if you wanted a non-combative environment to 'just read and comment' then you do not go a well known 'anti-Semitic' forum as a jew and post comments without the expectation of them being answered or attacked.


The poster known as Karl Radl wrote that in another thread. I thought it would be a perfect introduction to THIS thread.

I am not a Jew, but I don't mind if you treat me like one.

I enjoy combat. :cool:

I would like to understand what the most-committed of the VNN anti-Semite corps thinks about Wal-Mart, Enron and Henry Ford.


1) In addition to destroying thousands of small white mom & pop stores throughout America, Wal-Mart drains communities of the dollars that would otherwise stay in the community. Wal-Mart destroys the labor economics of a community . . . replacing relatively well-paid jobs with low wage ones.

Wal-Mart has also had a significant impact on manufacturing throughout America . . . and all the jobs that support the manufacturing base. By buying cheap products overseas, Wal-Mart forces US business to unrealistic lower prices, or move overseas, or go broke.

Finally, Wal-Mart is responsible for exporting up to 25% of all products made in China. In addition to the health issues this raises for America, it means that Sam Walton's "little company" is helping our future enemy develop its economic base.

Walton, a devout Presbyterian, was born in Oklahoma and spent his early years in Oklahoma and Missouri. His family was as WASPy as they come . . . not a Jew in the bunch.

2) Ken Lay . . . Enron and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of white people. Enron was the largest bankruptcy in US history. Yet Ken Lay was a Missouri boy and a Baptist. The Arthur Andersen company was founded by a Norwegian and an Irishman. Not a Jew between them.


3) Finally, I would argue that one of the persons most responsible for the condition of whites in America today is Henry Ford . . . a virulent Jew-hater.

Ford's introduction of the cheap automobile is primarily responsible for the development of suburbs and the concomitant demise of white social solidarity.

His introduction of the concept of mass production and the assembly line led (in part) to the demise of the small American farm and the farm community.


CONCLUSION: So while I can agree that some Jews are guilty of gangsterism, exploitation, thievery, corruption and a like any drug dealer . . . guilty of conspiring to make money despite the social cost . . . I don't see that Jews are any guiltier than any other gang of thieves and pirates.

THESIS: Therefore, anti-Semitism seems like an empty exercise of rhetoric. You're attacking a paper dragon . . . an enemy you've invented in your own minds. Whiles Jews are a part of the problem, the real problem is much bigger than the Jews.

Walton, a devout Presbyterian, was born in Oklahoma and spent his early years in Oklahoma and Missouri. His family was as WASPy as they come . . . not a Jew in the bunch.

You have much to learn.

Sam Walton was married to Helen Walton, and it was her father, a rather wealthy jewish banker, that bank rolled Walton, to start WalMart, and they've had a significant stake and controlling effect ever since.

I know Robson doesn't sound like a jewish name, but the Robsons are "English Jews" who were carpetbagger bankers after the Civil War.

So not quite as jew free as you think...


2) Ken Lay . . . Enron and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of white people. Enron was the largest bankruptcy in US history. Yet Ken Lay was a Missouri boy and a Baptist. The Arthur Andersen company was founded by a Norwegian and an Irishman. Not a Jew between them.

You left out the Belfer family.

Most Americans haven't even heard of the Belfers, but then that's hardly surprising, as the Jewish media focused almost entirely on Lay, Anderson and Skilling, but Robert Belfer, son of Arthur Belfer, served on Enron’s three-man executive committee, an entity so much more important than Enron’s emasculated Board.

Again, not quite as jew free as you thought, hey?

Mind you, the investigators into the Enron scandal were jewish too, so what did you expect them to find?


CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION: Study first, talk second.

You have much to learn.

Sam Walton was married to Helen Walton, and it was her father, a rather wealthy jewish banker, that bank rolled Walton, to start WalMart, and they've had a significant stake and controlling effect ever since.
Jose will have us believe this individual is no Jew

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a7/250px-David_Glass.jpg

Oy vei.


I know Robson doesn't sound like a jewish name, but the Robsons are "English Jews" who were carpetbagger bankers after the Civil War.

So not quite as jew free as you think...
Actually the root Rob seems pretty commonly Jewish. Robinovich is an infamous Russian-Jewish last name, having it almost always signifies a Jew. It's a bit different among Anglo-Saxons but I am just making a point that Ashkenazis do often put that root into their name.



You left out the Belfer family.

Most Americans haven't even heard of the Belfers, but then that's hardly surprising, as the Jewish media focused almost entirely on Lay, Anderson and Skilling, but Robert Belfer, son of Arthur Belfer, served on Enron’s three-man executive committee, an entity so much more important than Enron’s emasculated Board.

Again, not quite as jew free as you thought, hey?

Mind you, the investigators into the Enron scandal were jewish too, so what did you expect them to find?
Next thing you'll know Jose will be telling us that Communism wasn't Jewish. :rofl:rofl



CONCLUSION: Study first, talk second.
Amen to that.

Actually the root Rob seems pretty commonly Jewish. Robinovich is an infamous Russian-Jewish last name, having it almost always signifies a Jew. It's a bit different among Anglo-Saxons but I am just making a point that Ashkenazis do often put that root into their name.

It isn't anything to do with the prefix; 'Rob' per se; PS. However; what jews do in regard to naming conventions to make themselves blend in. Is to use their original surnames/names as the basis of new; in this case anglacised, version of their original name or names. They also adopt names straight out of the bag without direct reference to their original name for example; Israel Ehrenberg changed his name to Ashley Montagu and the jews of the Pale stole the surname; Levin from the Ruskies (your people).

It isn't anything to do with the prefix; 'Rob' per se; PS. However; what jews do in regard to naming conventions to make themselves blend in. Is to use their original surnames/names as the basis of new; in this case anglacised, version of their original name or names. They also adopt names straight out of the bag without direct reference to their original name for example; Israel Ehrenberg changed his name to Ashley Montagu and the jews of the Pale stole the surname; Levin from the Ruskies (your people).

Yes I remember that, but it's sort of like the typical Jew in America- most of them have Germanic endings. It's really sickening how they literally steal everything - even our names.

Actually there was a funny happening back in the early 1990's when the Jews "crawled out" from the poisecution of the Soviet Union. Suddenly neighbors changed names to something Israeli , the seedy Mihail next door became Moishe and they openly went around proudly declaring who they were. Prosecution? Hardly. Then those filthy money-grabbers had commercials all over America . I am sure most older Americans remember the sad, sad shots of the dreary hateful Russia and Jews wrapped in rags on the street, then the typical mister Jew-tool described of how they suffer and for just 1500 dollars we will be able to save Moses and his family. You can guess where such nice money went considering the trip there was cheaper than dirt.

Basically my story is a story of bait and switch - they made communism, they terrorized the people and when the shit hit the fan they pretended to be victims and ran for it. That's Jews for you.

Yes I remember that, but it's sort of like the typical Jew in America- most of them have Germanic endings. It's really sickening how they literally steal everything - even our names.

In a way yes; think about it a little though. America is the one country according to Lipset and Raab (both jews btw) where jews have felt comfortable being jews outside of Israel for quite sometime. I don't go with their explanation; 'love of freedom', 'emancipation' and all that well worded nonsense, but the essential idea that in America a jew can be a jew and is not too bothered about whether he pretends to be a gentile is quite common throughout American history with the exception of the class of the 'assimilated jew' and the Ashkenazi underclass of jewry that came from the Pale from the 1870-80's onwards to this day.

The jews only did significant name changing when their names could become house hold names between the 1920's and 1960's it seems; e.g. in Hollywood or they were involved in subversive activity e.g. quite a few jewish Communists had Anglo-Saxon/Celtic pseudonyms that they wrote under as to not seem too jewish and there-by alien (e.g. Mike Newberry was really one Joseph Katz).

Actually there was a funny happening back in the early 1990's when the Jews "crawled out" from the poisecution of the Soviet Union. Suddenly neighbors changed names to something Israeli , the seedy Mihail next door became Moishe and they openly went around proudly declaring who they were. Prosecution? Hardly. Then those filthy money-grabbers had commercials all over America . I am sure most older Americans remember the sad, sad shots of the dreary hateful Russia and Jews wrapped in rags on the street, then the typical mister Jew-tool described of how they suffer and for just 1500 dollars we will be able to save Moses and his family. You can guess where such nice money went considering the trip there was cheaper than dirt.

Interesting; however you'll note that this activity and propaganda has long precedence in regards to the USSR in so far that it was common for jewish audiences to be informed about how the jews were starving etc and that jews required assistance from the US jews to help them get out. There was even a fight inside jewry about the whole thing with the jewish Communists having it out with the jewish Capitalists (and Zionists as it happens) about which cause deserved the jewish support. It seems to detract from the organised jewry point but it doesn't since jewry is very organised but in any large group you get factions; this was just inter-factional strife.

As evidence of this I have acquired some pamphlets (e.g. 'Soviet "Anti-Semitism": The Big Lie!' from 1949/50) and booklets (e.g. 'Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question' from 1942) from the jewish Communists in America about how wonderful Stalin was and how the jewish homeland (as per their status as a 'National Minority') created for them in Siberia/Near Asia was to be their new jewish state rather than Israel. It is a bit like the whole fight between Israel Zangwill and Chaim Weizmann was to whether it had to be Palestine that was to be turned into the jewish state (Zangwill lost).

Basically my story is a story of bait and switch - they made communism, they terrorized the people and when the shit hit the fan they pretended to be victims and ran for it. That's Jews for you.

That it is; the story of jews and Communism is quite a complex one (which goes really off topic to discuss here) but I think some of the best figures in terms of showing the amount of jews where (since it spends quite some time discussion the Soviet Union) can be found in 'The Jews in the Modern World' (1934) by a key Zionist jew academic Arthur Ruppin (he figures in my dictionary of jewish biography from 1990 as well).

You have much to learn.

Sam Walton was married to Helen Walton, and it was her father, a rather wealthy jewish banker, that bank rolled Walton, to start WalMart, and they've had a significant stake and controlling effect ever since.

I know Robson doesn't sound like a jewish name, but the Robsons are "English Jews" who were carpetbagger bankers after the Civil War.

So not quite as jew free as you think...

You left out the Belfer family.

Most Americans haven't even heard of the Belfers, but then that's hardly surprising, as the Jewish media focused almost entirely on Lay, Anderson and Skilling, but Robert Belfer, son of Arthur Belfer, served on Enron’s three-man executive committee, an entity so much more important than Enron’s emasculated Board.

Again, not quite as jew free as you thought, hey?

Mind you, the investigators into the Enron scandal were jewish too, so what did you expect them to find?

CONCLUSION: Study first, talk second.



Study first, talk second . . . quite a strong statement . . . I hope you don't end up impaling yourself on it. I'd hate to see you walking around with that sharp stake shoved up your ass.

Now, although I stated a Thesis in my statement, I did not see any sort of Antithesis in your reply . . . so I'll just assume yours is the usual VNN party line.

Let's look at your comments.

Most guys who borrow money from "dad" (i.e., father-in-law) pay it back as soon as possible so as to get "dad" out of their lives. Do you have any FACTS to support your claim that the father-in-law actually had a "significant stake" or a "controlling effect?"

If you do, could you please provide some examples? I happen to have a family member who's very senior in Wal-Mart headquarters and I do not believe that you are correct, but I would certainly like to review your evidence.

Moving on . . . Sam Walton left all controlling interest to his wife and children. So at what point did the father-in-law's "controlling effect" fade?

Now, in reality, the questions above are unimportant . . . I pose them merely to show that you are a typical anti-Semite nitwit who sees a Jew behind every curtain.

The fact is that Wal-Mart's growth had little to do with the father-in-law's infusion of cash. It had plenty to do with some very shady banks who, among other things, were involved in drug laundering and other illegal activities. This massive infusion of capital came much, much later. (And yes, naturally, these banks had their share of Jews, I'm sure. :rofl )

Furthermore, by focusing on the Jewish father-in-law, you completely ignore the fact that the Walton's were devout Presbyterians and Mrs. Walton not only worked on many Presbyterian philanthropic causes . . . but she was buried as a Presbyterian and not a Jew.

In fact, I personally know of no evidence that either she or her father ever lived as Jews.

Finally, in your Jewphobia you ignore the fact that nobody controlled Wal-Mart except Sam Walton. He was a tyrannical beast and control freak whose nickname in college was "hustler." The man had a single-minded devotion to making money and worked his ass off.

To think that Jews or Martians or little leprechauns or any other figment of your imagination controlled Wal-Mart is ludicrous.

But hey, I await your evidence. I'm here to learn.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Belfer clan.

Well, the reason no one has heard of them is because they were minor players.

Lay, Skilling and Andersen (and a host of others, some Jews, some not) engaged in a complicated web of business deceit.

But there is no question that Ken Lay was in charge.

Now again, if you have evidence to the contrary . . . please, let's hear it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What I actually get from your reply is that you believe that Jews carry a sort of plague . . . a Black Death, if you will. Like ancient Europeans, you believe that Jews poison the wells.

One Jew is all it takes to prove that a company is controlled by Jews and a business owner dominated by Jews.

Obviously, I disagree with your simplistic notions. Your simple bigotry does not explain the problems we face . . . and your simplistic, single-minded focus on the Jew isn't going to fix those problems.

Actually, simplistic bigotry such as this HURTS the cause of creating a white state, because instead of focusing whites on the real problems . . . they're kept chasing the Evil Jews.

Hmm. Unlike jew-mart, Mr. Ford offered his employees five dollars a day pay which was far more than his competitors were willing to pay for their labor. At the time these employees were primarily from the "Euro-American" gene pool as well. Your correlations seem flawed.

Study first, talk second . . . quite a strong statement . . .

Just sensible advice, that you don't seem to have gathered yet.

I hope you don't end up impaling yourself on it. I'd hate to see you walking around with that sharp stake shoved up your ass.

Why not worry about your own ass?

You can worry about me, when you've got your own answers sorted out.

Now, although I stated a Thesis in my statement, I did not see any sort of Antithesis in your reply . . .

I didn't realize there was a compulsion to do so.

You made a statement.

You were wrong.

I pointed out you were wrong.

I saw no compulsion to say any more than that.

so I'll just assume yours is the usual VNN party line.

Why assume that?

Why not deal with facts, rather than what you want to believe?

That's the mistake you made in your first post, and here you are making it again in the second.

You went looking for non-jews, you were desperate to remove the jew from the equation, and what did you find?

Jews.

Instead of dealing with facts you wanted to find a comfortable, cosy alternative, that didn't make you look like one of those 'crazies' you are scared of being associated with.

At this stage in your journey you're still afraid of the truth, so you're working hard to fight against it.

Let's look at your comments.

Most guys who borrow money from "dad" (i.e., father-in-law) pay it back as soon as possible so as to get "dad" out of their lives. Do you have any FACTS to support your claim that the father-in-law actually had a "significant stake" or a "controlling effect?"

Do you have any facts he didn't?

Your claim was that, and I quote you here "His family was as WASPy as they come . . . not a Jew in the bunch."

That was wrong, wasn't it?

As we've seen since his wife, and by virtue of that his children, we're all jews, as well as much of his extended family.

So your original statement was wrong.

Now, unable to deal with the truth you start trying to twist it and ask me to provide some sort of link to the date he repaid his loans.

Not the same thing at all, is it?

In answer to your original statement, that there was "not a Jew in the bunch." can we now accept you were wrong?

I happen to have a family member who's very senior in Wal-Mart headquarters and I do not believe that you are correct, but I would certainly like to review your evidence.

No, let's be more accurate, you'd rather believe I was not correct.

That's a more accurate statement, isn't it?

You don't actually have any evidence to support your claim, but facts are not what interests you, what interests you is running away from the truth, and the 'crazies'.

Use google, I'm sure there are hundreds of biographies online of Sam Walton, I'm sure many make mention of his jewish relatives.

Moving on . . . Sam Walton left all controlling interest to his wife and children. So at what point did the father-in-law's "controlling effect" fade?

If his wife was jewish, and therefore his kids were at least half jewish (and under jewish law, down the maternal line fully jewish), what difference does it make?

Let's remind ourselves once again of what you said:

"not a Jew in the bunch."

I repeat, can we now acccept you were wrong?


Now, in reality, the questions above are unimportant . . . I pose them merely to show that you are a typical anti-Semite nitwit who sees a Jew behind every curtain.

You're right, they are unimportant, it was just a rather lame attempt by yourself to get out of the little hole you'd dug for yourself.

As for me being a nit-wit, I came up with the right answer, you came up with the wrong answer, so trying to insult me doesn't really make you look very clever, does it?

If the nit-wit is right, and you are wrong, what does that make you?

Don't try and be clever, it clearly doesn't suit you.

As for your silly claim about "seeing a jew behind every curtain", no, I see jews where they are, that's the only place I see them.

I don't claim, contrary to the bullshit you're trying to project on me (and this isn't the first time I've caught you coming out with bullshit, is it?) that every bad man in the world is a jew.

I do however recognize that jews have a disproportionate influence on our society, and that influence is one that works in a negative manner towards our people.

That's not some giant conspiracy theory, it's just a simple quantifiable fact, that your rather silly little thread has helped to illustrate, as you went looking for the exception to the rule (and they do exist, they are out there) and walked straight into some jews.

Now think about it, and I do stress the word think, as it will help you, if you're running away from the jewish question, in a desperate attempt not to be classed as a 'crazy', desperately wanting to be accepted by the mainstream, as we saw with your rather weak plan from the other thread, which didn't stand up to scrutiny, and you run into jews, what does that tell us?

If you are actually taking positive steps, as you are, to avoid them, and you find them, imagine what someone not afraid of the subject will find?

Once again, despite your attempts to jerk your way out of things, your theories fall down.

Like I said, study first, talk second.

In a way yes; think about it a little though. America is the one country according to Lipset and Raab (both jews btw) where jews have felt comfortable being jews outside of Israel for quite sometime. I don't go with their explanation; 'love of freedom', 'emancipation' and all that well worded nonsense, but the essential idea that in America a jew can be a jew and is not too bothered about whether he pretends to be a gentile is quite common throughout American history with the exception of the class of the 'assimilated jew' and the Ashkenazi underclass of jewry that came from the Pale from the 1870-80's onwards to this day.
Yes and they have been here from nearly day one starting with Jacob Barminson in 1654.
An American Jew only was afraid to be revealed a Jew in the early days of America and even then it was only from trade. The Jew then thought of better ways to manipulate this and he began to trade with the Native Indians. Their main speciality: Booze. This liquor trade eventually infuriated the red skin chiefs and made their tribes attack Whites. This happened much in the same way with Niggers who learned to hate Whites after being transported to USA on ships such as the Caracoa owned by Moses and Sam Levy . In later days even these small trade restraints were lifted and towards the 20th century egalitarianism was in full swing, starting with a war that was supposedly fought for negroids in the mid 19th century .


