israel seeks ‘neutrality’ between US and Soviet Union,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995, Pages 36-38, noted (citing FRUS 1948, “The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Jessup) to the Secretary of State,” Top Secret, Priority, New York, July 1, 1948, 4:16 p.m., p. 1182.):
“A mid-1948 report to Secretary of State George C. Marshall from Ambassador to the United Nations Philip C. Jessup observed: “…it is not apparent that communism has any substantial following among the [Arab] masses. On the other hand, there are apparently a substantial number of Communists in the Irgun, the Stern Gang and other dissident [Jewish terrorist] groups. Beyond that, the Soviet Union, through its support of partition and prompt recognition of Israel, must be considered as having a substantial influence with the PGI [Provisional Government of Israel]. The communist influence is, of course, capable of substantial expansion through whatever diplomatic and other missions the Soviet Government may establish in Israel.””: http://www.wrmea.org/1995-january-february/middle-east-history%E2%80%94it-happened-in-january-israel-seeks-neutrality-between-u.s.-soviet-union.html
And in Guang Pan, “China’s Success in the Middle East,” Middle East Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 4, December 1997, we find that: “the Chinese leadership generally had a critical attitude towards rulers of independent nations in Middle East. These were not many in number—eleven independent countries, of which just four were republics. With the exception of Israel, none of them recognized the People’s Republic of China; in August 1950 the Political Committee of the Arab League voted to recognize Taiwan rather than the PRC as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people.1Many Middle Eastern states followed Washington’s lead in voting against China’s efforts in the United Nations and some sent troops to help South Korea. In response, the Chinese media routinely referred to Middle Eastern leaders as “the anti-revolutionary rulers” and “feudal dictators.” Even after Egypt’s July Revolution of 1952, Beijing continued to refer to “the anti-revolutionary military dictators” of that country.2 While criticizing the rulers, the people’s republic supported anti-colonial efforts. The Chinese press cheered the 1951 anti-British campaign in Egypt, the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry in 1952-53, and the anti-French struggle in Algeria. Chinese support was only moral, however, and not material.
The only exception to this pattern of condemnation was Israel with its socialist leaders. The Chinese press welcomed the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and condemned the British for “agitating” the Arab “anti-revolutionary rulers” to launch an anti-Jewish war.3In both 1950 and 1955, China and Israel nearly reached an agreement on diplomatic ties. The first effort failed due to U.S. pressure on Israel after the Korean War started;4 the second fell through due to a change in Chinese policy following the Bandung Conference of Asian and African states.5″: http://www.meforum.org/373/chinas-success-in-the-middle-east
Though as regards the Korean war, in his Reminiscences (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964), p. 375, Douglas MacArthur observes that an official leaflet by a Gen. Lin Piao published in China read as follows, regarding the Communist offensive via the Yalu river: “I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my line of supply and communication”
Beyond looking at this history, we should note the revelations of Douglas Reed, who argued that FDR helped to further Communism and the World Government ambition. In “Far and Wide”, in a chapter entitled “Communism Penetrant”, Reed showed how Roosevelt consciously worked to subvert Constitutional safeguards, helped further the aims of World Communism, and ultimately served higher circles. He asked, “What real purpose did Mr. Roosevelt promote through the way he used his imperial powers?”, and then noted:
“He furthered the main principles of a plan for the redistribution of the earth published in 1942 (but clearly prepared much earlier) by a mysterious ‘Group for a New World Order’, headed by a Mr. Moritz [sic, Maurice] Gomberg. What this group proposed was startling at the time but proved farsighted. The main recommendations were that the Communist Empire should be extended from the Pacific to the Rhine, with China, Korea, Indo-China, Siam and Malaya in its orbit; and that a Hebrew State should be set up on the soil of ‘Palestine, Transjordan and the adjoining territories’. These two projects were largely realized. Canada and numerous ‘strategic islands’ were to pass to the United States (the reader should keep these ‘strategic islands’ in mind). The remaining countries of Western Europe were to disappear in a ‘United States of Europe’ (this scheme is being vigorously pursued at present). The African continent was to become a ‘Union of Republics’. The British Commonwealth was to be left much reduced, the Dutch West Indies joining Australia and New Zealand in it. The scheme looks like a blueprint of the second stage in a grand operation of three stages, and substantial parts of it were achieved; what was not then accomplished is being energetically attempted now.”
This map does exist we can see it here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3200+ct001256)) , see also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-post-war-ii-new-world-order-map-a-proposal-to-re-arrange-the-world-after-an-allied-victory/19706 – see for background info the compilation of information on this: http://the-gomberg-map-of-world-union.blogspot.com/2011/09/1941-post-war-new-world-map-new-world.html
Of this, The American Teacher Magazine, Volume 27 (1942), p.21 stated – ” What is the role and policy the U.S.A. must assume for the establishment of the NEW WORLD MORAL ORDER AND PERMANENT PEACE? The answers to these and other questions on post-war problems are suggested in the Map-Plan – an outline of policy, illustrated with post-war New World Map- by Maurice Gomberg. This Bold Plan of the Post-War geopolitical pattern should be at the elbow of every thinking American and theorist on post-war planning. Completed before Pearl Harbor and published In Feb. 1942. It is the First and Only Comprehensive Post-War Map-Plan of its kind.”: http://books.google.com/books?id=GExXAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=before+pearl+harbor
Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, later found evidence that the modern European Union was conceived as a conspiracy between the Trilateral Commission and the former Soviet Politburo (“Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship”, Brussels Journal, Feb. 27, 2006: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865)
As regards the EU, it is also relevant to point out (and recall before pointing this out that L.G. Pine, the editor of Burke’s Peerage, noted that Jews “have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.” (Tales of the British Aristocracy, 1957, p. 219.)), that Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-Europe movement, wrote in “Praktischer Idealismus” that “The man of the distant future will be a mongrel. The races and castes of today will fall victim to the conquest of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, outwardly similar to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [on the Egyptians, see: http://marchofthetitans.com/vol1chap8.htm, on the “Negroid” element, see Carleton Putnam’s “Race and Reality”, ch. III: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/race_and_reality_03.htm] […] Russian Bolshevism constitutes a decisive step towards this goal, where a small group of communist spiritual aristocrats govern the land […] The general staff of both parties [Communist and Capitalist] is recruited from the spiritual leader race (Führerrasse) of Europe: the Jews. […] From the European quantity-people, who only believe in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry. Separate from each other both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood, in the different ranks of the people. In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future […] No wonder then, that these people, who escaped the ghetto-prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. A gracious providence provided Europe, at the moment when the feudal aristocracy fell into disrepair, with a new race of nobility through spiritual grace, thanks to Jewish emancipation.”: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/03/spiritual-leader-race-fuhrerrasse-of.html?zx=d4137fee0c19efa6, more on this text here: http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php, a scanned copy is here: https://archive.org/details/Coudenhove-Kalergi-Praktischer-Idealismus-2 – the political relevance of this text is spelled out by Dieter Schwarz in Die Freimaurerei. Weltanschauung, Organisation und Politik, Zentral Verlag der NSDAP, Berlin, (1938), p. 40: https://www.scribd.com/doc/103556590/Schwarz-Dieter-Die-Freimaurerei-Weltanschauung-Organisation-Und-Politik-1938-68-S-Scan-Fraktur – the English translation of which is as follows:
“The Grand Lodge Of Wien went enthusiastically to work for the Pan European Union in a call to all Masonic chief authorities. Even the Masonic newspaper The Beacon enthused about the thoughts of the higher degree Freemason Coudenhove-Kalergi, and stated in March, 1925:
“Freemasonry, especially Austrian Freemasonry, may be eminently satisfied to have Coudenhove-Kalergi among its members. Austrian Freemasonry can rightly report that Brother Coudenhove-Kalergi fights for his Pan European beliefs: political honesty, social insight, the struggle against lies, striving for the recognition and cooperation of all those of good will. In this higher sense, Brother Coudenhove-Kalergi’s program is a Masonic work of the highest order, and to be able to work on it together is a lofty task for all brother Masons.””: https://web.archive.org/web/20090826133215/http://thecensureofdemocracy.150m.com/masonry.htm
The video presentation “Sarkozy: Métissage OBLIGATOIRE pour la France, pas pour Israël” can be viewed in this context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF6MezJ884M
Also of relevance is the following article:
White Nationalists [I agree with a “soft” version of this that advocates strong majorities, but not total exclusivity] are united in the belief that our race is threatened with simple biological extinction. This is often dismissed as alarmism, but, as I have shown, one can make a very simple and compelling argument that whites will go extinct if present trends continue. The purpose of White Nationalism is to interrupt those trends.
Some White Nationalists go one step further, arguing that our race is being intentionally driven to extinction, i.e., that whites are the targets of genocide. This claim too is dismissed as not just alarmist but crazy. Nevertheless, I shall argue that white genocide is actually happening. There are people in positions of power who are promoting policies that they know will lead to the extinction of the white race. Unless, of course, we stop them.
To establish the white genocide thesis, we must do three things. First, we need to define genocide in a way that is consistent with a slow process leading ultimately to extinction. Second, we need to show that white extinction is not a mysterious force of nature but the result of human choices and actions. Third, we need to show that white extinction is not just an unforeseen, unintended consequence of these policies, but rather their deliberate, intentional effect.
It seems counter-intuitive to claim that whites are the victims of genocide. Whites are not being slaughtered by the millions, which is the image that most people have of genocide. To all appearances, our race is powerful, prosperous, and populous. But defenders of the White Genocide thesis point to the 1948 United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which in Article II defines genocide as
. . . any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; . . .
This definition of genocide is much broader than outright mass murder. In particular, points (c) and (d) are consistent with characterizing policies that destroy a group slowly, over long periods of time, as genocidal as well. So genocide comes in two forms, which we can call fast, hot genocide and slow, cold genocide. White extinction falls into the latter category.
White extinction means that in every white nation, reproduction rates have fallen below replacement, which means that more whites will die than are being born, until whites cease to exist as a distinct race.