The jews only did significant name changing when their names could become house hold names between the 1920's and 1960's it seems; e.g. in Hollywood or they were involved in subversive activity e.g. quite a few jewish Communists had Anglo-Saxon/Celtic pseudonyms that they wrote under as to not seem too jewish and there-by alien (e.g. Mike Newberry was really one Joseph Katz).
Yes I remember that. A large brand name in school is Arthur Miller, someone they never name as a Jew but of course when you take a glance at his work (Or for that matter him) it becomes obvious what a Jew he is. Death of a Salesman could only be written by a Jew .



Interesting; however you'll note that this activity and propaganda has long precedence in regards to the USSR in so far that it was common for jewish audiences to be informed about how the jews were starving etc and that jews required assistance from the US jews to help them get out. There was even a fight inside jewry about the whole thing with the jewish Communists having it out with the jewish Capitalists (and Zionists as it happens) about which cause deserved the jewish support. It seems to detract from the organised jewry point but it doesn't since jewry is very organised but in any large group you get factions; this was just inter-factional strife.
What's amusing is there was supposedly a study called Ziontology in the USSR, something most never heard of but here it's claimed that it was in full swing everywhere and anti-semitism was spreading. I asked both my parents who have Institute degrees and neither of them has ever seen a book about it or heard a thing about it. Some study huh?


As evidence of this I have acquired some pamphlets (e.g. 'Soviet "Anti-Semitism": The Big Lie!' from 1949/50) and booklets (e.g. 'Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question' from 1942) from the jewish Communists in America about how wonderful Stalin was and how the jewish homeland (as per their status as a 'National Minority') created for them in Siberia/Near Asia was to be their new jewish state rather than Israel. It is a bit like the whole fight between Israel Zangwill and Chaim Weizmann was to whether it had to be Palestine that was to be turned into the jewish state (Zangwill lost).
I know a bit about that even though I am naturally repulsed at reading of such events. I remember the whole Jewish homeland scandal at one point. Back then it was the question of either Argentina or Palestine. Naturally Palestine won as you said yourself.
As for Stalin, there were a few years when he supported them , especially the early ones. If he hadn't done so it's doubtable the state of Israel would have survived. Shame really, considering Israel never even repaid that debt or said thank you for that matter. Parasites.



That it is; the story of jews and Communism is quite a complex one (which goes really off topic to discuss here) but I think some of the best figures in terms of showing the amount of jews where (since it spends quite some time discussion the Soviet Union) can be found in 'The Jews in the Modern World' (1934) by a key Zionist jew academic Arthur Ruppin (he figures in my dictionary of jewish biography from 1990 as well).
You might as well, the topic of the thread is complete crud anyways.

What's amusing is there was supposedly Ziontology in the USSR, something most never heard of but here it's claimed that it was in full swing everywhere and anti-semitism was spreading. I asked both my parents who have Institute degrees and neither of them has ever seen a book about it or heard a thing about it. Some study huh?

I'll respond to the rest a little later if that's alright (middle of writing an essay); but Ziontology was a subject of some study in the USSR. I know this because I've found a couple of books on the subject; which is essentially old style Slav anti-jewish thought in the guise of Marxist-Leninist 'historical materialism' if you like. Certainly it was heavily restrained but the old impulses seem to be there; behind all the usual terminology. 'Anti-Semitism' and 'Racism' was illegal generally but the Slavic racial feeling had to have an outlet; which was increased in scale from the 1930's to the break up of the USSR. It ended in the Pamyat underground in the 80's.

An easy to find title from the old Ziontology works is 'Caution Zionism!' by Yuri Ivanov. Its in ebook form on a couple of websites I believe.

I'll respond to the rest a little later if that's alright (middle of writing an essay); but Ziontology was a subject of some study in the USSR. I know this because I've found a couple of books on the subject; which is essentially old style Slav anti-jewish thought in the guise of Marxist-Leninist 'historical materialism' if you like. Certainly it was heavily restrained but the old impulses seem to be there; behind all the usual terminology. 'Anti-Semitism' and 'Racism' was illegal generally but the Slavic racial feeling had to have an outlet; which was increased in scale from the 1930's to the break up of the USSR. It ended in the Pamyat underground in the 80's.

An easy to find title from the old Ziontology works is 'Caution Zionism!' by Yuri Ivanov. Its in ebook form on a couple of websites I believe.
There were many things underground that would make any VNNer proud, my point is simply that they work Ziontology into something it is not and try to use it as proof of Soviet anti-Jewish thought. As is obvious to anyone by the speech-limits that wasn't true.

Id have to look at both the Russian/English version to tell you for certain if those are real. A large amount of Russian "hate" books are mistranslated mendaciously and to such a point that they do not even have the original idea in them.

The poster known as Karl Radl wrote that in another thread. I thought it would be a perfect introduction to THIS thread.

I am not a Jew, but I don't mind if you treat me like one.

I enjoy combat. :cool:

I would like to understand what the most-committed of the VNN anti-Semite corps thinks about Wal-Mart, Enron and Henry Ford.


1) In addition to destroying thousands of small white mom & pop stores throughout America, Wal-Mart drains communities of the dollars that would otherwise stay in the community. Wal-Mart destroys the labor economics of a community . . . replacing relatively well-paid jobs with low wage ones.

Wal-Mart has also had a significant impact on manufacturing throughout America . . . and all the jobs that support the manufacturing base. By buying cheap products overseas, Wal-Mart forces US business to unrealistic lower prices, or move overseas, or go broke.

Finally, Wal-Mart is responsible for exporting up to 25% of all products made in China. In addition to the health issues this raises for America, it means that Sam Walton's "little company" is helping our future enemy develop its economic base.

Walton, a devout Presbyterian, was born in Oklahoma and spent his early years in Oklahoma and Missouri. His family was as WASPy as they come . . . not a Jew in the bunch.

2) Ken Lay . . . Enron and its accounting firm Arthur Andersen destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of white people. Enron was the largest bankruptcy in US history. Yet Ken Lay was a Missouri boy and a Baptist. The Arthur Andersen company was founded by a Norwegian and an Irishman. Not a Jew between them.


3) Finally, I would argue that one of the persons most responsible for the condition of whites in America today is Henry Ford . . . a virulent Jew-hater.

Ford's introduction of the cheap automobile is primarily responsible for the development of suburbs and the concomitant demise of white social solidarity.

His introduction of the concept of mass production and the assembly line led (in part) to the demise of the small American farm and the farm community.


CONCLUSION: So while I can agree that some Jews are guilty of gangsterism, exploitation, thievery, corruption and a like any drug dealer . . . guilty of conspiring to make money despite the social cost . . . I don't see that Jews are any guiltier than any other gang of thieves and pirates.

THESIS: Therefore, anti-Semitism seems like an empty exercise of rhetoric. You're attacking a paper dragon . . . an enemy you've invented in your own minds. Whiles Jews are a part of the problem, the real problem is much bigger than the Jews.

It seems to me that you are blaming the gun instead of the murderer.

On Walmart :

I dont want to restrict the answer to Walmart alone and will refer to all superstores. Any merchant will tell you that buying bigger quantities from the producer has the positive side effect of cheaper prices. Ergo you can sell said products at cheaper prices than your competitor who only buys, or better said : only has the capital to buy smaller quantities.
Additionally superstores have a rather big variety of products. Instead of visiting 10 different stores to get all the things you need, you can find almost everything in the superstore.

Simply put : superstores are more efficient in a capitalist system. The mom and pop stores never stood a chance. Superstores are the logical outcome of a free market economy.

On Enron :

An unregulated free market will create crooked businesses. Enron will not be the last one.

On Ford :

Mobility is a human right. Mass mobility was only possible through mass production which makes the products affordable in a capitalist system.

Cursing technological progress is stupid. Instead people should think how they can use such progress for the good of society.


Conclusion :

Its not about jews, whites or non-whites per se. The capitalist system will simply produce such outcomes. It cannot do differently because profiteering is its essence.
Its the shareholders who lay the policy those big corporations have to follow. Private shareholders will always demand a bigger profit. But how can Walmart achieve bigger profits if not by importing from China, lower wages, increase production and so on.

Public shareholders of course often have different demands. The German state for example holds 20% of the shares of Volkswagen and is the second biggest shareholder. Its demands are not higher profits but better wages, lower working hours and so on. But public shareholders are very rare in Europe and almost non-existant in the USA.

There were many things underground that would make any VNNer proud, my point is simply that they work Ziontology into something it is not and try to use it as proof of Soviet anti-Jewish thought. As is obvious to anyone by the speech-limits that wasn't true.

Well that depends how you look at it to a large extent I think. I've taken some time out from my research on jews; with particular focus on jewish history, to study Eastern European (and Byzantine) history a bit (because it is important to know the people in whose surroundings a significant part of jewry; Ashkenazi and some other smaller groups; such as the Karite and Mountain jews. It seems to me that there was fundamentally a very racially based dislike of jews in the USSR; regardless of the jews protests about it, from just what I've read on it and my understanding of Slavic thought and Slavic history.

For example Slavic pride was very much in evidence in the debates over the Baltic Crusades and it was only covered over in Marxist-Leninist historical materialism because that was the prevailing orthodoxy of the Russias at that time. I don't see why if pan-Slavism found a new expression (since that was technically reprehensible in official doctrine) then the old Slavic anti-jewish thought should not have been given fresh expression. Of course; this would have been heavily tinted with the Communist orthodoxy of the time but I believe that you can see race through whatever ideology is represented at the time.

Id have to look at both the Russian/English version to tell you for certain if those are real. A large amount of Russian "hate" books are mistranslated mendaciously and to such a point that they do not even have the original idea in them.

Well that wouldn't surprise me as translation of potentially inflamatory material is often taken out of works translated from Hebrew to other languages and vice versa (so I don't see why it shouldn't work the other way since we see it in the translation of Reich documents and books). A good example is Graetz's (a jew himself) 'History of the Jews' whose Hebrew translator took out a whole raft of historical commentary because it would offend the casual and even the academic jewish reader (which was incidentally part of a general campaign to create a new jewish historical mythos to start the Israeli state upon).

I can get the proper references if you'd like to research this a little yourself?

Next thing you'll know Jose will be telling us that Communism wasn't Jewish. :rofl:rofl


PSYCHOLOGICAL SHOCK . . . or perhaps, more aptly we should re-name you LAUGHING STOCK . . .

Please explain how communism is "jewish."

How does one arrive at that idiotic conclusion?

Its not about jews, whites or non-whites per se. The capitalist system will simply produce such outcomes. It cannot do differently because profiteering is its essence.

Its the shareholders who lay the policy those big corporations have to follow. Private shareholders will always demand a bigger profit. But how can Walmart achieve bigger profits if not by importing from China, lower wages, increase production and so on.


Well, by Jove, at least someone here gets it.

I would argue however, that capitalism run rampant leads to excesses . . . just like anything out of control is dangerous.

But "social capitalism" (such as Theodore Roosevelt's version of progressive capitalism) . . . "socially responsible free enterprise" . . . would work for white nationalism.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SHOCK . . . or perhaps, more aptly we should re-name you LAUGHING STOCK . . .

Please explain how communism is "jewish."

How does one arrive at that idiotic conclusion?

Because you fucking genius. Marx-was-a-jew, Lennon-was-a-half-jew, and 300 out of 384 Commissars of the first Soviet government were kikes.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr61iii.htm


30 years in the White Nationalist movement you say?

the difference between capitalism and communism is just an illusion.

in communism the state owns everything
in capitalism industry owns everything including the election process.

either way power and wealth are in the hands of a few jews, and the entire country is in their pocket.

Just sensible advice, that you don't seem to have gathered yet.



Why not worry about your own ass?

You can worry about me, when you've got your own answers sorted out.



I didn't realize there was a compulsion to do so.

You made a statement.

You were wrong.

I pointed out you were wrong.

I saw no compulsion to say any more than that.



Why assume that?

Why not deal with facts, rather than what you want to believe?

That's the mistake you made in your first post, and here you are making it again in the second.

You went looking for non-jews, you were desperate to remove the jew from the equation, and what did you find?

Jews.

Instead of dealing with facts you wanted to find a comfortable, cosy alternative, that didn't make you look like one of those 'crazies' you are scared of being associated with.

At this stage in your journey you're still afraid of the truth, so you're working hard to fight against it.



Do you have any facts he didn't?

Your claim was that, and I quote you here "His family was as WASPy as they come . . . not a Jew in the bunch."

That was wrong, wasn't it?

As we've seen since his wife, and by virtue of that his children, we're all jews, as well as much of his extended family.

So your original statement was wrong.

Now, unable to deal with the truth you start trying to twist it and ask me to provide some sort of link to the date he repaid his loans.

Not the same thing at all, is it?

In answer to your original statement, that there was "not a Jew in the bunch." can we now accept you were wrong?



No, let's be more accurate, you'd rather believe I was not correct.

That's a more accurate statement, isn't it?

You don't actually have any evidence to support your claim, but facts are not what interests you, what interests you is running away from the truth, and the 'crazies'.

Use google, I'm sure there are hundreds of biographies online of Sam Walton, I'm sure many make mention of his jewish relatives.



If his wife was jewish, and therefore his kids were at least half jewish (and under jewish law, down the maternal line fully jewish), what difference does it make?

Let's remind ourselves once again of what you said:

"not a Jew in the bunch."

I repeat, can we now acccept you were wrong?



You're right, they are unimportant, it was just a rather lame attempt by yourself to get out of the little hole you'd dug for yourself.

As for me being a nit-wit, I came up with the right answer, you came up with the wrong answer, so trying to insult me doesn't really make you look very clever, does it?

If the nit-wit is right, and you are wrong, what does that make you?

Don't try and be clever, it clearly doesn't suit you.

As for your silly claim about "seeing a jew behind every curtain", no, I see jews where they are, that's the only place I see them.

I don't claim, contrary to the bullshit you're trying to project on me (and this isn't the first time I've caught you coming out with bullshit, is it?) that every bad man in the world is a jew.

I do however recognize that jews have a disproportionate influence on our society, and that influence is one that works in a negative manner towards our people.

That's not some giant conspiracy theory, it's just a simple quantifiable fact, that your rather silly little thread has helped to illustrate, as you went looking for the exception to the rule (and they do exist, they are out there) and walked straight into some jews.

Now think about it, and I do stress the word think, as it will help you, if you're running away from the jewish question, in a desperate attempt not to be classed as a 'crazy', desperately wanting to be accepted by the mainstream, as we saw with your rather weak plan from the other thread, which didn't stand up to scrutiny, and you run into jews, what does that tell us?

If you are actually taking positive steps, as you are, to avoid them, and you find them, imagine what someone not afraid of the subject will find?

Once again, despite your attempts to jerk your way out of things, your theories fall down.

Like I said, study first, talk second.



Francis,

I have a dog who has started farting every morning at precisely 4 A.M. We can't figure out why; it just happens.

I would rather lay in bed smelling his farts than engage in a discussion with you.

There's always something . . . strange . . . about you. Your posts are annoying, asinine, pointless. They advance no proposition - ever.

It's not as if you actually read, interpret, think rationally and then counter. It's as if you want to QUIBBLE and play GOTCHA so you can say:

"See you're wrong . . . I'm right . . . you were wrong weren't you . . . you're stupid . . . A-hah! . . . I'm smarter than you . . . you shouldn't be here."

You have a compulsion to prove your own intellectual superiority . . . even though by trying to do so, you simply prove yourself to be self-conscious, hopelessly shallow . . . and not very imaginative.

Your style of argumentation always runs like this:

ME: "Once upon a time people believed the world was flat. They later discovered that the world is actually round . . ."

FRANCIS: "Aha! Gotcha! The world is not round! It's not a perfect sphere at all! YOU ARE WRONG! See, you're wrong . . . you see that don't you? I am right! I am smarter than you!!!"


Somehow this all seems very familiar to me . . . like a bad movie I saw years ago . . . and then I got it!

You're The Dork!


You're the big fat kid with the sweaty underarms and the big roll of jelly fat around the gut (in fact at age 15 you already had bigger tits than most of the girls) who always sat right in the center of the classroom, right up front. You usually had some faggotty name like "Eric" or "Alex" or "Francis." You always engaged the teacher in endless stupid conversation. Yours was the first hand up when she asked a question. You were the one always reminding her to hand out homework . . . and you always had to beat what anyone said.

Like if some kid said he's gone to the Grand Canyon last Summer, you'd immediately butt in and tell us how your father took time off from his job as an astronaut (or CIA spy, or rodeo clown or some other stupid lie) to take you rappelling down the whole thing!

Everyone knew you were full of shit. The teacher especially.

In fact, retard, it wasn't some football player who put Super Glue on your chair the last day of school . . . it was the teacher . . . paying you back for disrupting her class all year.

So now we know what happens to The Dorks when they leave high school . . . they come and be The Dork on the internet.

-----------------------------

I will repeat my original Conclusion and Thesis for you Francis:

CONCLUSION: So while I can agree that some Jews are guilty of gangsterism, exploitation, thievery, corruption and a like any drug dealer . . . guilty of conspiring to make money despite the social cost . . . I don't see that Jews are any guiltier than any other gang of thieves and pirates.

THESIS: Therefore, anti-Semitism seems like an empty exercise of rhetoric. You're attacking a paper dragon . . . an enemy you've invented in your own minds. Whiles Jews are a part of the problem, the real problem is much bigger than the Jews.

To reach that conclusion and develop the premise in my thesis, I presented three examples . . . Sam Walton, Ken Lay and Henry Ford . . . all Christians who have caused great harm to American society.

Now, a logical antithesis would be to counter with evidence that these men were all secretly Jewish and acting in concert with some sinister Jewish plot . . . or that they did not actually harm white America.


But instead, you QUIBBLE . . . arguing with me like some fagot arguing with his boyfriend . . . I can almost hear your whiny voice:

"well, there was a Jew real high up in Enron . . . and according to Jewish racial law Mrs. Sam Walton was technically a Jew . . . so :

"Aha! Gotcha! The world is not round! It's not a perfect sphere at all! YOU ARE WRONG! See, you're wrong . . . you see that don't you? I am right! I am smarter than you!!!"


Fuck off Francis, you simpleton.

By the way numb-nuts . . . in the future, if you want me to respond to your posts, you will address me as:

"Sir" . . . or "Mr. Diaz" . . . and then I will (maybe) respond.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SHOCK . . . or perhaps, more aptly we should re-name you LAUGHING STOCK . . .

Please explain how communism is "jewish."

How does one arrive at that idiotic conclusion?

Not even 10% of the original assembly was Russian and as mentioned above the majority of the commissars were Jewish, add at least another 40 who were Georgian/Asiatic and what do you have in Aryan numbers? Maybe 1 or 2 stray Gentiles AT BEST?

The question is how do YOU arrive at YOUR idiotic conclusions.

Because you fucking genius. Marx-was-a-jew, Lennon-was-a-half-jew, and 300 out of 384 Commissars of the first Soviet government were kikes.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr61iii.htm


30 years in the White Nationalist movement you say?

Thanks Drew! That site is great.

The only mistake you made is you can't call anyone half a Jew, all Jews are mixed mongrels. Half of the infested blood makes one a Jew. Also that 300 out of 384 figure seems way too liberal to me! I bet another 3 dozen were crypto-Jews.

Francis,

I have a dog who has started farting every morning at precisely 4 A.M. We can't figure out why; it just happens.

I would rather lay in bed smelling his farts than engage in a discussion with you.

Thanks for that confession, it explains a lot.

It's entirely possible that it's the mixture of gases in the digestive tract of the dog, that when expelled from the rectum, cause the gas to seep into the air, and perhaps addle your brain?

It's well known that the wrong mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, methane, and/or carbon dioxide can lead to an imbalance in the brain, and lead to irrational thoughts, and actions.

I think your self-confessed sniffing of your dogs rectum, at 4 in the morning, goes perhaps some way to explaining your unbalanced ramblings.

So thank you for sharing that with us, and we will try to make allowances.


You're the big fat kid with the sweaty underarms and the big roll of jelly fat around the gut (in fact at age 15 you already had bigger tits than most of the girls) who always sat right in the center of the classroom, right up front. You usually had some faggotty name like "Eric" or "Alex" or "Francis." You always engaged the teacher in endless stupid conversation. Yours was the first hand up when she asked a question. You were the one always reminding her to hand out homework . . . and you always had to beat what anyone said.

It would seem to be an action in fitting with the description you gave above.

Like if some kid said he's gone to the Grand Canyon last Summer, you'd immediately butt in and tell us how your father took time off from his job as an astronaut (or CIA spy, or rodeo clown or some other stupid lie) to take you rappelling down the whole thing!

Everyone knew you were full of shit. The teacher especially.

In fact, retard, it wasn't some football player who put Super Glue on your chair the last day of school . . . it was the teacher . . . paying you back for disrupting her class all year.

So now we know what happens to The Dorks when they leave high school . . . they come and be The Dork on the internet.

Is this what they call self-projection?

My entire history is online, and you couldn't be more wrong, therefore we have to inquire where you are pulling these images from, and the obvious answer has to be that you are trying to project your own inadequacies on other people here.

That would seem entirely plausible, given your self-confessed penchant for smelling the rectum of your dog.


I will repeat my original Conclusion and Thesis for you Francis

No need to, a much better path of action would be to answer the post that you have just completely ignored, while you come out with some delusional rant about how you sniff dogs rectums, and how you were bullied at school, but wish it had been someone else.


To reach that conclusion and develop the premise in my thesis, I presented three examples . . . Sam Walton, Ken Lay and Henry Ford . . . all Christians who have caused great harm to American society.

And claimed that no jew had been in anyway connected to these people, and we saw that was completely wrong, in fact later on you even proceeded to witter on about the offspring of Sam Walton, who by the nature of having a jewish mother, were jewish themselves, thus showing your examples were faulty, and that your silly little attempt to be clever was wrong.


"well, there was a Jew real high up in Enron . . . and according to Jewish racial law Mrs. Sam Walton was technically a Jew . . . so :

So you resort to bullshit once again.

Mrs Walton was jewish, based on the fact that she was a jew, not according to some jewish racial law, and with nothing to do with Enron, it was completely based upon the fact that she was born a jew, just like any other jew.

There are no secret laws that change a persons race.

Just like there is no magical law than can turn Michael Jackson White, neither is there a magical law that can stop Mrs Sam Walton being jewish, and therefore her children being jewish.


By the way numb-nuts . . . in the future, if you want me to respond to your posts, you will address me as:

"Sir" . . . or "Mr. Diaz" . . . and then I will (maybe) respond.

LOL!

I wouldn't address a loser, or an idiot in such a manner, if he hadn't earned the right to be addressed in such a way, and you haven't earned the right to be addressed in such a way, but then lets face it, what you really mean is, you know you were wrong, and you know every time I address your dog sniffing, ill thought out, stupid posts, I'll eat you for breakfast, so you don't want to talk to me, that's right, isn't it loser?

And I just addressed you as loser, which is your correct title, not sir, not Mr Diaz, so there's no need to respond, in fact to respond would merely highlight further what a weak little liar you are, wouldn't it loser?

Ooops, I forgot, you can't respond, I didn't use your fantasy title, did I?

Sucks to be you, hey?

You've just run away, like a coward, and your attempt to cover your ass, on the way out the door, has left you looking stupid too.

If you answer, we all see you're a liar, who backed down from his silly statement, and if you don't answer, we all see you're a coward, who just made himself, once again, look like a moron.

Like I said kid, you really shouldn't try to be clever, it's something you're totally not suited to.

The question is how do YOU arrive at YOUR idiotic conclusions.

It would seem from his last post that it's entirely possible that it may be connected to the sniffing of his dogs rectum, and the gasses expelled from said rectum, at 4am every night.

A surprising answer, admittedly, but plausible, given his behavior.

I would argue however, that capitalism run rampant leads to excesses . . . just like anything out of control is dangerous.

But "social capitalism" (such as Theodore Roosevelt's version of progressive capitalism) . . . "socially responsible free enterprise" . . . would work for white nationalism.

I disagree. Welfare capitalism (or social market as it was called here in Germany for the last 60 years), was burried by Globalization and technological progress. Machines replaced humans and entire industries moved their production abroad. With the fall of the Iron Curtain the situation only accelerated. Cheap unskilled labor in China and cheap skilled labor in Eastern Europe put oil on the fire. This all lead to the state losing tax revenues and the welfare spending exploding.

The situation peaked in Germany around 2003/2004. The Social Democrats (the so called defenders of the working man no less!) made the decision to abandon the model of the social market for a free market like in the USA. The masses revolted and huge demonstrations shook the Republic. Nationalists and communists infiltrated the marches and the situation seemed to get out of control. Exciting times. The result of the decision of the Social Democrats back then was that the communist party today has become the third strongest political power in Germany, getting 14% of the vote.

There can be no return to the social market. Nothing will be solved, not until the question of property has been set.

The state must regain control of the economy by becomming the biggest shareholder of the corporations. Additionaly, entire sectors of the economy must be nationalized and the free market eradicated (such as in education, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, transportation and so on).

It would seem from his last post that it's entirely possible that it may be connected to the sniffing of his dogs rectum, and the gasses expelled from said rectum, at 4am every night.

A surprising answer, admittedly, but plausible, given his behavior.

jenkim-head :eek::roflT.N.B.

The only mistake you made is you can't call anyone half a Jew, all Jews are mixed mongrels.

i dunno, i think there are ways to be half a jew

http://www.theolivecentre.com.au/assets/images/Chainsaw1.jpg

But instead, you QUIBBLE . . . arguing with me like some fagot arguing with his boyfriend . . . I can almost hear your whiny voice:

"well, there was a Jew real high up in Enron . . . and according to Jewish racial law Mrs. Sam Walton was technically a Jew . . . so :


The worst thing is Francis must respond to every sentence. I don't even care about the content/point of his writing, I go crazy after the first few rounds. I hate those whiny fags with a passion, but comparing Francis to them gives them the short end of the stick. Rep to you Mr. Diaz.

The state must regain control of the economy by becomming the biggest shareholder of the corporations. Additionaly, entire sectors of the economy must be nationalized and the free market eradicated (such as in education, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, transportation and so on).


Well I think you and I can find some common ground on many things . . . but that's not going to be one of them.

I would argue, for example, that our education system is nationalized and we've gotten the predictable results. The evidence shows that private schools and home schools beat national schools.

But, I also have to be honest and admit that it wasn't always that way . . . there was a time when our state-run public school system was very good.

The state can do some things very well. For example, maintaining a military, air traffic control, policing, border control (usually :rolleyes:), food and drug standards . . . and many other functions . . . are best done by a central government.

But we're always going to have those things where the state is simply not as efficient and not as effective. So yes, Stalin could nationalize farming in the Ukraine, but he could never achieve the levels of production that you could find in America, for example.

I am a firm believer in free enterprise . . . the idea that people . . . especially people with a profit motive . . . can usually fix problems better than bureaucrats. But the problem is abuse . . . gangsterism, corruption, uncontrolled greed, sociopathic behavior and just outright criminality.

I am waaaay out of my depth on this one. I understand the problems and I think I'll know a good solution when I see it . . . but I don't have the genius to resolve how a 21st Century economy can be regulated to provide the optimum mix of motivation, inventiveness and social responsibility.

We need an economic theorist like Hamilton, Marx, Smith or maybe even Hume to join VNN.

Hmm. Unlike jew-mart, Mr. Ford offered his employees five dollars a day pay which was far more than his competitors were willing to pay for their labor. At the time these employees were primarily from the "Euro-American" gene pool as well. Your correlations seem flawed.


I agree that Ford treated his employees better than Sam Walton. That's a good point.

But it's the macro effects of "Fordism" and "Wal-Martism" that I'm actually addressing.

I would argue that the suburbs have helped destroy white society. So too have the notions of mobility that the automobile (primarily among other transportation technologies) made possible. Likewise, I would argue that Wal-Mart (primarily among other large retailers) has destroyed the concept of the Mom & Pop store.

My point was to show that these good Christian capitalists are share much of the responsibility for our current social and economic situation.

Not even 10% of the original assembly was Russian and as mentioned above the majority of the commissars were Jewish, add at least another 40 who were Georgian/Asiatic and what do you have in Aryan numbers? Maybe 1 or 2 stray Gentiles AT BEST?

The question is how do YOU arrive at YOUR idiotic conclusions.

Thanks Drew! That site is great.

The only mistake you made is you can't call anyone half a Jew, all Jews are mixed mongrels. Half of the infested blood makes one a Jew. Also that 300 out of 384 figure seems way too liberal to me! I bet another 3 dozen were crypto-Jews.


LAUGHING STOCK . . . I arrive at my conclusions because unlike you, obviously, I have studied communism extensively . . . and I've hung around here long enough to understand the political-economic nonsense you spout about the Evil Jew.

Let me punch a few holes in your bubble of ignorance:


1) The majority of commissars were men . . . should we call communism a "masculine" philosophy? Most commissars were short. Should we call communism a "short philosophy?" The majority of commissars smoked. Should we call communism a "smoker's philosophy?"

The fact that an overwhelming percentage of early Bolsheviks were Jews (i.e. by ancestry or celebration of custom) does not make the philosophy of communism Jewish.

Most well-educated radicals in Europe prior to World War One were Jews. In fact, I don't think you could have been Eastern European, radical and NOT be a Jew.

The Eastern orthodox Church is split into various fragments . . . somewhat like the Roman Church split during the Reformation. Starting with Ivan The Terrible (1500s? 1600s? - I forget) the Russian "Czar" became the "protector" of the Russian Orthodox "branch" of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Russian Orthodox Church has always been virulently anti-Semitic . . . so was the Czarist Imperial Government. So if you were part of the intelligentsia, you were either Russian Orthodox and pro-Czarist . . . or you were a Jew.

Exactly what other sources of learning were there besides those connected to the Jews and those connected to the Orthodox Church?


2) History shows that the goals of communism and Zionism (or any sort of predatory Judaism) have always been antithetical. As the article quoted by our darling little Drew The Dope says:

Eventually, as outlined earlier, the hardcore Communists were to part ways with the Jewish nationalists, or Zionists, and the two camps were to become bitter enemies, a situation which persisted right until the collapse of the Soviet Union late in the 20th Century.


3) Finally, common sense, combined with a basic understanding of Marxism/communism, should tell you that the last thing any Jew wants is to see a classless society where everybody owns everything.

the difference between capitalism and communism is just an illusion.

in communism the state owns everything
in capitalism industry owns everything including the election process.

either way power and wealth are in the hands of a few jews, and the entire country is in their pocket.



SILLY ANNE . . .

What a sad, depressing world you must live in . . . to struggle out of bed every morning and trudge off to your Jew-Owned Plantation Job.

It's a wonder you don't convert.

I mean, what kind of a fool would dare oppose such awesome power as THE GREAT JEWISH ZIONIST WORLD CONSPIRACY when all you have to do is learn to mumble a few words like oy vey and gefilte, celebrate a few extra holidays (and you can even keep Christmas), learn to eat some strange, disgusting foods, toss away the New Testament and show up at a local synagogue once in a while.

I don't know, Sugar Britches . . . it just seems like such a small price to pay to be a part of the winning team . . . .

But, of course, if you didn't have someone to hate what would you do?

LAUGHING STOCK . . . I arrive at my conclusions because unlike you, obviously, I have studied communism extensively . . . and I've hung around here long enough to understand the political-economic nonsense you spout about the Evil Jew.

Let me punch a few holes in your bubble of ignorance:


1) The majority of commissars were men . . . should we call communism a "masculine" philosophy? Most commissars were short. Should we call communism a "short philosophy?" The majority of commissars smoked. Should we call communism a "smoker's philosophy?"

The fact that an overwhelming percentage of early Bolsheviks were Jews (i.e. by ancestry or celebration of custom) does not make the philosophy of communism Jewish..

youre right, its like saying a yarmulke is a jewish hat, but non jews like george bush, bill clinton and the pope have worn them...

[3) Finally, common sense, combined with a basic understanding of Marxism/communism, should tell you that the last thing any Jew wants is to see a classless society where everybody owns everything. well if you study communism a little more you can see that the people didnt own anything. that was just a very poorly crafted lie to get them to go along. the state owned everything and the people cant even pick their leaders. communism actually steals the entire wealth of the middle class pretends to share it with the poor, but it all ends up in the pocket of the ultra rich. only a fool would believe otherwise

Where were all of the crying Henny Pennys when the big jew retailers like K-Mart and all of those giant jew stores under Consolidated Federated put 100s of thousands of White businesses out of business back in the 1950s-1960s?

You have nothing to say about that?.....Well then STFU about WalMart!

Personally, I'm glad to see those jew giant retailers made into WalMart's bitch. Of course the jew doesn't want you to know that, WalMart, a store invented by a White man, is putting more jews out of business than White people.

K-Mart and Sears and many other kike retailers are sucking huge WalMart cock......Down on your knees jew! Hahahahaha!

.

.

Hey Loser,

LAUGHING STOCK . . . I arrive at my conclusions because unlike you, obviously, I have studied communism extensively . . . and I've hung around here long enough to understand the political-economic nonsense you spout about the Evil Jew.

Thus says Mr I've crunched the numbers, and done the extensive studies etc., who didn't even know the ethnicity of the examples he presented himself.

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

The most overwhelmingly obvious thing, that comes to mind, when reading your posts, is that you've studied nothing, and know very little.

But you just can't help making things up, can you?

Let me punch a few holes in your bubble of ignorance:

Every time the big build up, but how often do you deliver, boy?

Let me answer for you, never.

SILLY ANNE . . .

What a sad, depressing world you must live in . . . to struggle out of bed every morning and trudge off to your Jew-Owned Plantation Job.

It's a wonder you don't convert.

I mean, what kind of a fool would dare oppose such awesome power as THE GREAT JEWISH ZIONIST WORLD CONSPIRACY when all you have to do is learn to mumble a few words like oy vey and gefilte, celebrate a few extra holidays (and you can even keep Christmas), learn to eat some strange, disgusting foods, toss away the New Testament and show up at a local synagogue once in a while.

I don't know, Sugar Britches . . . it just seems like such a small price to pay to be a part of the winning team . . . .

But, of course, if you didn't have someone to hate what would you do?

I remember when Joe Diaz had a signature with a statement about how he wouldn't engage in insults. He has certainly changed from that as his agenda unfolds.

Gone sniffing?


I mean, what kind of a fool would dare oppose such awesome power as THE GREAT JEWISH ZIONIST WORLD CONSPIRACY

This coming from the man that says:

Most well-educated radicals in Europe prior to World War One were Jews. In fact, I don't think you could have been Eastern European, radical and NOT be a Jew.

You seem to be more obsessed, and more maniacal about the jew than anyone else here, with one difference, you spout pure bullshit to try and defend your obsession.

I remember when Joe Diaz had a signature with a statement about how he wouldn't engage in insults. He has certainly changed from that as his agenda unfolds.

the higher a monkey climbs, the more clearly you can see its backside

the higher a monkey climbs, the more clearly you can see its backside

I think we're certainly seeing Joe's backside, for a man who likes to rant about 'crazies' he's certainly looking like the biggest crazy on this site right now, all we seem to get are lies, insults, and fairy tales, as he creates every more fantastical theories, to try to escape the truth.

How long before he tries telling us that jews can't be anything other than good, because an alien told him so, and therefore it must be true?

i dunno, i think there are ways to be half a jew

http://www.theolivecentre.com.au/assets/images/Chainsaw1.jpg

LOL!

That's great, I should have thought of that! :)

. . . I arrive at my conclusions because unlike you, obviously, I have studied communism extensively . . . and I've hung around here long enough to understand the political-economic nonsense you spout about the Evil Jew.
As if.


Let me punch a few holes in your bubble of ignorance:
Swing


1) The majority of commissars were men . . . should we call communism a "masculine" philosophy? Most commissars were short. Should we call communism a "short philosophy?" The majority of commissars smoked. Should we call communism a "smoker's philosophy?"
And a miss.

Your Jewish friend Mister Bronstein said this.

Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Leyba Davidovich Bronstein, said:
“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon
whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots
never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny,
not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.
We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods
of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars
quake and pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will
work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we
shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s
funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will
sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and
bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete
stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence... At the moment, our
young men in their leather jackets, who are the sons of watchmakers from
Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian!
What pleasure they take in physically destroying the Russian intelligentsia
— officers, academics and writers!...”

"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. The reference is to Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss. (Sources: N.Y. Times, Oct. 7, 1999 and Newsweek, Oct. 18, 1999, p. 30)

"It is legitimate to adopt a critical attitude toward the relatively large number of Jews who particularly in the first decade after the Bolshevik revolution collaborated with the Soviet Government in the persecution of other peoples."