There are five principal causes of white extinction. I am sure that other factors could be added to this list, but if just these five problems were addressed, I would no longer fear for the future of our race.
An ethic of hedonism, individualism, and selfishness that denigrates reproduction and family life;
Feminism, which encourages women to pursue careers instead of making family life their primary occupation;
The widespread use of birth control and abortion to decouple sex from pregnancy and pregnancy from child-rearing;
The rising costs of family formation, chiefly caused by racial integration—which is the driving force behind suburbanization and ex-urbanization in order to find safe spaces for whites to raise families—and by non-white immigration and offshoring industry, which lower wages for whites;
Miscegenation, in which individuals reproduce their own genes but not their race by mixing with another race.
These factors are not blind forces of nature, like an asteroid colliding with earth. They were all created by human beings. Some of them, like feminism, birth control pills, legalized abortion, and overturning racial segregation, immigration restrictions, and bans on miscegenation are quite recent. They were hatched in the minds of intellectuals, artists, scientists, politicians, educators, and advertisers. They were made real by changing people’s beliefs and values, and by altering the laws and institutions that govern us.
But all of these things could be changed. People could be taught to value family life over selfishness, hedonism, and careerism; feminism could be discouraged; access to birth control and abortion could be restricted; laws could be changed to make family formation affordable; racial separation, immigration restriction, and economic nationalism could become policy again; miscegenation could be outlawed. Indeed, White Nationalists support just such policies to halt white extinction.
But to establish the white genocide thesis, we must show that white extinction is the intended result of the policies we oppose. The first three causes of white extinction are simply products of the pursuit of individual freedom. The last two are products of individual freedom and racial egalitarianism. So isn’t it possible that white extinction is just the unintended consequence of individualism and racial egalitarianism?
Of course it is possible, and in many cases, it is true. The majority of people who advocate individualism and racial egalitarianism are simply unaware that these values are promoting the ongoing extinction of the white race. Our job is to inform them.
But when such people are informed, their reactions fall into several categories. Some will simply refuse to accept that white genocide is taking place. Of those who accept that white genocide is actually happening, some will wish to stop it, and others will not. Of the latter, some will simply not care, and others will actually cheer the process on.
There is, however, a difference between people who might sign on to policies promoting white genocide after the fact and those who might conceive and execute such policies before the fact and with full awareness of their consequences. What evidence is there that such people exist?
First, the burden of proof needs to be shifted. For is it really plausible that the leaders of dozens of white nations have adopted similar policies antithetical to the long-term survival of their own peoples, yet none of them knew what they are doing? Yes, it is fashionable to deride politicians for thinking only in terms of the next election. But that is not really true. Politicians are, for instance, rather far-sighted when it comes to their personal career ambitions and plans.
Beyond that, our ruling elites do not consist simply of democratic politicians. Moreover, the ruling elites in every form of society are noted for thinking and planning ahead. Both government intelligence agencies and private think tanks are in the business of generating long-term predictions based on current trends, and planning accordingly. Thus it is just not plausible that our leaders are unaware of white extinction. They either don’t care about it, or they want it to happen.
Second, it is no longer controversial that Jews are massively overrepresented among Western elites in politics, the media, business, academia, and the professions. Jews are, moreover, among the principal promoters of trends conducive to white genocide, for example: non-white immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, feminism, and sexual liberation. Of course any attempt to blame Jews for white genocide can be hijacked into hairsplitting about historical causation. From a practical point of view, however, it is more important—and less controversial—to note that the organized Jewish community is the linchpin of opposition to nationalist, especially racial nationalist, attempts to rectify these problems going forward. How we got here is ultimately less important than how we can save ourselves. And Jews are blocking the exit.
Now, is it really plausible that the leaders of the Jewish community “know not what they do”? Jews, after all, are the people most aware of the conditions that promote or prevent genocide. Thus Jews support the existence of a Jewish state, Israel, as a refuge from genocide. Yet they oppose any attempt to preserve white homelands for white peoples. Israel is for Jews, but Poland, Sweden, Germany, France, and so forth are for everyone. Jews see intermarriage as a threat to Jewish survival, but they promote miscegenation for other groups and oppose anyone who would ban it. Jews recognize that a strong sense of Jewish identity, including pride in their history and achievements, is necessary for Jewish survival, but they promote multiculturalism and white guilt for the rest of us.
Now, not all Jews promote destructive ideas merely for the goyim while exempting themselves. Jews may promote intermarriage for others, but they practice it as well and at higher rates than other groups. Jews promote feminism to others, but the primary victims of Jewish feminism are the Jewish men who marry these harridans, while other Jewish men marry out to avoid them. Jews promote an ethos of selfishness, individualism, and materialism to others. But they practice it as well, which is one reason why secular Jews have very low reproduction rates.
In short, many Jews don’t just preach nihilism, they practice it as well. Unfortunately, because Jews are so influential, they have the power to drag us along in their wake. They are the vanguard of nihilism. They are not hypocrites, preaching nihilism for thee but not for me. But that makes them even more evil, because hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and they don’t care enough to even offer lip service.