Statement of researcher Michael Mills, an official of the government of Australia at Canberra. (Source: Forward, March 10, 2000)

As for the rest of your crap rhetoric - being short is a phenotype most of which people do not notice because it is observable fact that being short does not lead to any sort of physical or mental disadvantages or advantages except for having to scoot a chair up to get things off the shelf. Similarly smoking does not detract from a personality. However, are you going to say that a Jew or a Negro is so similar to us that we can disregard these factors the same way we can disregard personal preferences and phenotypical features? It's rather ironic that you say you're a White Nationalist, Egalitarian scum.


The fact that an overwhelming percentage of early Bolsheviks were Jews (i.e. by ancestry or celebration of custom) does not make the philosophy of communism Jewish.
This is hilarious.

Reformatting the argument: Just because the doctrine of Communism was written by Jews, initiated by Jews, funded by Jews , admitted to be by Jews and ultimately destroyed by Jews does not make it Jewish!

You see folks the Talmud was written by Jews and practiced by Jews for a few centuries, but you see yesterday Tyrone read it so its no longer a Jewish book.


Most well-educated radicals in Europe prior to World War One were Jews. In fact, I don't think you could have been Eastern European, radical and NOT be a Jew.
This is the largest hunk of shit you've spat out yet Commie. Who the fuck were the Jews trying to kill off then? Ivan the bear?


The Eastern orthodox Church is split into various fragments . . . somewhat like the Roman Church split during the Reformation. Starting with Ivan The Terrible (1500s? 1600s? - I forget) the Russian "Czar" became the "protector" of the Russian Orthodox "branch" of Eastern Orthodoxy.
You don't even know what century he lived in you pathetic swine.

The Russian Orthodox Church has always been virulently anti-Semitic . . . so was the Czarist Imperial Government. So if you were part of the intelligentsia, you were either Russian Orthodox and pro-Czarist . . . or you were a Jew.

Meaningless crud written by an ignoramus.



2) History shows that the goals of communism and Zionism (or any sort of predatory Judaism) have always been antithetical. As the article quoted by our darling little Drew The Dope says:

Eventually, as outlined earlier, the hardcore Communists were to part ways with the Jewish nationalists, or Zionists, and the two camps were to become bitter enemies, a situation which persisted right until the collapse of the Soviet Union late in the 20th Century.
Funny considering Uncle Joe bought a whole shipload of guns for the chosen.


3) Finally, common sense, combined with a basic understanding of Marxism/communism, should tell you that the last thing any Jew wants is to see a classless society where everybody owns everything.
Nobody owned anything.

Look chum , the Communist manifesto and pseudo-Communist socialism aren't one and the same if you didn't get it already.

Reformatting the argument: Just because the doctrine of Communism was written by Jews, initiated by Jews, funded by Jews , admitted to be by Jews and ultimately destroyed by Jews does not make it Jewish!


LAUGHING STOCK . . .

I'll limit myself to several points . . . though I could make a hundred. Who brainwashed you, pal?


(1) You dismissed with a handwave the point I made that the pre-World War One Russian intelligentsia was divided into two broad camps, either Russian Orthodox/Tsarist . . . or Jewish.

Please explain why you dismiss that so blithely.

Sergei Witte was no Jew . . . Boris Chicherin was not a Jew . . . Herven, Kavelin and Granovski were not Jews . . . and Hegel certainly was no Jew. So neither the fundamental basis of Russian liberalism/anti-Tsarist reformation or the fundamental basis of Marxism were Jewish ideas. These were ideas developed by Christians . . . Roman, Reformed or Eastern Orthodox Christians.

That Jews joined the Marxist/Far Left anti-Tsarist parties had nothing to do with "Judaism." What it had to do with was the general social conditions of the time. There was no other place for a Jewish intellectual to go intellectually but into radical anti-Tsarist (i.e. Marxist revolutionary) movements.

When a Jewish youngster left the ghetto or the closed off, isolated Jewish communities in Russia in order to fight "injustice" . . . exactly what other party was he supposed to join except the Radical Left?

But this does not make either Bolshevism or communism "Jewish." That is an embarrassingly stupid, narrow interpretation of the men behind the Russian Revolution.

There is no such thing as "Jewish communism" . . . but there is such a thing as "Jewish communists" . . . just as there are male, female, Christian, fat, homosexual, left-handed or red-headed communists.


(2) All your argument rests on is the highlight of various once-Jewish radical revolutionaries as "proof" that communism is Jewish. I say once-Jewish because even though you can point to this one and that one as being Jews . . . none practiced Judaism, and none acted in concert with Judaism. True, they supported Zionism (in some cases). But the primary motivation was the overthrow of the Tsarist government and the bringing on of a socialist state that would later evolve into communism.

Yes, I know the differences . . . I wonder if you do . . .

I challenge the presumption inherent in your ridiculous argument: That "once a Russian Jew, always a Russian Jew."

That's total bullshit and goes against everything we understand about the political activities of human beings. It also certainly goes against everything we understand about the life of Russian Jews in the early part of the 20th Century.

Can't you understand, numb skull, that if these men were truly Jews in political thought and action, they would never have left their ghettos to become radicals? It is because they rejected Judaism (culture and religion) that they became Leftists.


(3) If communism is truly Jewish then please explain the persecution of Jews by communism.


(4) If communism is Jewish, please explain why most Russian Jews opposed communism.


(5) If communism is Jewish, please explain why the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party split into the Menshevik and Bolshevik wing in 1905-1906. The leader of each faction was a Jew . . . what's the matter, silly Jews couldn't agree on how to foment a conspiracy? I mean, you'd think some Rabi would have knocked some sense into Ulyanov's (Lenin) and Martov's heads, huh?

Oy vey . . . you boys, stop being so meshugeneh . . . we have bigger gefilte fish to fry!


(6) The doctrine of communism is multifaceted and spans roughly 90 years . . . from the First Comintern (1919 or 1920 - don't remember) to today.

Like most people who try arguing this "communism is Jewish" bullshit, you ignore the point that the Bolshevik movement, socialism and the theory of communism itself, have never been monolithic. What we call "communism" is the evolution of each political/economic system according to its specific context.

So what synagogue did Stalin attend? Kruschev? Mao? Kim Il Sung? Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? Ho Chi Minh? Antonio Gramsci? Pol Pot?

Or how about Bela Kun . . . want to make the case that he was a practicing Jew? Ortega? Allende? German communist Rudi Dutschke . . . who called Jesus Christ the greatest revolutionary leader in history?

Ahmed Ben Bella? Nasser and Sadat . . . certainly close to Soviet communists . . . also Jews, I suppose? part of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, huh?

Khalid Bakdash, the Syrian Communist Party, and the Muslim Brotherhood . . . all Jews I suppose?

Fucking Jews do get around . . . man, I'd love to have their Frequent Flyer Miles.


You know . . . truly . . . I poke fun at you because you are an idiot . . . but I don't blame you for falling for propaganda. The Nazis pushed the idea of Jewish-Bolshevism and Alfred Rosenberg certainly based his career on defining communism as Jewish. I'm sure there's an extant body of work on the subject and endless speculation.

And the Jewish intellectual tradition draws many Jews towards radicalism - I got it. That's a point I will agree on.

But the Torah is Jewish . . . a matzo ball Jewish . . . the Wailing Wall is Jewish . . . Masada is Jewish . . .

Communism?

Sorry pal. That gefilte fish don't fry.

(1) You dismissed with a handwave the point I made that the pre-World War One Russian intelligentsia was divided into two broad camps, either Russian Orthodox/Tsarist . . . or Jewish.
Simply because I actually know more than you about the pre-Communist era and I will tell you 100% that you are wrong. There were no broad camps because a country does not consist of broad camps in its natural state. The weakness exposed by the bankers at the time was detrimental unfortunately due to many things.
During 1905 Jewish bankers funded the Bronstein gang to illegally cross borders using fake identities.
Soon after many Green coats (Swedes) were spotted with high priority targets, Yusupov in his memoire cites multiple spottings of these and identifications of them.
Jews did not play a prominent role in Russia however they played a prominent rule in terrorism. The assassinations of Czars such as Alexander 2 was exactly why pogroms happened- his executioners, so called Revolutionaries were either Jewish or working for Jews. The most successful one being of a crypto-Jew accompanied by Gelfman.

Did Jews do anything useful? No not at all, in fact the sole reason they were kept out of Russia for 600 years was because they were so barbaric and animalistic. Their reign of terror produced nothing but burned homes, dead animals and various other offal for the peasants to pick up. The Khazars were powerful however just as parasitic as any Jew today. The later attempt of an assassination of a Russian prince sealed their fate to never come back again. Unfortunately, they did.



Sergei Witte was no Jew . . . Boris Chicherin was not a Jew . . . Herven, Kavelin and Granovski were not Jews . . . and Hegel certainly was no Jew. So neither the fundamental basis of Russian liberalism/anti-Tsarist reformation or the fundamental basis of Marxism were Jewish ideas. These were ideas developed by Christians . . . Roman, Reformed or Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Jews always speak in absolutes, Russia like any other place is plagued with their own form of Liberalism. Citing people like Chicherin in conjunction with Communism is ridiculous. You're trying to twist it so that suddenly having one Russian in a band of Jews makes the whole organization not Jewish just like the Liberals try to twist the fact that the majority of prison is not White into "Well there are some Whites, so Blacks are just as criminal as any of us" and that is not true. Besides you're contradicting yourself because your claim is that Whites are still in power in America, yet somehow when Jews are a majority they shrink away from power.


That Jews joined the Marxist/Far Left anti-Tsarist parties had nothing to do with "Judaism." What it had to do with was the general social conditions of the time. There was no other place for a Jewish intellectual to go intellectually but into radical anti-Tsarist (i.e. Marxist revolutionary) movements.
Jews are all at fault for what has befallen them. Katherine gave them a chance but nothing came of it, they had many years to prove that they were better than we once saw - that they had stop being grossly superstitious, savage and parasitic. We were wrong.


When a Jewish youngster left the ghetto or the closed off, isolated Jewish communities in Russia in order to fight "injustice" . . . exactly what other party was he supposed to join except the Radical Left?
Fiction.

And now for reality

A report from Europe carried the following speech of Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich
before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest,
Hungary, January 12, 1952: "Greetings, my children; You have been called her to
recapitulate the principal steps of our new program. As you know, we had hoped to
have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from
World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to
us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War
III within five years [They did not precipitate World War III but they did instigate the
Korean War when on June 25, 1950 they ordered the North Korean army to launch a
surprise attack on South Korea. On June 26, the U.N. Security Council condemned the
invasion as aggression and ordered withdrawal of the invading forces. Then on June 27,
1950, our Jewish American President Truman ordered air and naval units into action to
enforce the U.N. order. Not achieving their full goals, they then instigated the overthrow
of South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem, Premier under Bao Dai, who deposed the monarch
in 1955 and established a republic with himself as President. Diem used strong U.S.
backing to create an authoritarian regime, which soon grew into a full-scale war, with
Jewish pressure escalating U.S. involvement].
The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last
within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase
our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have
passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and
every Gentile a slave (Applause from the gathering). You remember the success of our
propaganda campaign during the 1930's, which aroused anti-American passions in
Germany at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a
campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign
is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up
in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage while a nation-wide anti-Communist
scare is sweeping America. This campaign is forcing all the smaller nations to choose
between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States. Our most
pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the
Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to
our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress
immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russians, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are
well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the
Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of Anti-Semitism, which worked so well
in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of
anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to whip up indignation in the United States and produce
a front of solidarity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to
Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large
sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their
effectiveness, and we shall stage Anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities.
This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which
then can be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted anti-Russian unit.
(Note: -- Protocol of Zion No. 9, para. 2, states that anti-Semitism is controlled by them.
At the time of this speech they had already commenced their campaign of anti-Semitism
in Czechoslovakia). Within five years, this program will achieve its objective, the Third
World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israeli, of course,
will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted, we will
arbitrate, sending our Control Commissions into all wrecked countries. This war will
end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles.
We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with
assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control
Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter- racial tensions.
Forbid the Whites to mate with Whites. The White Women must cohabit with members
of the dark races, the White Men with black women. Thus the White Race will
disappear, for the mixing of the dark with the White means the end of the White Man,
and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an
era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule
undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain
mastery over a world of dark peoples.
Question from the gathering: Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after
the Third World War?
Rabinovich: There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest
class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual
strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We
will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism as the mark of our hereditary
ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry
outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us. (Note: Protocol of Zion No. 17
para. 2, states: 'Now that freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere (as a
result of their efforts they have previously stated) only years divide us from the moment
of the complete wrecking of that [Hated] Christian Religion. As to other religions, we
shall have still less difficulty with them.')
We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II, when we were forced to let the
Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate
documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of
America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the peace. I am sure you
will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword
of our people, and the death of a few thousand lesser Jews in exchange for world
leadership is indeed a small price to pay. To convince you of the certainty of that
leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the
White Man into weapons against him. His printing presses and Radios are the
mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which
he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him.
Our interests in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four Program (viz.
Colombo Plan) for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so that after the
industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the
Whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will
maintain an unchallenged technological superiority. And so, with the vision of world
victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that
approaching day when Israeli will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light
of the World."


But this does not make either Bolshevism or communism "Jewish." That is an embarrassingly stupid, narrow interpretation of the men behind the Russian Revolution.
Lenin, Bronstein, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, none of them are Russian and later great muds such as Kaganovich and Berija only made things more interesting through the murder of millions of people. Even before the Revoluton these scum were killing people. Whoever listens to you only destines himself to another Russian Revolution, deities willing, those like you will be struck down.


There is no such thing as "Jewish communism" . . . but there is such a thing as "Jewish communists" . . . just as there are male, female, Christian, fat, homosexual, left-handed or red-headed communists.
Fiction.


(2) All your argument rests on is the highlight of various once-Jewish radical revolutionaries as "proof" that communism is Jewish. I say once-Jewish because even though you can point to this one and that one as being Jews . . . none practiced Judaism, and none acted in concert with Judaism. True, they supported Zionism (in some cases). But the primary motivation was the overthrow of the Tsarist government and the bringing on of a socialist state that would later evolve into communism.
My proof lays simply on the fact that Jews have directly admitted to what they are doing in letters and books, in public correspondence and private. How can you claim that a Jewish majority will follow a country's interests? Look at Spain, when Jews ruled it what happened? They opened the doors for the Moors while the Spanish were praying in church. Many Spanish cities were given up without a fight because of traitorous Jews. Had the Spanish executed Jews earlier Spain would have likely won and if not Spain then Charles Martel would have been able to storm over Spain and push the Moors back most likely giving Spain multiple modern North African countries to clear.



I challenge the presumption inherent in your ridiculous argument: That "once a Russian Jew, always a Russian Jew."
Fiction.


That's total bullshit and goes against everything we understand about the political activities of human beings. It also certainly goes against everything we understand about the life of Russian Jews in the early part of the 20th Century.
Fiction.


Can't you understand, numb skull, that if these men were truly Jews in political thought and action, they would never have left their ghettos to become radicals? It is because they rejected Judaism (culture and religion) that they became Leftists.
Fiction. The environment doesn't make the man, the man makes the environment. Jews were and are incapable of creating their own societies and that is primarily why the Pale was always so poor. Same reason why Israel is still second world on the way to third world.


(3) If communism is truly Jewish then please explain the persecution of Jews by communism.
Fictional staged persecutions as noted above.


(4) If communism is Jewish, please explain why most Russian Jews opposed communism.
They did not oppose Communism, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks killed each other in the end but Jews are willing to kill one another for power.

(5) If communism is Jewish, please explain why the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party split into the Menshevik and Bolshevik wing in 1905-1906. The leader of each faction was a Jew . . . what's the matter, silly Jews couldn't agree on how to foment a conspiracy? I mean, you'd think some Rabi would have knocked some sense into Ulyanov's (Lenin) and Martov's heads, huh?
Already stated above - Jews often fight the enemy of their enemy to appear the friend of their enemy. Marx was quite right about this - the Marxists liked to kill their opposition and "old bourgeoisie" Jewish or not.


(6) The doctrine of communism is multifaceted and spans roughly 90 years . . . from the First Comintern (1919 or 1920 - don't remember) to today.

Like most people who try arguing this "communism is Jewish" bullshit, you ignore the point that the Bolshevik movement, socialism and the theory of communism itself, have never been monolithic. What we call "communism" is the evolution of each political/economic system according to its specific context.
Communism is Jewish in soul, Jewish in origin and Jewish in execution. There is absolutely nothing about Communism that favors its host country just like there is nothing about a Jew that favors its host country. Jew.


So what synagogue did Stalin attend? Kruschev? Mao? Kim Il Sung? Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? Ho Chi Minh? Antonio Gramsci? Pol Pot?
None of them are White. Whose negro do you think a TV negro is?


Ahmed Ben Bella? Nasser and Sadat . . . certainly close to Soviet communists . . . also Jews, I suppose? part of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, huh?
Nonsense babble, Niggers suddenly putting on yarmulkaps become ethnic Jews? The Talmud becomes Niggery also?



The rest of your post is crud and I have already addressed your problem.

A report from Europe carried the following speech of Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich
before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest,
Hungary, January 12, 1952: "Greetings, my children; You have been called her to
recapitulate the principal steps of our new program. As you know, we had hoped to
have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from
World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to
us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War
III within five years [They did not precipitate World War III but they did instigate the
Korean War when on June 25, 1950 they ordered the North Korean army to launch a
surprise attack on South Korea. On June 26, the U.N. Security Council condemned the
invasion as aggression and ordered withdrawal of the invading forces. Then on June 27,
1950, our Jewish American President Truman ordered air and naval units into action to
enforce the U.N. order. Not achieving their full goals, they then instigated the overthrow
of South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem, Premier under Bao Dai, who deposed the monarch
in 1955 and established a republic with himself as President. Diem used strong U.S.
backing to create an authoritarian regime, which soon grew into a full-scale war, with
Jewish pressure escalating U.S. involvement].
The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last
within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase
our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have
passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and
every Gentile a slave (Applause from the gathering). You remember the success of our
propaganda campaign during the 1930's, which aroused anti-American passions in
Germany at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a
campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign
is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up
in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage while a nation-wide anti-Communist
scare is sweeping America. This campaign is forcing all the smaller nations to choose
between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States. Our most
pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the
Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to
our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress
immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russians, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are
well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the
Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of Anti-Semitism, which worked so well
in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of
anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to whip up indignation in the United States and produce
a front of solidarity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to
Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large
sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their
effectiveness, and we shall stage Anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities.
This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which
then can be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted anti-Russian unit.
(Note: -- Protocol of Zion No. 9, para. 2, states that anti-Semitism is controlled by them.
At the time of this speech they had already commenced their campaign of anti-Semitism
in Czechoslovakia). Within five years, this program will achieve its objective, the Third
World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israeli, of course,
will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted, we will
arbitrate, sending our Control Commissions into all wrecked countries. This war will
end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles.
We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with
assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control
Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter- racial tensions.
Forbid the Whites to mate with Whites. The White Women must cohabit with members
of the dark races, the White Men with black women. Thus the White Race will
disappear, for the mixing of the dark with the White means the end of the White Man,
and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an
era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule
undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain
mastery over a world of dark peoples.
Question from the gathering: Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after
the Third World War?
Rabinovich: There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest
class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual
strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We
will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism as the mark of our hereditary
ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry
outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us. (Note: Protocol of Zion No. 17
para. 2, states: 'Now that freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere (as a
result of their efforts they have previously stated) only years divide us from the moment
of the complete wrecking of that [Hated] Christian Religion. As to other religions, we
shall have still less difficulty with them.')
We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II, when we were forced to let the
Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate
documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of
America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the peace. I am sure you
will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword
of our people, and the death of a few thousand lesser Jews in exchange for world
leadership is indeed a small price to pay. To convince you of the certainty of that
leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the
White Man into weapons against him. His printing presses and Radios are the
mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which
he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him.
Our interests in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four Program (viz.
Colombo Plan) for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so that after the
industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the
Whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will
maintain an unchallenged technological superiority. And so, with the vision of world
victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that
approaching day when Israeli will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light
of the World."



LAUGHING STOCK . . .

Not only are you a nut-case, but I'm a fucking RETARD for thinking that I could actually carry on a serious debate with anyone here.

That is one of the most laughably funny, discredited, bullshit hoaxes in existence. If this is some of the "evidence" on which your brand of "white nationalism" is built on, I would seriously consider changing vocations if I were you . . . think about water color, basket weaving or perhaps Yoga.

For starters, only a moron would believe that a council of Rabbis could exist in 1952 Hungary.

But you know what . . . as a kid, I enjoyed burning ants with a magnifying glass so I'm going to torture you for a while . . . just because I'm bored and have nothing better to do.

Let's start with this, genius.

Please tell us where you got the quotation above.

I'm a fucking RETARD.

Now we're finally starting to get somewhere!

So this is based on your self confessed dog sniffing?

I retract the previous statement as it is too lowly a thing to do.

To accuse mister Mullins of making false statements is pure retardation. Mullins who was a cryptic researcher is a brilliant protege of Ezra Pound. Naturally, he went too far in the Congressional Library.

If you doubt it look here
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Mullins has such powerful conviction and connections such as "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development" and many years of work under Ezra Pound who produced 4 Nobel Prize winning proteges. Such a high profile man doesn't need some fiction to prove his point. He has revealed the cryptic workings of Averell Hariman among the Communists, the funding of Communists by Woodrow Willson and has sharp knowledge of all the clans related with the Federal Reserve System. Only a Jew will claim that such a man will need some dinky character to prove his point, there is no logical reason for this to be fiction for obvious reasons.

Whether it is a joke or not it is pointing to reality, Third World War is not a created myth but was discussed as early as the early Zionist Congresses , the one I mentioned before is the one. Also Rabinovich might be purely a satirical image of such real but less plain spoken Jews as Rabbi Feinberg.

"Until we learn to fight our ingrown fears of sexual relations between the races, the end of the race problem will not be in sight…Such a change will involve an inside-out remodeling of the white psyche… the deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten the process… we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races."

But what is perhaps most interesting of the quote is the Henry Klein who supposedly translated it. There are references to him; however, he literally disappeared or rather he was simply killed and never found again. With the power the Jews wield through the use of the "Fed" which is literally bullet-proof against any attempt to hijack it , with the circles, etc... well it becomes a large question mark whether any of the Jew's enemies even existed. Remember the tailored Stalin photos with people literally removed? For years those blank spots were real to everyone and just as then the blank spots today are just as real. How hard is it to eliminate someone when you are the authority? Its quite obvious that the Federal Bank controls such sums of money that it can with-hold to force others to do its whim and even not that - it merely can throw money about and everyone will dance to its tune. The Federal Reserve literally has an unlimited amount of cash wads, it can buy anything and anyone and let's not forget where it started- with Woodrow Wilson right after the Versailles treatment, who was the supreme court judge then? The leader of the Zionist circle itself. At any rate the power handled by these folks is such that erasing a so called Rabinovich and Henry Klein is a matter of a million dollars. Who was Rabinovich? Who knows? It's surprising that Henry Klein even gets a mention nowadays albeit apparently the only person who actually remembers him is Mister Mullins who seems to not be interested in talking about him too much. Most likely in fear of his own safety.

Most of this is drivel is not even worth commenting, but it is worth noting, to disspell the myth "jews were just along for the ride" that "anti-Semitism" was declared a counter revolutionary offense punishable by death in the USSR in 1922, and this law was never repealed. Uncle Joe himself, went so far as to mention this in 1931, reminding anyone of that punishment would be should they commit the unspeakable act.

This shows how vital jews were considered to the Soviet state, and its formation.

Interestingly, though, during this period of murder and mayhem, Jews were a protected class, so much so that the Communist Party took the unprecedented step of making expressions of anti-Semitism a counter-revolutionary offense, and thus punishable by death.2

The Jewish Voice in January, 1942, stated: “The Jewish people will never forget that the Soviet Union was the first country — and as yet the only country in the world — in which anti-Semitism is a crime.”3 The Congress Bulletin (Publication of the American Jewish Congress) stated:4 5 6

Anti-Semitism was classed as counter-revolution and the severe punishments meted out for acts of anti-Semitism were the means by which the existing order protected its own safety.

The Russian Penal Codes of 1922 and 1927 even went so far as to make anti-Semitism punishable by death. The book Soviet Russia and the Jews by Gregor Aronson and published by the American Jewish League Against Communism (1949 NY) quotes Stalin remarking on the policy in an interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency:

…Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the Soviet Union. Active Anti-Semites are punished by death under law. 7

http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-15-the-jewish-question_331.html?page=4

LAUGHING STOCK . . .

That Jews joined the Marxist/Far Left anti-Tsarist parties had nothing to do with "Judaism." What it had to do with was the general social conditions of the time. There was no other place for a Jewish intellectual to go intellectually but into radical anti-Tsarist (i.e. Marxist revolutionary) movements.



When a Jewish youngster left the ghetto or the closed off, isolated Jewish communities in Russia in order to fight "injustice" . . . exactly what other party was he supposed to join except the Radical Left?

But this does not make either Bolshevism or communism "Jewish." That is an embarrassingly stupid, narrow interpretation of the men behind the Russian Revolution.

There is no such thing as "Jewish communism" . . . but there is such a thing as "Jewish communists" . . . just as there are male, female, Christian, fat, homosexual, left-handed or red-headed communists.


(2) All your argument rests on is the highlight of various once-Jewish radical revolutionaries as "proof" that communism is Jewish. I say once-Jewish because even though you can point to this one and that one as being Jews . . . none practiced Judaism, and none acted in concert with Judaism. True, they supported Zionism (in some cases). But the primary motivation was the overthrow of the Tsarist government and the bringing on of a socialist state that would later evolve into communism. [LOL!!!]

Yes, I know the differences . . . I wonder if you do . . .

I challenge the presumption inherent in your ridiculous argument: That "once a Russian Jew, always a Russian Jew."

That's total bullshit and goes against everything we understand about the political activities of human beings. It also certainly goes against everything we understand about the life of Russian Jews in the early part of the 20th Century. [LOL!]

Can't you understand, numb skull, that if these men were truly Jews in political thought and action, they would never have left their ghettos to become radicals? It is because they [B]rejected Judaism (culture and religion) that they became Leftists. [LOL!!! Has he read the requirments for obtaining Israeli citizenship?][/u]


(3) If communism is truly Jewish then please explain the persecution of Jews by communism.


(4) If communism is Jewish, please explain why most Russian Jews opposed communism. [???]


(5) If communism is Jewish, please explain why the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party split into the Menshevik and Bolshevik wing in 1905-1906. The leader of each faction was a Jew . . . what's the matter, silly Jews couldn't agree on how to foment a conspiracy? I mean, you'd think some Rabi would have knocked some sense into Ulyanov's (Lenin) and Martov's heads, huh?

Oy vey . . . you boys, stop being so meshugeneh . . . we have bigger gefilte fish to fry!


(6) The doctrine of communism is multifaceted and spans roughly 90 years . . . from the First Comintern (1919 or 1920 - don't remember) to today.

Like most people who try arguing this "communism is Jewish" bullshit, you ignore the point that the Bolshevik movement, socialism and the theory of communism itself, have never been monolithic. What we call "communism" is the evolution of each political/economic system according to its specific context.

So what synagogue did Stalin attend? Kruschev? Mao? Kim Il Sung? Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? Ho Chi Minh? Antonio Gramsci? Pol Pot?

Or how about Bela Kun . . . want to make the case that he was a practicing Jew? Ortega? Allende? German communist Rudi Dutschke . . . who called Jesus Christ the greatest revolutionary leader in history?

Ahmed Ben Bella? Nasser and Sadat . . . certainly close to Soviet communists . . . also Jews, I suppose? part of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, huh?

Khalid Bakdash, the Syrian Communist Party, and the Muslim Brotherhood . . . all Jews I suppose?

Fucking Jews do get around . . . man, I'd love to have their Frequent Flyer Miles.

Idiot! This is like denying Mohammedism is a Mid Eastern religion, just because non Middle Eastern nations have adopted it, and non Arab rulers have practiced it...or that confucianism would be a non Chinese philosophy for the same reason...as long as none of these nations have expaned on it, it still remains a Jewish philosophy, modeled after a Jewish government. There can exist alterations such as "Chinese-Communism" or "American style Communism" but Communism, and the principles are an entirley jewish invention



You know . . . truly . . . I poke fun at you because you are an idiot . . . but I don't blame you for falling for propaganda. The Nazis pushed the idea of Jewish-Bolshevism and Alfred Rosenberg certainly based his career on defining communism as Jewish. I'm sure there's an extant body of work on the subject and endless speculation.

And the Jewish intellectual tradition draws many Jews towards radicalism - I got it. That's a point I will agree on.

But the Torah is Jewish . . . a matzo ball Jewish . . . the Wailing Wall is Jewish . . . Masada is Jewish . . .

Communism? [and the Communist Manifesto, as well as those that put it into practice are not??]

Sorry pal. That gefilte fish don't fry.


http://www.vnnforum.com/images/smilies/tnbsmiley.gifhttp://www.spscriptorium.com/Season3/JakovasaurKids.jpg


LOL!!! Some priceless quotes there, Josovasaur.

My, youz a special one aint choo, BOY?

Most of this is drivel is not even worth commenting, but it is worth noting, to disspell the myth "jews were just along for the ride" that "anti-Semitism" was declared a counter revolutionary offense punishable by death in the USSR in 1922, and this law was never repealed. Uncle Joe himself, went so far as to mention this in 1931, reminding anyone of that punishment would be should they commit the unspeakable act.

This shows how vital jews were considered to the Soviet state, and its formation.


I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Duke but his article is deeply flawed.

First of all, although he opens with a photo of Trotsky,he never actually gets around to proving the Neocons are Trotskyites, does he? He SAYS they are, but doesn't give ANY convincing linkage. The fact is that Neoconservatism is much too broad and ill-defined to say that it branched off from this or that. Furthermore, Trotsky was almost two generations BEFORE the rise of modern Neoconservatism . . . and Trotsky left no legacy or follower-ship.

Second point.

Stalin had Trotsky killed. Now, you’d have to REALLY believe in the myth of Jewish superiority to believe that the Jews would create a movement that would split not ONCE . . . in 1905 Lenin vs. Markov . . . but TWICE . . . 1922 Stalin vs.Trotsky . . . and still be considered “Jewish.”

Third point.

I said that communism is not monolithic and that what we today call communism is really a broad series of political/economic movements shaped by leaders reacting to the context of their situation. So I pointed to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Allende, Pol Pot . . .and asked if they were Jewish?

You responded with this, and in your typically shallow manner completely missed the point: Idiot! This is like denying Mohammedism is a Mid Eastern religion, just because non Middle Eastern nations have adopted it, and non Arab rulers have practiced it...or that confucianism would be a non Chinese philosophy for the same reason...as long as none of these nations have expaned on it, it still remains a Jewish philosophy, modeled after a Jewish government. There can exist alterations such as "Chinese-Communism" or "American style Communism" but Communism, and the principles are an entirley jewish invention.
But hold on there, skippy.

You’re a repugnantly vicious anti-Semite who believes communism is a Jewish scheme designed to do God knows what to the “white man.” You’re evading the point. How does Pol Pot’s style of communism help the Jew? How did Stalin help the Jew?

If you want to limit yourself to stating that the Russian Radical Left had deep roots among Jewish intellectuals and that Jews were critical in putting Bolsheviks into power and founding the Soviet Union . . . we can agree. In that sense communism does have Jewish roots.

But that does not make communism Jewish in any realistic or practical manner.

And by the way DREW, your example using religions once again proves that you and those like you are morons who can’t think and only spout what they can conveniently Google.

Islam has split any times throughout history into many factions. There are Shiites and Sunnis, Kharijites, Druze, Alevi, Sufas . . . in the US you have Nation of Islam . . . Five Percenters . . . the El Rukn tribe of the Moorish Science Temple . . . you have the Moors of northern Africa . . . you have segments of Islamic belief throughout Southeast Asia and so on.

So the original belief system has long been fragmented and stopped being “Middle Eastern.” Now, you can always say that an American Five Percenter is linked to the original 7th Century system of beliefs in spiritual matters . . . but in terms of economic, social, cultural and political realities, there is only a very tiny link.

This is the problem with your “communism is Jewish” and even “Neocons are Jewish” bullshit.

Fourth point.

You raised the point that the Soviet Union did outlaw anti-Semitism. (Actually, Dr Duke raised the point, you just copied it.)

That is true; they did.

But why did they? Was it love of the Jews? Was it because communism was “Jewish?”

Of course not. They did it for very practical reasons. And I’ll let you read it for yourself in Trotsky’s own words . . . which I doubt you will.

In this piece, Trotsky explains why the Soviets outlawd anti-Semitism . . . but more importantly . . . what this "outlawing" actually accomplished. This is from “Thermidor and anti-Semitism,” an article dated Feb. 22, 1937.

At the time of the last Moscow trial I remarked in one of my statements that Stalin, in the struggle with the Opposition, exploited the anti-Semitic tendencies in the country. On this subject I received a series of letters and questions which were, by and large—there is no reason to hide the truth—very naive. “How can one accuse the Soviet Union of anti-Semitism?” “If the USSR is an anti-Semitic country, is there anything left at all?” That was the dominant note of these letters. These people raise objections and are perplexed because they are accustomed to counterpose fascist anti-Semitism with the emancipation of the Jews accomplished by the October Revolution….
It has not yet been forgotten, I trust, that anti-Semitism was quite widespread in Czarist Russia among the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie of the city, the intelligentsia and the more backward strata of the working class. “Mother” Russia was renowned not only for her periodic Jewish pogroms but also for the existence of a considerable number of anti-Semitic publications which, in that day, enjoyed a wide circulation. The October Revolution abolished the outlawed status against the Jews. That, however, does not at all mean that with one blow it swept out anti-Semitism. A long and persistent struggle against religion has failed to prevent suppliants even today from crowding thousands and thousands of churches, mosques and synagogues. The same situation prevails in the sphere of national prejudices. Legislation alone does not change people. Their thoughts, emotions, outlook depend upon tradition, material conditions of life, cultural level, etc. The Soviet regime is not yet twenty years old. The older half of the population was educated under Czarism. The younger half has inherited a great deal from the older. These general historical conditions in themselves should make any thinking person realize that, despite the model legislation of the October Revolution, it is impossible that national and chauvinist prejudices, particularly anti-Semitism, should not have persisted strongly among the backward layers of the population.

But this is by no means all. The Soviet regime, in actuality, initiated a series of new phenomena which, because of the poverty and low cultural level of the population, were capable of generating anew, and did in fact generate, anti-Semitic moods. The Jews are a typical city population. They comprise a considerable percentage of the city population in the Ukraine, in White Russia and even in Great Russia. The Soviet, more than any other regime in the world, needs a very great number of civil servants. Civil servants are recruited from the more cultured city population. Naturally the Jews occupied a disproportionately large place among the bureaucracy and particularly so in its lower and middle levels….

He who attentively observes Soviet life, even if only through official publications, will from time to time see bared in various parts of the country hideous bureaucratic abscesses: bribery, corruption, embezzlement, murder of persons whose existence is embarrassing to the bureaucracy, violation of women and the like. Were we to slash vertically through, we would see that every such abscess resulted from the bureaucratic stratum. Sometimes Moscow is constrained to resort to demonstration trials. In all such trials the Jews inevitably comprise a significant percentage, in part because, as was already stated, they make up a great part of the bureaucracy and are branded with its odium, partly because, impelled by the instinct for self-preservation, the leading cadre of the bureaucracy at the center and in the provinces strives to divert the indignation of the working masses from itself to the Jews. This fact was known to every critical observer in the USSR as far back as ten years ago, when the Stalin regime had hardly as yet revealed its basic features.

The struggle against the Opposition was for the ruling clique a question of life and death. The program, principles, ties with the masses, everything was rooted out and cast aside because of the anxiety of the new ruling clique for its self-preservation. These people stop at nothing in order to guard their privileges and power. Recently an announcement was released to the whole world, to the effect that my youngest son, Sergei Sedov, was under indictment for plotting a mass poisoning of the workers. Every normal person will conclude: people capable of preferring such a charge have reached the last degree of moral degradation. Is it possible in that case to doubt even for a moment that these same accusers are capable of fostering the anti-Semitic prejudices of the masses? Precisely in the case of my son, both these depravities are united. It is worthwhile to consider this case. From the day of their birth, my sons bore the name of their mother (Sedov). They never used any other name — neither at elementary school, nor at the university, nor in their later life. As for me, during the past thirty-four years I have borne the name of Trotsky. During the Soviet period no one ever called me by the name of my father (Bronstein), just as no one ever called Stalin Dzhugashvili. In order not to oblige my sons to change their name, I, for “citizenship” requirements, took on the name of my wife (which, according to the Soviet law, is fully permissible). However, after my son, Sergei Sedov, was charged with the utterly incredible accusation of plotting to poison workers, the GPU announced in the Soviet and foreign press that the “real” (!) name of my son is not Sedov but Bronstein. If these falsifiers wished to emphasize the connection of the accused with me, they would have called him Trotsky since politically the name Bronstein means nothing at all to anyone. But they were out for other game; that is, they wished to emphasize my Jewish origin and the semi-Jewish origin of my son. I paused at this episode because it has a vital and yet not at all exceptional character. The whole struggle against the Opposition is full of such episodes.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Duke but his article is deeply flawed.