But while some Jews are leading us into extinction, others are goading us from behind but have no intention of sharing in our fate. These are the Jews who praise multiculturalism, open borders, and miscegenation for us, but prefer to opt out because they know that such policies would lead to their extinction.
They aren’t just being “inconsistent” about principles. They are being perfectly consistent with their real principle of collective self-interest. They are not upholding “double standards,” because their single standard is collective self-interest. These Jews have a live and let die philosophy. They seek to profit from our destruction as a people, and they not only promote our decline but actively suppress our resistance to it.
Aside from Jews that are actively pushing and pulling us toward our destruction, there are surely some who are doing neither. Some simply lack the power to do us harm, even if they might want to. Others are entirely ignorant of what their leaders are doing. But one category is conspicuous by its near absence: righteous Jews, i.e., Jews who know white genocide is taking place, who understand their people’s role in it, and who have warned whites and worked to stop it. That relative silence is actually more damning than the never-ending din of anti-white hatred emanating from the Jewish community.
In short, we know that white genocide is happening, because Jews in high places, with the power to promote or prevent white genocide, cannot be unaware of what is happening, yet they do nothing to stop it and everything to stop us from stopping it.
The third and most compelling piece of evidence for white genocide is that people actually say that they support it. The only people who say outright that whites should be exterminated are marginal cranks, like Dr. Kamau Kambon, a sometime Black Studies professor and the owner of Blacknificent Books, who declared, “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet.”
The subtler advocates of white genocide, like Noel Ignatieff, a Jewish Harvard professor and the editor of the journal Race Traitor (subtitled Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity), speak of “deconstructing” the “concept” of whiteness, which sounds like a harmless language game until you grasp that they think race just is a social construct.
But the most common advocates of white genocide simply promote race-mixing as a solution to racism. They tacitly agree with White Nationalists that racial diversity within the same system leads to strife, so to eliminate strife, they promote miscegenation to create a homogeneous mongrel race. The most influential advocate of what I call “miscegenationalism” was European unity pioneer Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who was himself of mixed race (his father was white, his mother Japanese). In his book Practical Idealism, he declared:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
Interestingly enough, Coudenhove-Kalergi did not envision the disappearance of the Jewish people but instead expected them to be the ruling elite of a miscegenated world. (He himself was not Jewish.)
Why is it important to establish that white extinction is actually white genocide? It is easy to understand why people might shy away from such a truth, for it implies that whites are not just the victims of a ghastly mistake, or an impersonal sociopolitical “system,” or an inhuman cosmic or historical destiny, but of knowing malice—of principled enmity—of diabolical evil. It is hard to accept that such evil exists, much less that it wills our annihilation.
But if we are to save ourselves, we have to understand the forces that are arrayed against us. We need to know that our attempts to raise people’s consciousness and win their allegiance will eventually come up against not just ignorance and indifference but diamond hard malice. Eventually we will make all the friends that we can make, persuade all the people we can persuade, and only enemies will remain—enemies that cannot be converted but must simply be defeated.”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/white-genocide/)
As for World War I:
Benjamin Freedman was a wealthy Jewish businessman who knew many of the leaders of the Zionist movement. He went rogue and started going against the Zionist leadership, and as a result he was/is the victim of a vicious smear campaign. Thus people will harp upon his collaboration with Sen. Joseph McCarthy in an attempt to block Anna Rosenberg’s nomination due to her Communist affiliations. They will say that Anna Rosenberg’s communist affiliations were a mere “invention” of Freedman’s. But since then it’s come out, from others looking into this issue, that the official Communist publication, ‘New Masses’, carried an article by Rosenberg in its issue for December 8, 1942. The magazine introduced her as ‘Regional Director, War Manpower Commission,’ the title which she held in the Roosevelt Administration at the time. The New Masses article even carried a drawing of Rosenberg as it’s writer. This revelation has come from extreme rightists, but I see little reason to doubt them on this, especially in light of the fact that Freedman’s main argument is corroborated by the leaders of the Zionist movement (some interesting corroboration prior to this revelation could be found in John Beaty’s text, and in John Howland Snow’s “The Turning of the Tides”, p. 113: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b64382;view=1up;seq=121). Freedman was mentioned in the acknowledgements in Col. Curtis Dall’s text “FDR: My Exploited Father in Law” (which also has some interesting information as regards Bernard Baruch).
Freedman’s 1961 speech is absolutely devastating to the Zionist movement. Audio of the presentation is attached above.
Freedman stated that Germany was under attack by Great Britain in WWI due essentially to Anglo-imperialist reasons – their desire to crush a competitor. He stated that was about to win World War One in 1916, to the point that they proposed a status quo ante bellum with Great Britain, but they lost it due to Zionist opportunism. His basic argument was that Germany was a major Zionist center, and that Zionists asked the Kaiser for Palestine. The Kaiser was in a bind because Palestine was controlled by the Turkish empire, and Germany was allied with the Turks against the allies. He essentially said that yes he would give them place for a homeland but that he could not make it a completely autonomous independent state. So the Zionists had no qualms about betraying Germany, when they entered into secret agreements with Great Britain promising to bring the United States into World War One in exchange for Palestine. He then claimed that because of Zionist influence in Europe and the west, exercised through Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., Bernard Baruch, and others, there was sufficient propaganda power to get the US into war, and that the origins of the subsequent Balfour Declaration lay in the fact that Zionists brought the US into world War One. He was subsequently present in a League of Nations delegation headed by Bernard Baruch that contributed substantially to the establishment of the state of Israel.
For background, it is important to note that Germany was attempting to achieve national determination in a manner that did not comply with the rules set out for them by the British cosmopolitan “free trade” imperialists. They thrived, using protectionist and Nationalist methods as laid out by Frederich List (see, for more on this, “A Century of War” by F. William Engdahl, ch. 1-3).
As for the impetus of WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II noted, in his memoirs (here also is the revelation that Germany was not the primary aggressor):
“the Anglo-Saxon world as far back as 1897 had combined against us, and therein is explained a number of obstacles encountered by Germany in her foreign policy. It also explains America’s attitude in the war. … In view of the grouping of England, France and Russia-three very strong Powers-only one political course lay open to Germany; the threat of deciding Germany’s future by force of arms must be avoided until we had secured for ourselves such an economic, military, naval, and politically national position in the world as to make it seem advisable to our opponents to refrain from risking a decision by arms, and to yield us in the share in the apportionment and management of the world to which our ability entitled us. We neither desired nor were we entitled to jeopardize our hard-won position.”: http://tinyurl.com/7xhl6j6
Prof. Roland Usher stated in “Pan-Germanism” in 1913, Chapter X, pp. 139-140, that an understanding was reached, before the summer of 1897, that in case of war the United States would promptly declare in favor of England and France and would do her utmost to assist them. He noted: “The alliance, for it was nothing less, was based upon infinitely firmer ground than written words and sheets of parchment …” (http://tinyurl.com/6rfv7wm)
Freedman’s assertion that Germany offered Peace Terms is quite correct, and was documented in “The Indepedent”, Volume 88 (c. 1916): http://tinyurl.com/3utnal2
Likewise, he makes the claim that “When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.”
This is partially true, but Freedman is making a minor error – as I have been able to verify it, instead of “Hugo Schoenfelt”, the person is “R.E. Schoenfeld” – this is discussed on pp.305-306 of Charles Callan Tansill’s book “Back Door to War”: http://library.mises.org/books/Charles%20Callan%20Tansill/Back%20Door%20to%20War%20The%20Roosevelt%20Foreign%20Policy%201933-1941.pdf
Some insight can be found in Dalton’s “The Jewish Hand in the World Wars”: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_2/the_jewish_hand_in_the_world_wars.php
The text ”Behind the Balfour Declaration” is an expansion on Freedman’s argument, based on sources he provided to the author, and corroborates his presentation: http://www.archive.org/details/BehindTheBalfourDeclaration
(Though from that article we find the following: Was it the resumption of Germany’s submarine blockade, the sinking of the Laconia [sic The Lusiatania – see The Lusitania by Colin Simpson for more on this], the Zimmerman telegram, which really influenced Wilson for war? Was it the Zionist counsel of Brandeis? In a careful study, Prof. Alex M. Arnett showed in 1937 that Wilson had decided to put the United States into the war on the side of the Allies many months before the resumption of U-boat warfare by Germany, which was promoted as a sufficient reason.[Footnore: Claude Kitchen and the Wilson War Policies, 1937, reprinted 1971, Russel.])
The Zimmerman telegram actually stated:
“We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare on the first of February. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an alliance on the following basis: Make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to re-conquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you.”
Thus the telegram is conditional to come into effect if and only if USA declares war on Germany. It clearly stated that Germany did not want war with the U.S.
The Kaiser Wilhelm II noted in his memoirs (p. 317): “it must be noted that John Kenneth Turner, in his already mentioned book, Shall it be Again? shows, on the basis of extensive proofs, that all of Wilson’s reasons for entry in the war were fictitious, that it was far more a case of acting solely in the interest of Wall Street high finance.”: http://books.google.com/books?id=IwZoAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA317&dq=a+case+of+acting+solely+in+the+interest+of+Wall+Street+high+finance.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aro9UY7FIcaUrgH_oYGQDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=a%20case%20of%20acting%20solely%20in%20the%20interest%20of%20Wall%20Street%20high%20finance.&f=false – for John Kenneth Turner’s book, see: https://books.google.com/books?id=ULWbAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
As regards Wall St. financiers, Engdahl, in “A Century of War”, ch. 5, and “The Gods of Money”, ch. 4, and Ferdinand Lundberg in “America’s 60 Families”, noted the role of the immensely powerful banking house J.P. Morgan in funding Britain near the beginning of the war (Jan. 1915), while the United States was purportedly “neutral”. An immensely important document during this time period comes from Thomas Lamont – in his article “The Effect of the War on America’s Financial Position”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 60 (1915), pp. 106-112 – on pp. 109-110 of that article, he stated:
“I think I am warranted in saying that this question of trade and financial supremacy must be determined by several factors, a chief one of which is the duration of the war. If, as all humanity is bound to hope, the war should come to an end in the near future, our position would still be much different from, and more important than, what it was prior to the war but, on the other hand, we should probably find Germany, whose export trade is now almost wholly cut off, swinging back into keen competition very promptly; and we should find that the building up of our foreign trade would be a much slower matter than if the war were to continue indefinitely, thus leaving those foreign fields of trade endeavor more open to us.