First of all, although he opens with a photo of Trotsky,he never actually gets around to proving the Neocons are Trotskyites, does he? He SAYS they are, but doesn't give ANY convincing linkage. The fact is that Neoconservatism is much too broad and ill-defined to say that it branched off from this or that. Furthermore, Trotsky was almost two generations BEFORE the rise of modern Neoconservatism . . . and Trotsky left no legacy or follower-ship.


"I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." - Irving Kristol (the father of NeoConservatisim, and a jew)

"I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." - Irving Kristol (the father of NeoConservatisim, and a jew)


And? :)

What aspect of Trotky did he identify himself with?

This one? Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to the eternally changing reality.


This one? There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens.


Or this one? In Stalin each [Soviet bureaucrat] easily finds himself. But Stalin also finds in each one a small part of his own spirit. Stalin is the personification of the bureaucracy. That is the substance of his political personality.


In simple terms (not that you're simple, just to simplify complex argument) anyone who disliked Stalin, his abuses, his purges, his paranoia and his murder . . . liked Trotsky. Trotsky was more brilliant, more revolutionary and a better thnker than Stalin and Lenin. Had he won the fight for power after Lenin's death, communism today would be much different.

In simple terms (not that you're simple, just to simplify complex argument) anyone who disliked Stalin, his abuses, his purges, his paranoia and his murder . . . liked Trotsky. Trotsky was more brilliant, more revolutionary and a better thnker than Stalin and Lenin. Had he won the fight for power after Lenin's death, communism today would be much different.

Well if one of the main points of trotskyism is permanent revolution, and one of the ideals of neoconservatism is permanent war, there is a correlation there.

Well if one of the main points of trotskyism is permanent revolution, and one of the ideals of neoconservatism is permanent war, there is a correlation there.


Well, I'm not sure that I'm following you, so two points I'd like to hear in more depth.

1) What Neocons are advocating Permanent War? I’d like to study the context.

2) What do you mean when you say "permanent revolution" and "permanent war?"


Some quick thoughts:

Permanent Revolution (as I remember it) means that socialism has to occur internationally and especially in advanced countries for it to succeed in less advanced, agrarian nations . . . or else the international economic system will eventually make those less advanced nations pseudo-capitalistic. (I believe this is correct. North Korea and Cuba basically starved to death without the Soviet Union and they . . . along with China . . . are slowly re-integrating themselves within capitalism.)

Permanent War is the idea that the ruling class maintains power and capitalism retains its vigor by producing (and destroying or replacing) war materiel.

So you see similarity (correlation) between Trotsky and Neocons?

In other words, someone who is a Trotskyite and believes in achieving worldwide communism through Permanent Revolution, decides to become a capitalist but retains this belief in constant conflict? (Kind of like . . .a wife beater gets divorced, remarries and beats his new wife too?)

Or more likely, do you mean that because communism is constantly expanding geographically and politically, the ever wary capitalist has to wage Permanent War to stop him? The Action triggers the Reaction?

I would agree with the latter . . . but only to a very limited extent.

I do not believe that it is a true explanation of say, US history. For one thing, the Military-Industrial Complex has shrunk and continues to shrink. You can look up a chart of military spending as a function of GDP, for example,and see that it's now about 1/10th of what it was during WW2.

I think it's also obvious that war-spending does not help capitalism in the long-run since every war (including this one) is always accompanied by economic slowdown.

Even more importantly, the policy of Containment was really not a military policy but a political-economic one. We defended Western Europe not with boots on the ground, but with the Marshall Plan. Same with Japan and South Korea.

Part of the problem in being objective about whether the US has been voluntarily and independently engaging in Permanent War is that the US has been in a constant state of military competition and proxy wars with international communism since 1945.

To believe that has been Capitalistic Permanent War, you would have to have an Oliver Stone opinion of America . . . that we went to war in Vietnam simply to produce more helicopters so that the gooks could shoot them down . . . so that we could produce more helicopters.

But when Truman issued what we today call the Truman Doctrine . . . and when Eisenhower proposed his theory of falling dominoes . . . the US economy was humming at a pretty good clip and the concern (especially with Eisenhower) was to defend Indochina, Thailand, Burma, Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Australia, Indonesia and New Zealand.

Don’t forget, that this was the time of Joe McCarthy, accusations about commies in the State Department and the Soviets getting the A-Bomb. There was real fear . . .not greed. The commies had just taken China and it looked like San Francisco was next!

So I see US post World War Two strategic military policy as having more political than economic (capitalist) motivations.

Well, I'm not sure that I'm following you, so two points I'd like to hear in more depth.

1) What Neocons are advocating Permanent War? I’d like to study the context.secret wars of the cia, including 911 and the war on terror

2) What do you mean when you say "permanent revolution" and "permanent war?" long lasting conflict


Some quick thoughts:

Permanent Revolution (as I remember it) means that socialism has to occur internationally and especially in advanced countries for it to succeed in less advanced, agrarian nations . . . or else the international economic system will eventually make those less advanced nations pseudo-capitalistic. (I believe this is correct. North Korea and Cuba basically starved to death without the Soviet Union and they . . . along with China . . . are slowly re-integrating themselves within capitalism.)

Permanent War is the idea that the ruling class maintains power and capitalism retains its vigor by producing (and destroying or replacing) war materiel.

So you see similarity (correlation) between Trotsky and Neocons? you see communist revolution as a movement of the people against the elite, i see it as a movement by the elite to get the poor to destroy the middle class

In other words, someone who is a Trotskyite and believes in achieving worldwide communism through Permanent Revolution, decides to become a capitalist but retains this belief in constant conflict? (Kind of like . . .a wife beater gets divorced, remarries and beats his new wife too?) conservatives describe neocons as liberal conservatives, i see it as a cloaked movement by the left to subvert the right

I think it's also obvious that war-spending does not help capitalism in the long-run since every war (including this one) is always accompanied by economic slowdown.yet some folks makes a fortune

secret wars of the cia, including 911 and the war on terror
long lasting conflict

you see communist revolution as a movement of the people against the elite, i see it as a movement by the elite to get the poor to destroy the middle class
conservatives describe neocons as liberal conservatives, i see it as a cloaked movement by the left to subvert the right

yet some folks makes a fortune


OK; I understand where you're coming from.

I found both of these to be a very interesting perspectives: i see it as a cloaked movement by the left to subvert the right AND i see it as a movement by the elite to get the poor to destroy the middle class

Glad to see someone here uses their brain.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Duke but his article is deeply flawed.

No you don't you dumb lying nigger. It may work with your mama, but us white folks is a little harder to sway round these parts.


First of all, although he opens with a photo of Trotsky,he never actually gets around to proving the Neocons are Trotskyites, does he? He SAYS they are, but doesn't give ANY convincing linkage. The fact is that Neoconservatism is much too broad and ill-defined to say that it branched off from this or that. Furthermore, Trotsky was almost two generations BEFORE the rise of modern Neoconservatism . . . and Trotsky left no legacy or follower-ship.


He left no legacy or followship? What about Hugo Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Trotskyist_movements) Do you ever think before you speak, no, that's right you are incapable of such a feet.

And I did not reference that article with the picture of Trotsky, peanuthead. But since you brought it up, Neoconservatism is a evolved theory based on some of the principles Trotsky preached, and jewish thinkers who admired him. Duke made the claim that the original founders of the neoconservative movement were Trotskyites. As was Kritol as well as Max Schactman (for a long time) which is tied together in this article on his website by Kevin MacDonald.

Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.

By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organizer of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States.

Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration: (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan). [Nearly all jews]

s the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:

“I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.”

Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples.

While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests.




The founders of "modern" neoconservatism have the same New York "intellectual" based origins.

You cannot show that this "new addition" to conservatism is conceived from anything but jewish influence, and how it benifits anything but the interests of Israel, and "former" left leaning jews made to feel more comfortable.

What today's Neoconserative movement has in common with Trotskyism is that they believe "democracy" must be spread wharever possible, such as Iraq. Where the paleocons believe in a more hands off isolationist policy, as did most of our founding fathers. But the "neocons" do not adhere to their way of thinking, or have the same interests in mind. This is comparative to Trotskyism and Stalinism. In that Trotsky believed in a sweeping international proletarian revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution) based on democratic principles. Such as the democracy which we are attempting to instill in Iraq on the almost classless society. It is a different form of government, but is brought about in nearly the same fashion.


Second point.

Stalin had Trotsky killed. Now, you’d have to REALLY believe in the myth of Jewish superiority to believe that the Jews would create a movement that would split not ONCE . . . in 1905 Lenin vs. Markov


What esoteric razzle dazzle bullshit you are trying to "impress" us with now, little mule? Who the fuck is Markov and how does the "1905 Revolution" have to do with the race of those that made the Soviet state a reality in 1917 and that of those who composed it's governing body (300 out of 384 of the first commissars) of its first governing body? Based on the principles set forth by Marx and put into practice by Lenin and Trotsky.

. . . but TWICE . . . 1922 Stalin vs.Trotsky . . . and still be considered “Jewish.”


A conservative jew can break away from Orthodox Judaism but it is still the same school of thought. Just as, if your stupid niggers here practiced real Islam, they would be spreading a Middle Eastern doctrine and culture from that race. Whether they, themselves are Middle Eastern or not, is of little consequence.

Stalin may or may not have been a jew, just someone who outmanuvered them. He knew who he had to share the power with, and knew who put communism into place. His role in the revolution was as big as he later made it out to be. This is why he made antisemitism a punishable offense. He may have adopted less jew friendly measures later on, but had to really bide his time to do so.

We contend that communism is a parasitic form of government, evolved from a parasitic racial mindset, brought about by that same race for a power grab against the goyim or that nation which they hated. Because they had to share the power with a few, such as Stalin, who later outmanuvered them and used it to serve himself, rather than the race it was intented for, does not change this. The addition "Stalinist" aspect of Communism may not be jewish, but Communism is still a jewish form of government built on a jewish foundation. Unless Stalinism conflicted with so many of the principles of communism not to make it communist anymore. It is the principles of it, STUPID nigger.

Since Communism was made the only form of "religion" allowed in the state, this makes it a religion as well. Therefore it must follow the same principles. Theoretically anyone can convert to Judaism. Any group can convert to Judaism and then form their own state and not include ethnic jews in their governing body, and model it after the Israeli form of government. Let us say these are nigger losers, and this "state" is some shithole island called the "Republic of Jenkem." Say they make some additions to this form of government and religion that are one in the same here. As long as they still adere to the principles required for it to be a form of Judaism, it is still a religion born of kikes even if it is practiced by other races.

They are still practicing jews, exercising a jewish form of government modeled entirely from jews. The fact is, the original communists were mostly all ethnic jews essentially praticing a jewish religion, with a few converts. Because Marx and Lenin said they must worship the government instead, does not make it any less of a jewish-racial religion.


Third point.


You had a 1st or 2nd?


I said that communism is not monolithic and that what we today call communism is really a broad series of political/economic movements shaped by leaders reacting to the context of their situation. So I pointed to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Allende, Pol Pot . . .and asked if they were Jewish?


See above. Communism was created to, and only served the jews who put it into place. Because others found it served them as well, does not change this. It is a parasitic form of government devoloped by a historically parasitic race, and was used by this race as a power grab, which they succeeded in. Communism is a danger, because of it's foundation. Communism is the symptom jews are the disease. Simple. Because others catch and spread this sickness does not make it any less of a jewish illness.


And by the way DREW, your example using religions once again proves that you and those like you are morons who can’t think and only spout what they can conveniently Google.

Islam has split any times throughout history into many factions. There are Shiites and Sunnis, Kharijites, Druze, Alevi, Sufas . . . in the US you have Nation of Islam . . . Five Percenters . . . the El Rukn tribe of the Moorish Science Temple . . . you have the Moors of northern Africa . . . you have segments of Islamic belief throughout Southeast Asia and so on.

So the original belief system has long been fragmented and stopped being “Middle Eastern.” Now, you can always say that an American Five Percenter is linked to the original 7th Century system of beliefs in spiritual matters . . . but in terms of economic, social, cultural and political realities, there is only a very tiny link.


Your black bullshit orgs are not real Islam, nigger turkey. The NOI is not real Islam because it does not adhere to the required principles to be so

1.) They not monotheistic.

2.) They do not believe Mohammed was the last prophet

3.) They do not do believe that the Koran is the final word.

It is all about the principles of da shit, simple simone.


This is the problem with your “communism is Jewish” and even “Neocons are Jewish” bullshit.


No the problem is that you can't think in abstract terms, because you are not evolved enogh.


Fourth point.

You raised the point that the Soviet Union did outlaw anti-Semitism. (Actually, Dr Duke raised the point, you just copied it.)


Right, it's called a citation nigger cunt.



That is true; they did.

But why did they? Was it love of the Jews? Was it because communism was “Jewish?”

Of course not. They did it for very practical reasons. And I’ll let you read it for yourself in Trotsky’s own words . . . which I doubt you will.

In this piece, Trotsky explains why the Soviets outlawd anti-Semitism . . .


I will not take a deceptive word of a devil like Trotsky. Rather, will let his actions speak for themself. Actions, speak now!

“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon
whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots
never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny,
not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.
We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods
of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars
quake and pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will
work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we
shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s
funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will
sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and
bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete
stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence... At the moment, our
young men in their leather jackets, who are the sons of watchmakers from
Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian!
What pleasure they take in physically destroying the Russian intelligentsia
— officers, academics and writers!...”

We can't say Trotsky left no real legacy, now can we?

You are small nigger brain, a terrible imitation of an intellect and a jealous evil mongrel mamzer bastard, whose only purpose here is to undermine and suck energy from this board, and divert attention from your jew master/demon superiors & protectors.

This is the last debate I have with you, attention freak. Nothing, or no white man (or woman?) here, shall fill the void of human love and acceptance your mammy chose to give up when she didn't abort you (I read you're a nigger mulatto of somesort somewhere). If I give you any opening left there, I deserve what will be your unanswered "rebuttal."

Drew, to strengthen your point on the connection between Trotsky and the Neo-Cons, here's an article about the connection of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky.

Is there a connection between Leon Trotsky and Paul Wolfowitz?



posted to www.marxmail.org on June 10, 2003





(Jeet Heer is a Canadian journalist, who linked Trotsky to Paul Wolfowitz in a National Post article recently. These are comments on selected paragraphs from his piece that can be read in its entirety at: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=EC4AD553-8A1D-4324-8D37-A99B2DFF9F85)



JEET HEER: As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky, consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International.



In seeking advice about Iraqi society, members of the Bush administration (notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-American intellectual whose book The Republic of Fear is considered to be the definitive analysis of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule.



As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is "known to veterans of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth International." When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited into the White House as an ad hoc consultant.



COMMENT: If Makiya's "Republic of Fear" has anything to do with Trotskyism, except the fact that the author spent some time in the movement as a youth, then one presumes that Saul Bellow's racist screed "Mr. Sammler's Planet" must also be linked with Leon Trotsky as well, since Bellow also spent a brief time in the Trotskyist movement. For that matter, one might link orthodox Judaism with Trotskyism since Isaac Deutscher and I were both bar mitzvahed and ate kosher through adolescence.



Other than the fact that Kanan Makiya spent five minutes or so in the Fourth International, there is absolutely nothing to link him to the intellectual and political traditions represented by Leon Trotsky. Consider the interview he gave to an Argentine journalist on September 23, 1938 in which he defended a "fascist" Brazil against a "democratic" Great Britain?



In order to understand correctly the nature of the coming events we must first of all reject ... the false ... theory that the coming war will be a war between fascism and "democracy." ... I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of that conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains in Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.



Or the letter wrote to an English comrade on April 22, 1936 which not only defended feudal Ethiopia against capitalist Italy, but was full of praise for the Negus, ie. Haile Selassie, who made Saddam Hussein look like Martin Luther King Jr. by comparison, and contained the remarkable formulation that "A dictator can also play a very progressive role in history".



Indeed, the Trotsky of history has much more in common with the reviled Ramsey Clark and WWP than he does with the Cruise Missile "leftists" Heer falsely linked him with.



JEET HEER: Other supporters of the Iraq war also have a Trotsky-tinged past. On the left, the historian Paul Berman, author of a new book called Terror and Liberalism, has been a resonant voice among those who want a more muscular struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Berman counts the Trotskyist C.L.R. James as a major influence. Among neo-conservatives, Berman's counterpart is Stephen Schwartz, a historian whose new book, The Two Faces of Islam, is a key text among those who want the United States to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Schwartz spent his formative years in a Spanish Trotskyist group.



COMMENT: Just because Paul Berman claims that CLR James was an influence, there is no reason to take him at his word. By the same token, George W. Bush claims that Jesus Christ influences his policies, when any sensible person understands that the White House owes much more to Joseph Goebbels. Berman is a rigid anti-Communist. During the 1980s he used his Village Voice bully pulpit to castigate the Sandinista government in terms similar to Oliver North. CLR James was a revolutionary; Paul Berman was and is a liberal no matter who he mistakenly thinks "influenced" him. In fact, his latest book simply puts forward his liberal prejudices in unambiguous terms as the title suggests: "Terror and Liberalism" (he is for liberalism).



JEET HEER: To this day, Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as "the old man" and "L.D." (initials from Trotsky's birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). "To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D," he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman.



"I've talked to Wolfowitz about all of this," Schwartz notes. "We had this discussion about Shachtman. He knows all that stuff, but was never part of it. He's definitely aware." The yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd, but a long and tortuous history explains the link between the Bolshevik left and the Republican right.



COMMENT: I would not take anything that Schwartz says seriously. There is not a single political or religious sect that he has not dipped his big toe in, from Trotskyism, anarchism, and "libertarian socialism" on the left, to Buckleyite conservatism on the right. He is now a devout Sufi Muslim, a faith that he discovered in the Balkans while writing pleas on behalf of imperialist intervention. The old Jewish saying would apply to Schwartz: "A chazer bleibt a chazer." (A pig remains a pig.)