Another factor, depending upon the duration of the war, is the extent to which we shall buy back American securities still held by foreign investors. Just prior to the war and since its outbreak we have bought back hundreds of millions of such securities, but the amount still outstanding in the hands of foreign holders must aggregate several billions of dollars. If we should continue to buy such securities back on a large scale — and the chances are that if the war continues long we shall do that — then we should no longer be in the position of remitting abroad vast sums every year in the way of interest. It would not be necessary for us to secure so much exchange on London and Paris. We should be paying the interest upon our debts to our own people, not to foreigners. Such a development would be of the utmost importance for this country financially.
A third factor, and that, too, is dependent upon the duration of the war, is as to whether we shall become lenders to the foreign nations upon a really large scale. I have pointed out that since the war began we have loaned direct to foreign governments something over $200,000,000. Yet this is comparatively a small sum. Shall we become lenders upon a really stupendous scale to these foreign governments? Shall we become lenders for the development of private or semi-public enterprises in South America and other parts of the world, which up to date have been commercially financed by Great Britain, France and Germany? If the war continues long enough to encourage us to take such a position, and if we have the resources to grapple with it, then inevitably we shall become a creditor instead of a debtor nation, and such a development, sooner or later, would certainly tend to bring about the dollar, instead of the pound sterling, as the international basis of exchange.”: https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1013319/1013319#page/n3/mode/2up
Lundberg wrote, in “America’s 60 Families” that, “Early in 1917 the Allied governments, which now owed the American bankers and their clients nearly $1,500,000,000, had been brought virtually to their knees by the German armies, and it was believed that the limit of Allied credit had been reached. In March, 1917, the Czar’s government, which had also been fighting to make the world safe for democracy, collapsed, threatening to release the German army of the East for duty in France.
On March 5, 1917, Walter Hines Page, American Ambassador to England, sent to President Wilson a long dispatch which Page summarized as follows: “I think that the pressure of this approaching crisis has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan Financial Agency for the British and French Governments.
The need is becoming too great and urgent for any private agency to meet, for every such agency has to encounter jealousies of rivals and of sections.” Page said that the outlook was “alarming” to America’s industrial and financial prospects, but pointed out frankly, “If we should go to war with Germany, the greatest help we could give the Allies would be such a credit;. In that case our Government could, if it would, make a large investment in a Franco-British loan or might guarantee such a loan. … Unless we go to war with Germany our Government, of course, cannot make such a direct grant of credit. …” The alternative to war, Page warned, was domestic collapse.
Within four weeks President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war, ostensibly because submarine warfare against shipping had been renewed. Congress, with the exception of a small but gallant band led by Senators LaFollette and Norris, promptly acceded.”
However, as we must conclude from Freedman and the information in the text “Behind the Balfour Declaration”, the anglophilia represented by Morgan, was dampened by even more powerful Zionist influence until Zionism allied itself with anglophile interests on account of the Balfour proposition.
More important is information from Samuel Landman, secretary of the World Zionist Organization from 1917-1922, corroborated Freedman’s account of the origins of the Balfour declaration in a text entitled ”Great Britain. The Jews, and Palestine”: http://mailstar.net/landman.html
He gave a summary which completely corroborates Freedman – some interesting excerpts are as follows: “During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed.”, but “that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentleman’s” agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable illwill would represent or rather misrepresent.”
He then noted that, “The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi-minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.”: http://tinyurl.com/b5cq984
This account, in turn, recieves tremendous corroboration from the memoirs of James A. Malcolm, adviser to the British government on Middle-Eastern affairs, as regards the origins of the Balfour declaration: http://www.mailstar.net/malcolm.html
So we might want to look at other Wall St. interests. Bernard Baruch was made head of the War Industries Board during WWI – a scheme in which government “mobilized”/controlled industry and Baruch,a financier, controlled this apparatus – thus we see a blatant effort towards monopoly capitalism. Insight into the control apparatus is given by Antony Sutton in his book “Wall St. and FDR”, ch. 6. Insight into the corruption stemming from this power arrangement is given in relevant parts of Lundberg’s “America’s 60 Families”. Baruch was candid – he stated to a Senate Committee after World War I: “I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.”: http://tinyurl.com/848qjdm
Schiff’s pro-Allied sentiment only occurred after the abdication of the Czar from the throne (Mar. 15, 1917). It was immediately after this (Mar. 22) that, as recorded in Jacob H. Schiff, His Life and Letters, Schiff wrote:
“We should be somewhat careful not to appear as over- zealous but you might cable Cassel because of recent action of Germany and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied Governments financing when opportunity offers.”: http://tinyurl.com/aeqv4bb
Prior to this, in “The Menorah Journal”, he stated, “It is well known that I am a German sympathizer.”: http://tinyurl.com/ae8jmjf
And during WWI, Paul Warburg was the central Banker for the United States and his brother Max Warburg was the central banker for Germany, and few question the utterly farcical nature of this. Douglas Reed also quotes a biographer of Sir Ernest Cassell as follows (“The Controversy of Zion”, pp. 204-205):
“Of this international “network” of like-thinking men at the highest level, in Dr. Herzl’s day, the student may only make a picture by carefully piecing together significant glimpses and fragments (its existence and concerted actions in our time are plainly demonstrable, as this book in its later chapters will show, from the growing mass of literature). For instance, Dr. Weizmann says he told Dr. Herzl that Sir Francis Montefiore (a leading Jew in England) was “a fool”, whereon Herzl answered, “He opens kingly portals to me”. Again, one Baron de Hirsch was Herzl’s chief financial backer and supporter. Of this Baron de Hirsch Count Carl Lonyay (quoting from documents in the secret archives of the Imperial Court at Vienna) says that Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, wishing to make provision for a woman friend before his suicide at Mayerling, obtained 100,000 gulden “from the banker, Baron Hirsch, in return for an act of friendliness he had performed in December, when he invited the banker to meet the Prince of Wales” (the future Kind Edward VII).
Baron de Hirsch, in the sequence to this introduction, became an intimate of the Prince of Wales, and private banker and financial adviser to the future King of England. He was also brother-in-law of a Mr. Bischoffsheim of the Jewish financial house of Bischoffsheim and Goldschmidt in London, of which a very rich German-born Jew, Sir Ernest Cassel, was a member. Sir Ernest, as Mr. Brian Connell says in a biographical study, fell heir to Baron de Hirsch’s friendship with the future king: “where Hirsch had been an intimate, Cassel was to become Edward VII’s closest personal friend”. He was indeed the last of the king’s intimates to see him alive, the king, on the day of his death, insisting on keeping an appointment with Sir Edward and rising to dress himself for the purpose.
In the sequence to this account Mr. Connell says: “The small international fraternity of which he” (Sir Ernest Cassel) “became perhaps the leading member were all men with backgrounds similar to his own, people whom he approached in the course of his extensive travels. There was Max Warburg, head of the great private banking house in Hamburg; Edouard Noetzlin, honorary president of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, in Paris; Franz Philippson in Brussels; Wertheim and Gompertz in Amsterdam and, above all, Jacob Schiff of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company in New York. Ties of race and interest bound these men together. The web of their communications quivered at the slightest touch. They maintained between them an incredibly accurate network of economic, political and financial intelligence at the highest level. They could withdraw support here, provide additional funds there, move immense sums of money with lightning rapidity and secrecy from one corner to another of their financial empires, and influence the political decisions of a score of countries”.
Prior to this, during the 19th century, their cohorts, the Rothschilds, had become the arbiters of peace and war within Europe: https://archive.org/details/SummaryOfRothschildPower)
A correspondent discovered a May 20th, 1917 telegram from the Foreign Office in London to the High Commissioner of Egypt (found in file FO 141/805/1 in The British National Archives), which reads as follows:
Following from Berne May 18th No. 381.
Following is substance of a confidential note communicated by Central Polish Agency.
One of leaders of Zionist Movement at Posen has admitted Zionist hopes that war may end in collapse of Prussia and in victory of Entente for they expect to obtain Palestine with help of England. Zionist consider that revolution and anti-dynastic movements in Prussia will only take place later on after complete economic exhaustion of that country.
German nationalist Jews on the other hand who belong principally to progressive party in Germany are most ardent patriots.”: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-zionists-communists-wanted-germany.html#comment-form
In “Louis Marshall: Champion of Liberty: Selected Papers and Addresses”, Volume 2. Jewish Publication Society of America. 1957. pp.721-723., we read a letter from him to Max Senior, from which I will excerpt the following:
“The Allied armies have now swept the Turks and the Germans out of Palestine. There is every reason to believe that within the next month the advancing armies will be in possession of Syria and a considerable portion of Asia-Minor. It is significant that Jewish units constitute a part of the victorious army. …
Major Lionel de Rothschild, who is the President of the League for British Jews, informs me that the organization is in practical agreement with the American Jewish Committee, although he has suggested some changes in phraseology which, under the circumstances, are not feasible.