JEET HEER: To understand how some Trotskyists ended up as advocates of U.S. expansionism, it is important to know something about Max Shachtman, Trotsky's controversial American disciple. Shachtman's career provides the definitive template of the trajectory that carries people from the Left Opposition to support for the Pentagon.



COMMENT: The rest of Heer's article spells out the connections between people like Paul Berman and Max Shachtman, which of course has more than a grain of truth. But this has less to do with Shachtman's connections to Trotsky than his *break* with Trotsky. In a very real sense, Shachtman is the spiritual and ideological father not only to those who spent 30 seconds in the Trotskyist movement, but to Michael Berubé, Todd Gitlin, Eric Alterman, Leo Casey, Stanley Aronowitz, and dozens of other 1960s and 70s radicals and left-liberals who have learned to worship the American flag since 9/11. But then again, the blame might not be put totally on Shachtman's shoulders. It would probably make sense to connect the Cruise Missile left to its true progenitors, namely the trade union bureaucrats, intelligentsia and parliamentarians of the Second International who backed their own bourgeoisie in WWI. Of course, Lenin and Trotsky broke with these traitors back in 1914 and Trotsky himself never betrayed his own principles until his death. In his fight with Max Shachtman and James Burnham over how to characterize the USSR after the Stalin-Hitler pact, Trotsky was faced with the same kind of liberal prejudices and inability to think in class terms that was on display when a large swath of the left, including some "Marxists" cheered on NATO's war against the Serbs. His words seem as timely as ever:



"It is necessary to call things by their right names. Now that the positions of both factions in the struggle have become determined with complete clearness, it must be said that the minority of the National Committee is leading a typical petty-bourgeois tendency. Like any petty-bourgeois group inside the socialist movement, the present opposition is characterized by the following features: a disdainful attitude toward theory and an inclination toward eclecticism; disrespect for the tradition of their own organization; anxiety for personal "independence" at the expense of anxiety for objective truth; nervousness instead of consistency; readiness to jump from one position to another…"




http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/JeetHeer.htm

Thank you, that is a good reference.

http://www.martinlutherking.org/ma-chapter18.html

The eccentric woman in the Citizens Council office, who railed about the Jews and Communism, obviously had some of her facts right, even if she seemed to fit the media stereotype of the anti-Semite. The facts were inescapable: Communism and Zionism were born from the same Jewish soul, personified in Moses Hess.

I slowly became aware of a dual morality permeating Jewish-Gentile relations. Jews practiced one morality for themselves and preached another for the non-Jewish world. Their own morality of racial pride taught solidarity, tradition and self-interest. But they preached diversity and liberalism for their perceived competitors. If such dualism did not exist, how could the Jewish-dominated American media:

* Support the nation of Israel, which promotes Judaism in its schools, while opposing even the singing of Christmas carols in American public schools?
* Support the nation of Israel, which has strictly segregated schools, communities, and facilities for Jews and Arabs - while condemning segregated schools and housing in America and South Africa?
* Support the nation of Israel, with its restrictive "Jews only" immigration laws, while subverting American attempts to curtail even illegal immigration?
* Support the nation of Israel, which allows every Jewish citizen to carry a machine gun if desired, while advocating strict gun control for American citizens?
* Support the nation of Israel, which openly states its mission to preserve the Jewish people and heritage, while condemning Whites who would dare to advocate the preservation of the White race and Western culture in America?
* Always paint the historical relations between Jews and Gentiles with the Gentiles as evildoers and the Jews as innocent victims, while condemning White people for even defending themselves from such Jewish depiction?

The moral hypocrisy became obvious. Powerful Jews advocate one morality for Jews; the opposite for Gentiles. If their policies of solidarity are morally good for them, why would they not be morally good for us as well? Why the double standard? If "White racists" are morally reprehensible, why are not Jewish supremacists reprehensible as well?

While Herzl and other Zionists feverishly gathered worldwide Jewish support for the establishment of the exclusively Jewish state, Jewish activists were busy trying to negate the Christian component of American culture and remove even Christmas carols from our schools. While they trumpet their belief that they are a "Chosen People" above all others, and celebrate a unique people defined by heritage from Abraham to the present - they tell White people that race consciousness is evil. While they established a Jewish nation where citizenship is based almost exclusively on the heredity of the "Jewish people," Jewish anthropologists promote the idea that the White race doesn't exist. Even though they devotedly support their own exclusively Jewish-run state of Israel, they work feverishly to undermine the White control and character of America through the "civil-rights" movement and massive non-White immigration. While they have laws in Israel prohibiting Gentiles from owning certain media, they boldly move to gain control of the great majority of the mass media in America.

Communist Ideology and Race

Mattie Smith told me that the Jews had the leading role in the efforts to destroy the very underpinnings of our race and our heritage. I had read that Jews were the leaders of the academic movement promoting the idea that races are equal in their physical and mental abilities. In looking into the foundations of racial egalitarianism, I found that adherents of international Communism pioneered the modern notions of racial equality. In America, Marxist organizations quickly gained ascendancy in the remnants of the old abolitionist movements. In South Africa, they led the fight for full "democratic" rights for the Blacks. Across the world, Communism allied itself with non-White peoples and their struggle for "liberation from White imperialism, colonialism, and oppression." I soon found out that Jews dominated the International Communist movement in modern times just as they had led Bolshevism in Russia early in the 20th century.

Jewish scribe Nathan Glazer stated matter-of-factly that in the 60s and 70s the Jews comprised half of all the active Communists in the United States and four out of five of its leaders. Two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, led the Marxist-Oriented, Yippie Movement, and they were two of the five Jewish members of the revolutionary "Chicago Seven" group - tried for the violent disruption of the 1968 Democratic Convention. I read a book called Behind Communism, and I was surprised to discover that at least 4 out of 5 of all those caught and convicted of Communist espionage and treason in the United States and Canada were Jews.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

Probably the most infamous act of treason in American history was the theft of the atomic bomb secrets by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They were part of the Fuchs-Gold spy ring that operated in and around the Manhattan Project and other branches of the American atomic weapons program. Seven members of the Fuchs-Gold ring pled guilty to charges associated with espionage. They were Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Abraham Brothman, Miriam Moskowitz, Sidney Weinbaum, and Alfred Slack. Another suspect, Morton Sobell, fled to Mexico, but Mexican authorities turned him over to the United States to face trial and subsequent conviction. A jury also convicted the Rosenbergs, and they were executed. Of the ten spies most responsible for the selling of our atomic secrets to the Soviets, only one, Alfred Slack, was a Gentile.

Other major spy cases included the Amerasia Case, the Gerhart Eisler Case, the Judith Coplin Case, and the Alger Hiss Case. Jews figured prominently in these cases and made up a clear majority of the defendants. The only prominent non-Jewish spy was Alger Hiss. In the Hollywood Ten Case, The House of Representatives convicted ten of Hollywood's leading film writers of contempt of Congress. They appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and refused to testify when asked if they were Communists. Jewish publications alleged the committee ruined the writers for no apparent reason. Recently a number of movies have been made defending the Hollywood Ten as unjustly and unfairly persecuted, yet six of the ten proved to be dues-paying members of the Communist Party. The other four had records of many Communist-front activities and connections. Nine of the ten were of Jewish heritage.

While Jewish Marxists pursued the political part of the "civil-rights" effort, they pushed just as hard in the academic realm. Until the 1930s the biological sciences recognized the different races of mankind as surely as they did the different species and subspecies of the animal kingdom - that is, as commentator Kevin Strom says, "Until the egalitarian political wind blew into American academia, propelled by a clever, connected, and well-heeled minority with an agenda."

I began to realize that the drive for race-mixing did not find its source in the Black people of America. Most Blacks were content to be separate, although they certainly wanted economic and social advancement. The most popular Black leader in the early part of the 20th century was the Black separatist Marcus Garvey, who sought repatriation for Blacks back to Africa and the foundation of a new Black nation. Against this movement of Black separatism and the effort of European Americans to preserve White America there rose a minority with an entirely different agenda.

The Racial Egalitarian Dogma

Franz Boas is the accepted father of the modern egalitarian school of anthropology. He was a Jewish immigrant from Germany with little formal training in the anthropological field, having done his doctoral thesis on the color of water. Boas introduced what he called "cultural anthropology" to the discipline. Until his arrival, anthropology fell in the realm of physical science. Boas effectively divided anthropology into the separate disciplines of cultural and physical anthropology.

Early physical anthropologists were truly race scientists because they studied man and his evolutionary development through the study of the measurable physical characteristics of the human races, past and present. Any good physical anthropologist could pick up a human skull and, based on its characteristics, quickly identify the race of the specimen. Of course, this physiological knowledge was vital in sorting out the unearthed remnants of early man and piecing together man's prehistory and evolutionary development. Cultural anthropology dealt more with the different contemporary cultures of mankind and culturally related questions of antiquity and prehistory, making it a far less precise science, and one open to wide interpretation.

Surprisingly, before he became such a prominent anthropologist, Boas expressed his acceptance of racial differences in mental characteristics. In The Mind of Primitive Man, he wrote:

Differences of Structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of differences in structure between races, so we must anticipate that the differences in mental characteristics will be found.

Both of Boas' parents were radical socialists in the revolutionary movement that swept over Europe in 1870. In his biography of Boas, his student Melville Herskovits wrote that Boas' political sympathies "leaned towards a variety of socialism." The United States House of Representatives cited Boas' involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany and the increasing influence of racially aware anthropologists in the world scientific community, Boas began to marshal his anthropological influence in service of his political sympathies. He began to advance the quack idea that there are really no such things as individual human races. He argued that although they had variations of skin colors and features, the groups called races possessed little difference genetically and that, whatever their superficial differences, solely their environment created them. By 1938 Boas dropped the above quotation from the new edition of his book.

He gathered many Jewish disciples around him, including Gene Weltfish, Isador Chein, Melville Herskovits, Otto Klineberg, and Ashley Montagu. He also had among his followers the Negro K. B. Clark and two women, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Mead later wrote her famous book on Samoa (Coming of Age in Samoa) suggesting that indiscriminate sexual relations would lessen teenage traumas and problems. (Her opus was later soundly refuted by Derek Freeman, who showed that Mead had falsified her data on Samoa.)

Boas and his entire cadre of disciples had extensive Communist connections. He repeatedly proclaimed that he was in a "holy war against racism" and he died suddenly during a luncheon where once again and for the last time, he stressed the need to fight "racism." Boas and his comrades gained control over the anthropology departments of most universities by encouraging their egalitarian comrades to always use their positions to support their own in academic appointments. While traditional anthropologists had no ax to grind and no sacred cause to champion, Boas and his followers embarked on a holy mission to extirpate racial knowledge from the academic establishment. They succeeded.

Whenever egalitarians achieved positions of influence or power, they aided their comrades to rise in the teaching departments of the colleges and academic departments they administered. They could count on fellow Jews who held influential university positions to assist their co-religionists, as well as Gentile egalitarians, in getting professorships and research appointments and promotions. Similar collusion took place in the ranks and on the boards of anthropological associations and journals. However, the coup de grâce was the massive support given the egalitarian dogma by the media establishment, which was overwhelmingly in Jewish hands.

Racial equality was (and still is) presented to the public as scientific fact, opposed only by the "bigoted" and the "ignorant." Egalitarian writers such as Ashley Montagu and others received great praise in magazines, newspapers, and, later on television. Whether one was a Jew or a Gentile, professing a belief in racial equality became essential dogma for anyone who wanted to advance in anthropology or any other part of the academic world. Adherence to the "politically correct" line led to prestige and acclaim, money and success. Racial truth-telling led to personal attack and often economic hardship.

Ashley Montagu became the best-known spokesman for the equality hoax, superseding Boas as the most popular exponent of antiracism. His well-modulated British accent and aristocratic name added instant credibility to his racial pronouncements. I can still, after thirty years, remember his impressive appearances on the Today television program. His book, Race: Man's Most Dangerous Myth, became the bible of equality, and it profoundly impressed me before I had a chance to read the other side. Montagu's real name was Israel Ehrenberg. In a brilliant exercise of psychological camouflage, Ehrenberg changed his name a number of times, finally settling on not simply an Anglo-Saxon moniker, but the name Montagu, which is one of Britain's most aristocratic and oldest medieval-titled families.

By the late 1990s, Jewish writers began to brazenly write about their domination of American anthropology. In a 1997 edition of American Anthropologist, which is published by the American Anthropological Association, Jewish scholar Gelya Frank writes that egalitarian American anthropology was so thoroughly Jewish that it should be classed as "part of Jewish History." Frank goes on to admit that anthropology is in the service of a social agenda and that her essay focuses on Jewish anthropologists who are "concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism." The same breed of anthropologists who so fervently declare that "there is no such thing as race" concerning Blacks and Whites are now hypocritically affirming the unique genetic homogeneity of Jews. Moreover, increasing numbers of Jewish anthropologists have come out of the closet in celebration of their special genetic and cultural heritage.

As far as Blacks and Whites are concerned, egalitarianism still dominates. Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould, are its three self-acknowledged Marxist Jews and the leading academic exponents of egalitarianism. In spite of an avalanche of fresh scientific data proving the vital role of genes in producing individual and group differences, racial egalitarianism is still the holy writ of anthropology and human psychology as characterized by the popular media. The writings of Lewontin, Kamin, Gould, Rose, and other egalitarians frequently appear in the pages of magazines such as the Smithsonian, Natural History, Nature, Discover, Time, Newsweek, and other wide-circulation publications. Television programs often interview them as "authorities" on the subject of race - and seldom are their opponents allowed to challenge them. Most of the leading egalitarian spokesmen are self-described Marxists, a slight detail seldom mentioned in the media. Imagine if they were self-proclaimed Nazis; I suspect the reaction to them would be very different.

Despite the well-organized "part of Jewish history" control of anthropology, the scientific affirmation of race is growing so quickly that the popular egalitarians may not be able to hold back the scientific tide much longer. There has never been a greater disparity between scientific and popular understanding.

The Freudian Assault

Psychology fell to the Jewish onslaught just as anthropology had. From the days of Sigmund Freud, psychology became defined as the "Jewish science." One of his Jewish biographers put it this way:

History made psychoanalysis a "Jewish science." It continued to be attacked as such. It was destroyed in Germany, Italy, and Austria and exiled to the four winds, as such. It continues even now to be perceived as such by enemies and friends alike. Of course there are by now distinguished analysts who are not Jews. . . . But the vanguard of the movement over the last fifty years has remained predominantly Jewish as it was from the beginning.

Since the Great Depression, academic psychology discounted the impact of heredity and attributed almost all individual human behavioral patterns and mental ability to environmental conditioning. They claimed that environment rather than heredity is really the source of all mental and behavioral differences among the races. But, not only did the theories of Freud and his disciples attack the principles of race, they made a broadside attack on the spiritual and moral values of European civilization. Freud suggested that our Christian sexual morality was the cause of mental illness on a grand scale. He relentlessly undermined the concepts of sexual fidelity and the foundations of marriage. In 1915 he stated:

Sexual morality - as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it - seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.

In Moses and Monotheism (1939) Freud repeatedly attacks Christianity while promoting the spiritual supremacy of the Jewish people.

The people, happy in their conviction of possessing the truth, overcome by the consciousness of being the chosen, came to value highly all intellectual and ethical achievements.

The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared - Sigmund Freud

Just as the Communist Jews had a political war with the Czars of Russia, Freudians pursued a cultural war against Western Christian culture. Kevin MacDonald, in his classic study of Jewish ethnocentrism, A People That Shall Dwell Apart, points out that Freud's Totem and Taboo reveals his role in the cultural war against Gentiles:

Freud's speculations clearly had an agenda. Rather than provide speculations which reaffirmed the moral and intellectual basis of the culture of his day, his speculations were an integral part of his war on gentile culture - so much so that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a victory over Rome and the Catholic Church.

Freud reveled in what he saw as his war against Christendom, which he compared with the Roman Empire, and suggested that he was like his idol Hannibal and was meant to sack Rome.

Hannibal. . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church . . .

Freud makes his Jewish supremacist viewpoint very clear in a letter to a Jewish woman who intended to conceive a child by a Gentile to heal the split in psychoanalysis. His words were:

I must confess...that your fantasy about the birth of the Savior to a mixed union did not appeal to me at all. The Lord, in that anti-Jewish period, had him born from the superior Jewish race. But I know these are my prejudices.

A year later the same woman gave birth to a child fathered by a Jew. Freud responded

I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o'-the-wisps!

I shall not present my compliments to Jung in Munich, as you know perfectly well....We are and remain Jews. The others will only exploit us and will never understand and appreciate us. (quoted in Yerushalmi 1991, 45).

Not only did Freud consciously launch an attack on our cultural values, he conveniently labeled opponents of that assault as mentally ill. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud portrays anti-Semitism as a mental illness that arises out of jealousy of Jewish ethical supremacy.

On the deck of a ship steaming toward the United States, Freud commented to his friends that the people of America thought he was bringing them a panacea, but instead he said, "We are bringing them the plague."

The Civil-Rights Movement

Just as Jewish academics lead the scholastic fight for egalitarianism in science and sociology, and Jewish media moguls lead the propaganda fight, the "civil-rights" movement itself found most of its leadership and financial support in the Jewish community.

Almost from the first day of its inception in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the premier organization working for a racially mixed American society. Interestingly enough, the founding board of directors had only one prominent Black, W. E. B. Dubois (who was actually a Mulatto). Most of the board consisted of Jewish Marxist ideologues. The U.S. House of Representatives and many state investigative bodies thoroughly documented the fact that all of the NAACP's founders were activists in the Communist cause. Dubois even chose Communist Ghana as his burial site.

NAACP leader Kivie Kaplan

The NAACP's first president was Arthur Spingarn, and only Jews served as NAACP presidents from its founding until the 1970s. Noel Spingarn succeeded his brother, Arthur, and following him, Kivie Kaplan reigned over the organization. The Jewish leadership of the NAACP was little known by the public at large. When I came of age, the only name I heard associated with the NAACP was Roy Wilkins, who was its Black national secretary. Because he was so much in the press and public eye, like most Americans, I thought Wilkins was the NAACP leader. But Kaplan was the actual NAACP president during that time. Benjamin Hooks became the first Black president finally in the 1970s. Once a Black finally made it to the presidency of the organization, no longer did the public hear much about the NAACP "national secretary." From then on the public spokesman was the NAACP president.

In the recent Black-Jewish split, liberal Jews are quick to cry foul at Black resentment against them by reciting the fact that the lion's share of the financing of the Black cause has come from Jews. They also boast that at least 90 percent of the civil-rights legal effort has come from Jewish attorneys and has long been supported by Jewish money.

Practically every step of the civil-rights movement's progress came through the courts. They decreed forced racial integration of the schools, enabled illiterate Blacks to vote, and ultimately forced upon America the massive anti-White discrimination program with the Orwellian name "affirmative action." Here, too, Jews took the predominant roles.

The organization that fought many of these battles was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization separate from the NAACP itself. At this writing, Jews still lead it. Jake Greenberg has been active in the legal fund for years and was the chief attorney for Brown in the famous Supreme Court case Brown v Board of Education. In that nefarious decision, the Supreme Court - in one devastating stroke of the pen - initiated the transformation of the American public educational system from one of the best in the world to one of the worst in the First World.

Even in the areas where Jews were not the actual leaders, they provided much of the behind-the-scenes influence. Martin Luther King Jr. fell under the guidance of Stanley Levinson, who wrote many of King's speeches, including, some say, the "I Have a Dream" speech delivered at the March on Washington. John and Robert Kennedy warned King to disassociate himself from Levinson because of Levinson's Communist record. King, however, found Levinson invaluable and refused. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) also had key Jewish involvement in their formative periods, and most of the nominally White "Freedom Riders" that went South were Jews. The famous case of the three Freedom Riders killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi, involved Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney - two Jews and one Black.

The public image of the man who called himself "Martin Luther King" (his legal name was Michael King) is a textbook illustration of the power of the media to influence America. Most people still do not know of the extent of King's involvement in Communism, in part because the media continues to ignore King's long record of Communist associations. King privately declared himself to be a Marxist, and told his inner circle that his efforts were a part of the "class struggle." His personal secretary, Bayard Rustin, was a Communist. When King had to replace Rustin in 1961, he chose another Communist, Jack O'Dell. His main advisor ("handler" would probably be a more apt term), as I've mentioned, was Jewish Communist Stanley Levinson, who edited and probably wrote a good deal of King's book Stride Toward Freedom. Levinson prepared King's income tax returns, controlled King's fundraising activities, and was also in charge of funneling Soviet money to the Communist Party, USA.

Only recently has it been revealed that King plagiarized large sections of his doctoral thesis. Boston University formed a committee to determine the extent of King's plagiarism. It determined that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part were taken from other authors. Schools regularly revoke degrees on discovery of far less cheating, but the importance of King to the civil-rights movement prevented the revocation of his divinity degree.

The media have always carefully portrayed King as a good Christian family man - the epitome of a man of God. But King had dozens of liaisons with prostitutes, White and Black, used church money to pay them and commonly beat them - all documented by the FBI and admitted by King associates.

King even spent the night before his assassination copulating with and beating White prostitutes. On the FBI surveillance tapes the "Reverend King" can be heard during intercourse to say, " I'm f---ing for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" The King records are so damning that the tapes and other FBI documents were sealed for 50 years. Despite these facts, King's Jewish handlers and their allies in the media were steadfast in their laudatory portrayal of King.

Jewish and Black relations have become strained in recent years as Black political sympathies have become more nationalistic in their own right. Jewish association with Black civil-rights causes originated from the days when many Communists saw the Blacks as potential revolutionaries for Communist uprising. The Communists in their creation of the Soviet State temporarily won the Jewish fraternal struggle between Zionism and Communism that Winston Churchill described in 1920. Radical American Jews envisioned the Blacks as an American proletariat, a transatlantic version of the oppressed serfs of Russia that could be utilized as allies helping to usher in a Communist revolution. Of course, even non-Communist Jews tended to support a non-racial definition of "American," since they more than anyone are aware of their status as outsiders in White society. This led almost all organized Jewish factions to support the dismantling of the laws and traditions that supported the continued existence of our race.

Zionism over Marxism

After the Second World War, two major factors began to pull the Jews away from Communism: the Russification of the Soviet State and the establishment of the state of Israel.

To fight the Germans, Stalin and the Soviet regime motivated the Russian people by calling on their deep patriotic feelings. Stalin himself, one of the most paranoid and ruthless leaders of all time, skillfully played one Jewish faction against the other until he emerged as the unquestioned authority in Russia. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), Stalin's chief rival, was forced into exile and later murdered by the Russian NKVD. Although individual Jews remained pivotal in his regime, Stalin saw all Jewish alliances as a threat to his own power. He brutally repressed any potential threat he could find, and he turned the Soviet Union to a more nationalistic course. The anthem of Soviet Communism, the egalitarian and anti-nationalist "Internationale," was replaced by a traditional Russian hymn.

Affirmative action for Jewish Communists in the early days of the revolution was replaced by a merit system in universities and the military. A lot of Stalin's maneuvers against the Jews did not become clear until long after the Second World War, and many Jews had reluctance to believe that they had lost control of the Soviet regime. Even into the late 1960s, in most countries other than Russia, Jews still constituted the majority of Marxist leadership around the world - including the United States. Many of these Jewish Communists, though, had become somewhat anti-Russian and now called themselves Trotskyites. Only a few Jewish radicals held onto the Communist vision as expressed in Russia; most others reached for a new Marxist ideology rooted in egalitarianism and, while holding onto the social tenants of Communism, began a migration to capitalist economics.

While these factors occurred in the Soviet Union, the state of Israel was created, and it seemed that the old, ethnocentric, and orthodox prophecies were finally coming about. For 2,000 years Jews had uttered the prayer "Next year in Jerusalem." Suddenly, any Jew could go to a Jerusalem once more under their direct political control. During these years, America witnessed the transformation of many New Left Jewish radicals. Norman Podhoretz and Commentary magazine, for example, shifted from Communist apologist to capitalist advocate - from an anti-Vietnam War dove to an unmitigated Israeli hawk. In the 1970s, a flood of these New Right Jews flooded into the "conservative movement," adapting to the tenants of economic conservatism but adding the elements of social liberalism, egalitarianism, the New World Order, and, of course, super-Zionism. Jews filtered into organizations of every conceivable political stripe, espousing different viewpoints but always keeping a keen eye for the interests of the Jews and the Israeli State.

Feminism

Simultaneous with the sacrifice of our nation upon the alter of an impossible Black "equality," came the promotion for the equally fictitious idea of sexual "equality." Women were told that they were psychologically the same as men but were just socially conditioned by their environment to be wives and mothers instead of research scientists and captains of industry. Not only did the "women's liberationists" try to convince women that nurturing and inculturating the next generation was less important than sweating on an assembly line or sweating the "bottom line" in an executive suite, they went much further by decrying the role of wife and mother altogether.

Freud also contributed to the destruction of the family in his endorsement of the supposed sexual liberation of sexual promiscuity. One of the strengths of the West has always been high-investment parenting as compared to the Third World. Freud and his Jewish purveyors of psychoanalysis conflated sex and love and justified the destruction of the family unit on issues such as unsatisfactory sexual gratification.

Women's liberation has completely restructured the American family, as most wives and mothers have been forced into the job market by the new economic standards, resulting in fewer role choices for women. Many researchers say the creation of millions of "working" mothers has had a deleterious effect on family stability and child development. As a result many women are now struggling as the sole provider for themselves and their children, and the ones in stable families often find themselves stressed and debilitated by having to do both the traditional women's roles in the home and working eight hours a day outside of it.

The most prominent of the modern feminists were Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug. Interestingly, all three came from one of the most sexually repressive religions on Earth: Judaism. A Hole in the Sheet by Evelyn Kaye, who grew up in an Orthodox home, illustrates the demeaning and often disrespectful position of women in the Jewish faith and the hatred expressed toward Gentiles outside of it. She discusses the Bar Mitzvah and the completely ascendant role of the male and writes the following:

During the prayers which a Jewish man recites every morning are a series of blessings, which include: "Thank you, Lord, for not making me a non-Jew, for not making me a slave, for not making me a woman."

In Susan Weidman Schneider's book Jewish and Female, Rabbi Laura Geller comments: "Menstrual taboos are responsible for real damage to Jewish women's views of themselves and their bodies. I have met many women who learned nothing about the Torah except that they could not touch the Torah because they menstruate. . . . Their sense of themselves as 'inferior' Jews has already permeated their relationship to tradition and their own bodies.

Kaye also bravely comments on the anti-Gentile nature of Jewish Orthodoxy.

The final turning point for me was anti-Goyism.

The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of the ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. It's as tenacious, unreasoned and impossible as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism. And as intractable.

What it says is that all non-Jews, or Goyim as the word is in Yiddish since it's the plural of "Goy," are wicked, evil and untrustworthy.

There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. These include:

- All Goyim drink alcohol and are always drunk;

- All Goyim are on drugs;

- All Goyim hate Jews even when they seem to be friendly;

- All Goyim are anti-Semites, no matter what they say or do;

- All Goyim have a terrible family life and mistreat their wives and children;

- All Goyim eat pork all the time;

- Goyim are never as clever, as kind, as wise or as honest as Jews;

- You can never trust the Goyim.

There's much more. But the essence of anti-Goyism is passed to Jewish children with their mother's milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into full-blown phobias throughout their lives.

The Talmud often characterizes women as unclean, whores, and as deceitful, lower beings. It even has long passages that justify adult males having sexual relations with little girls. Women are segregated in the Orthodox synagogue. Women are almost as reviled as Gentiles. Note the following talmudic references, starting with the prayer to which Kaye refers:

Blessed be thou. . .who has not made me a goy. . . who has not made me a woman, and who has made me an Israelite. . .who has not made me a slave. Judah Ben Ilai

When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, tears come to the eye,… [footnote] (7) again and again but eyesight returns, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. (Kethuboth 11b)

A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition. (Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-69b) and (Yebamoth 57b 58a, 60b)

Yet, the Jewish high priestesses of women's liberation have made few inroads in reforming those inequities. Only the Reform part of Judaism puts women on somewhat of an equal footing. But Israel is an Orthodox-run Jewish nation, and nearly all the Reform and Conservative organizations around the world support Israel wholeheartedly. The question of ethnic heritage far overshadows any doctrinal debate. It is ironic that women from the religious culture having the most demeaning attitude toward women, should focus their efforts on promoting a sexual revolution among those of European descent. It seems to me that their time could be better spent addressing the rank inequities in their own backyard.

No Third World society on Earth venerates women, womanhood and motherhood as much as Western Christian civilization. No dark races accord women as much freedom and respect. In most Third World nations, women are treated much like chattel property. Millions are sexually mutilated with female circumcision and infibulation. Physical abuse is commonplace. Women routinely provide almost all their own and their children's sustenance in Africa, where the normal behavior of the male is to sexually play - but seldom stay.

The purposely-induced antagonism between the sexes divides White Americans when it is more important than ever that we are united. The wedge driven between White men and women often divides our vote and helps minority and pro-minority candidates to win elections. Women are deceived into voting for minority candidates and liberal causes in higher percentages than men do. In spite of the wide difference between the White and Black race in the status and well-being of women, the feminist movement has aligned itself with Black "civil-rights" objectives. They've been told that the "White male patriarchy" is the enemy, causing resentments and conflicts between the sexes that could prove fatal for our people unless repaired. Many women's groups openly campaign for Jewish and Black causes, blessed by accolades of the Jewish high priestesses of feminism. But when White women form organizations exclusively for the advancement of our European heritage, they face condemnation.

White men and women who have become aware of the racial apocalypse looming ahead must make a supreme effort to reach the alienated Western woman and bring her back into unity with her own people. Her most vital interests, as well as that of Western man, lay with the preservation of her racial heritage and the Western culture in which she thrives. White nations have always afforded women the greatest degree of personal safety and physical health, the best education and economic opportunity, the most prestige, and the most stable family life.

A perfect example of the ardent minority racism dominating women's liberation groups was the halting of a demonstration against the acquittal of wife-beater turned-wife killer O. J. Simpson. A National Organization of Women spokeswoman planned a demonstration protesting the acquittal until the national office made her call off the demonstration because it would offend Blacks. Black sensibilities obviously became far more paramount to NOW than the very lives and safety of women - at least White women.

Women's rights are virtually nonexistent in Third World nations, where women are ruled by male tyranny and brutality. Sentiments of male chauvinism find mild verbal and cultural expression in Western nations. In the dark nations, male chauvinism is not represented by mere office chatter or humor; it is realized in a day-to-day living in which millions of women are subject to brutality, suppression, sexual mutilation, and subjugation. When women realize that their real liberation can come only in a fully Western society, the liberation of Western man will come as well. There may be debate among our people of the respective roles of men and women, but that debate can be heard only in a Western society. If our nation is remade in the image of the dark world, there will be no respect of women's rights and no possibility of debate. Even from a purely selfish, feminist point-of-view, the transformation of our society to a genetically and culturally Third World state would mean the end of any aspirations of "women's rights."

Egalitarianism and Civil-Rights as Weapons

As I uncovered more information of the Jewish domination of the anti-White, and anti-family revolution, it struck me that many powerful Jews might see White America in the same way they once viewed the Czar and the White Russians. I began to wonder whether we were destined to become a people deposed, a nation conquered not with armies and cannon but by the power of the purse and the power of the press.

If they did not view us as Theodor Herzl did - as aliens - why did so many of them attack American traditions and customs, from the structure of the family to the singing of Christmas carols in our schools? Although not all Jews participate in the crusade against our heritage, a vast majority support chauvinist Jewish organizations and back the candidates for public office who most sublimate themselves to Jewish concerns. Jewish support means far more than their voting bloc; it means full campaign coffers and the support of powerful media.

Jewish activists have been relentless in their support for pluralism of American politics and culture. The high-sounding Jewish promises of the so-called civil-rights movement - love, peace, and brotherhood - have been replaced with the violent obscenities of a rap song. For Blacks, once rhythmic and peaceful urban communities now echo with the sound of gunfire, a third of young Black men are in jail, probation, or parole, and millions are chained, hand, foot, and soul, to alcohol and drugs.

Whites who have fled from the cities their fathers built find themselves burdened with high taxes that disproportionately go to unproductive minorities in Welfare and in the criminal justice system flooded with minority criminals. Those unable to flee find themselves in deteriorating conditions. Their children endure the primitivism and try to adjust to the fear permeating the mostly black schools of our major cities, while their parents barricade themselves behind their locked doors and barred windows. There they often lose themselves in the make-believe world of television, where they supinely watch their history, their soul, and their spirit under an unrelenting attack as spiritually damaging as the crime on the streets is physically destructive.

What did Jews have to gain from the empowerment of minorities in America? Obviously, the Marxists saw Blacks and other minorities as staunch allies vital for the advancement of their agenda and political success. Over the past decades, the Black bloc vote has been vital to liberal politics. Perhaps more important, a Babylon-like, multiracial America suits Jewish interests. In a divided land, the most unified group exercises the greatest power. In a jumbled, kaleidoscope society, the exercise of that alien power is less apparent to the majority elements, for if a tiny minority has an agenda hostile to the majority, that minority needs to be as unobtrusive as possible. Multiracialism muddies the waters. Jews will always thrive in such a Babylon. Every blow that has broken the solidarity and furthered the dispossession of the founding and once-ruling American majority, is an opening for the new contenders to the throne.

A great deal of the degeneracy has no design at all. The alien nature described by Theodor Herzl finds its expression in thousands of jabs and body blows to the traditions and values of the Anglo-America of old. Whether it is a Nativity scene outlawed from a public square, or an all-male military academy turned coed, or morning radio programs filled with crude talk of human excretory activity, or the glamorization of drugs in films and novels, the beat goes on, drummed by people almost proud of their alien nature. The tune is the funeral march for America and the whole Western world.

They eat away at our nation's European roots, always gaining influence and power and yet always considering themselves outsiders, and that is precisely what they are: spiritual, cultural, and genetic outsiders who are now on the inside of the American power structure. Consider the following statement from a Jewish pundit who has both success and fame:

Decades later, prowling along the river with Texas Rangers to see them catch crossing Mexicans, I stopped and sat on the ground. I said that's enough - I am one of them, the wetbacks, and not of them, the hunters.

A. M. Rosenthal wrote those words, a man who has been head of the Editorial pages of The New York Times, America's most powerful newspaper. With all his money, power, and prestige - sitting in the dirt along the muddy banks of the Rio Grande - Rosenthal still identifies himself as an "outsider." His loyalties are not with other Americans who want to preserve our way of life. His allegiance is with the aliens who will change it.

The minority racism - the "civil rights" and the egalitarianism - that has flourished in America, had its origins in an alien ethnocentrism. Our nation, once distinctively European in nature, is fading fast. It was not brewed in the fleshpots of Babylon. But unless great change comes, it will succumb there.

Most Americans who fought against the civil-rights movement, believing correctly that it would lead to the destruction of the fabric of society, never recognized the source of its power. In the South some blamed the "Yankees," some the politicians, and some the media. Few understood that the civil-rights movement was an outgrowth of the same power that propelled the Russian Revolution, that influenced the participation of America in the First World War, that helped bring about the Second World War, and that finally created the nation of Israel.

How ironic that the civil-rights movement had its roots in racism, that it was simply a weapon wielded by the most ethnocentric people on Earth against their ancient enemies. Blacks were simply pawns in a much larger political game. Most of the non-Jewish Whites who were enlisted in the cause never realized that the struggle was not really about civil rights. These participants, like the Blacks themselves, were being manipulated in the much bigger contest of the Jewish struggle for power.

The same establishment that preaches the holy writ of racial equality and amalgamation, never lets Americans forget the right of Jews - in fact, the holy obligation of Jews - to maintain their heritage both here and in their Jewish state. It reminds us constantly, from the pulpit of television, of their unmatched godliness, their eternal innocence and victimhood. Their pundits and scriptwriters unabashedly proclaim Jewish mental, cultural, and moral supremacy. They are canonized daily by their media, while those who dare utter a contrary word are muzzled or demonized. A tabernacle of the new religion of the Holocaust stands squarely in the midst of the American Acropolis of Washington, D.C. In that shrine the American people can worship the Chosen People and feel guilt for their sins against them. There they can learn of the worst transgression of all: questioning the only true "civil right" - the Jewish right to rule us culturally, spiritually, and politically.

The alien oppression would be bad enough by itself, but our masters clearly planned the extermination of our kind. Once I understood that, I could no longer remain silent about the realities of Jewish power in the West. Their continued dominance would sweep away our folk in a rising tide of immigration, miscegenation, non-White fecundity, and White self-sterilization.

The alien-dominated media keep most White Americans completely unaware of the ongoing dispossession of our people - and another segment cheering it on. I began to see that the media was the most powerful weapon they used against us, so I focused my next inquiries on Jewish infiltration and domination of the American mass-communication media.