I am confident that the Balfour Declaration and its acceptance by the other Powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less then appears on the surface. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan. It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All the protests that non-Zionists may make would be futile to affect that policy.”: http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/7b510a711e6fcdab4f5acc93f96e0e41.jpg
Incidentally Kaiser Wilhelm II noted in his Memoirs the revolutionary intentions of Grand Orient Masonic lodges (p. 253): “I have been informed that an important rôle was played in the preparation of the World War directed against the monarchical Central Powers by the policy of the international “Grand Orient Lodge”; a policy extending over many years and always envisaging the goal at which it aimed. But the German Great Lodges, I was furthermore told—with two exceptions wherein non-German financial interests are paramount and which maintain secret connection with the “Great Orient” in Paris—had no relationship to the “Grand Orient.” They were entirely loyal and faithful, according to the assurance given me by the distinguished German Freemason who explained to me this whole interrelationship, which had, until then, been unknown to me. He said that in 1917 an international meeting of the lodges of the “Great Orient” was held, after which there was a subsequent conference in Switzerland ; at this the following program was adopted : Dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, democratization of Germany, elimination of the House of Hapsburg, abdication of the German Emperor, restitution of Alsace-Lorraine to France, union of Galicia with Poland, elimination of the Pope and the Catholic Church, elimination of every state Church in Europe.”: http://tinyurl.com/pos25yh
Vicomte Leon de Poncins, author of “Freemasonry and Judaism” and “Judaism and the Vatican”, also wrote a book called “Freemasonry and the Vatican” in which, using Masonic minutes, he proved that Grand Orient Lodges pre-planned the League of Nations: https://archive.org/details/FreemasonryandtheVatican
It is important to have the bigger picture though. For background info on this Masonic influence, which is provably subservient to Judaism, see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/81452955/Freemasonry)
In light of the above, I would like to bring attention to a speech in Jerusalem in December 1919 given by Chaim Weizmann, who months later would become president of the World Zionist Organization, and would later become the first president of the state of Israel. As recorded by Judische Rundschau, January 16, 1920 (No. 4), p.4, Weizmann stated the following:
“Lloyd George once said: I know the Palestinian front much better than I know the French front, for every patch of land and every stream is familiar to me from the Bible. Palestine is, above all, a matter of the Bible for England. The English believe in the Bible more than many groups in Jewry. Thus, first came the idealistic grounds [for the decision to issue the Balfour Declaration], and only afterwards the material. We are the ones who have made clear to the English political leadership that it was in England’s interest to join with us, to spread the British protectorate over Palestine. We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.
We demand neither a charter nor concessions, but rather a complete national edifice that meets the following preconditions: the right to acquisition of ownerless land [on which, see Schoenman: http://takingaimradio.com/hhz/index.htm], the facilitation of land acquisition in general, the prerogative of developing public works, complete autonomy in the spiritual and intellectual sphere, and last not least, a direct influence upon the English administration in the territory. The regulation of immigration by us is, for us, likewise an unconditional demand.”: http://archive.org/details/Weizmann
Prior to this, the Zionist leader Max Nordeau told the 6th Zionist Conference in 1903, that there would be a “world war” leading to the creation of Israel:
“Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference – where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.” (cited in Rosenthal, Litman. “When Prophets Speak”, American Jewish News, New York, September 19, 1919. p. 464ff – as cited in “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem”, Volume 1 (Dearborn Publishing Company, 1920), pp. 155-159: http://tinyurl.com/a6tknpq – proof that this vilified text actually has some useful information in it)
The paper is scarce, but a Worldcat search shows that the paper the article comes from, “American Jewish News”, can be obtained at Harvard University if the need arises: http://www.worldcat.org/title/american-jewish-news/oclc/5837027&referer=brief_results – I personally will be obtaining the primary source and uploading it here.
Meanwhile, we can note that this is also quoted in the following sources:
Prior to this, at the Zionist Congress in 1897, Theodore Herzl “predicted” the advent of WWI. According to The Jewish Era, October 1919 (p. 128), he stated, “The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.””: http://tinyurl.com/mvjlqb4
Unfortunately we live in a society where Zionist leaders are able to predict and plan exactly the course of the next couple of decades.
The journalist E.J. Dillon said the following, in “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference” – regarding the Versailles conference, p. 496, “It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact, that a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.” Dillon continued, (p. 497), “They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in Eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these delegates may have been, it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe, was this: ‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.’”: http://tinyurl.com/7ep2dno
Useful corroboration for this comes from the following overview: http://www.mailstar.net/toolkit3.html
In “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”, p. 335n, Houston Stewart Chaimberlain noted, “At the Jewish congress held in Basle in 1898, Dr. Mandelstam, Professor in the University of Kiev, said in the chief speech of the sitting of August 29, ” The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope, i.e., of world empire” (from a report of one who took part in the congress in I.e Temps. Sept. 2, 1898).”: http://tinyurl.com/kjj7jvb
The New York Times of August 28, 1922, noted that Nahum Sokolow boasted before the World Zionist Congress that the League of Nations was a “Jewish Idea”, and that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of the World: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9
Other Zionist leaders would be more explicit. The motives underlying the Zionist ambition are lucidly expressed in an August 22, 1907 New York times article concerning David Wolffsohn’s address to the Zionist congress of the time period: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D16FD3C5A15738DDDAB0A94D0405B878CF1D3 “Dr. David Wolffsohn of Cologne delivered the closing speech. He dwelt upon the success of the Congress, which, for the first time and in spite of divergence of opinion, had, he said, united in support of the idea if proceeding by political action to practical work for the deliverance of the poor Jewish people. Dr. Wolffsohn declared that the Jewish people must yet conquor [sic] the world.”
This was repeated in the New York Times in September 17, 1914, after Wolffsohn’s death, when it recorded the following: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70913FA3D5C13738DDDAE0994D1405B848DF1D3 “In his closing address he pleaded for greater unity among the Jews and said that eventually they must conquer the world.”